Loz

yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > well i have reported the trolls to admin now. so hopefully they can carry out their character > assassinations elsewhere! I think, given their previous post, paulino was saying that you, yas, are the troll. Anyway, admin seems a sensible person, so I am happy that he/she will read the thread and see your complaints have little basis in fact.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I get your point- but skiing and sailing? Both rely on strength/power/pace etc. For downhill skiing, I can't see women competing with men. Not so much brute strength, but body mass, height and (as a mixture of those) ski length are very important. But I'm kind of surprised that men are so much more advanced in ski and snowboard halfpipe, slopestyle, etc, given how much more women twist and turn in gymnastics.

Boots and M&S, I can understand. But WH Smith does seem like a shop selling last decade's goods at an expensive price. BHS doesn't seem to have a market. It ain't cheap, but the goods are.

That is an absolute gem, sheff.

yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All the schools in the area had a budget cut! Hence why the governing body of Fairlawn School > had to make a decision to close down the nursery only a few weeks after of having new kids starting > at the nursery! Nice attempt at a bait-and-switch, but do you still say that all the schools in the area had their budget cut by 35% at the beginning of the year?

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not clear who the next leader of the LP could > be. Emily Thornberry was impressive on QT last > week. Pity she ruled herself out of ever being > leader of the Labour party when she posted the > 'White Van' tweet. > > Who else? > > Chuka - Would have been great, but second chances > don't come easy > Keir Starmer doesn't seem to want it, and lacks > parliamentary experience > Hilary Benn, maybe??? Starmer's a knob. Chuka's a Tory. Benn might have been a one-hit wonder, we'll see. Alan Johnson doesn't want it. Beckett is too old now. Cooper is too tainted by the Blair years. Burnham messed up the last leadership contest. Tom Watson's a loose cannon. I kind of like Stella Creasy. Speaks well and knows her stuff. But who, in their right mind, would want to be the next Labour Leader? Exorcising the ghost of Corbyn (i.e. Momentum) will be almost impossible.

yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Facts and evidence? > > What facts and evidence according to whom? You still haven't answered if you are still claiming that all the schools in the area had their budget cut by 35% at the beginning of the year, yas.

yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well as a mother of two kids who live by these woods, it is heartening to see that save southward > woods campaign is a such a successful campaign! Has someone just redefined the word 'successful'?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is only patriarchy that has developed this false history of sport being for > men first. You do realise that patriarchy is just a (rather simplistic) social theory? It can't actually 'do' anything.

Grok Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > PM'd?!! How pathetic. Dont you want the riff raff > spoiling your fave place. Twat. Stick to Lewes, suits you. Unlike you, I've seen the PM. Seabag didn't actually recommend anywhere, but asked me for more info. Made yourself look a bit of an arse there didn't you, Grokky old chum?

JRK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do also like this one and it looks quite robust plus vents would be good to > stop the stench: > > http://i65.tinypic.com/30w2rr6.jpg Ooh, that's nice JRK. Where is that from?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But what I would say is that Corbyn has upped his game of recent at the dispatch box. He was appalling on Monday, when he failed to mention IDS's departure once. Jezza has missed a few open goals, but that was a doozy.

yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > incidentally backing save southwark woods 100%. :) You certainly seemed to have adopted their technique for uniting people's opinions.

yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't appreciate being called a liar, when this nursery closing has everything to do with the cuts! So you are still actually claiming that all the schools in the area had their budget cut by 35% at the beginning of the year?

About 12 of us want to meet up on Good Friday for a bit of a grazing lunch. Looking for somewhere not too cheap, but not too pricey either. We're all over London, so somewhere reasonably central would be good. Any ideas?

yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry to be rude but you are coming across as being antagonistic to our petition! You do realise that, if you post to a forum people might - just might - disagree with you?

Who really writes a letter to their son... and uses 'son' instead of their name? Or am I taking this far too seriously?

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes but for the US open, the women's game draws more viewers, particularly when Serena is playing > than the men's game. The women's final is on a Sunday and the men's is on a Monday. Only for 2007-2014, and mostly they were due to rain delays. Since 2015, the men's final was moved back to Sunday and the women's to Saturday. Men's viewing figures were much higher for 2015, but the women's final didn't feature Serena - the first time since 2010.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the way to really solve it would be to make all tennis open (same for golf where this argument > appears quite often) - but how many woman would then be in the top 10 or 100? Probably zero for tennis. Serena Williams is the most powerful female tennis player ever, and she was cleaned up 6-1 by a relatively unknown male player ranked about 200, though she was only 16 at the time. It would have been interesting to see a similar match up at her peak. On the other hand, female golfers have cut it in the men's game. But I always thought that rather undermined the women's tour. It's interesting that some sports where physical strength is no advantage, segregation still takes place. Shooting, darts, lawn bowls, diving spring to mind, I'm sure there are others. (Plus chess, but I call that a game, not a sport). I can only think of equestrian events where men and women compete in a truly open competition. Of course, there is korfball, dubbed 'the only truly mixed sport' in that a team must comprise 4 men and 4 women, but even there there is a significant degree of segregation within the rules.

Interestingly, ticket prices for the men's and women's finals day at Wimbledon are different (?175 for men's, ?145 for women's). Not sure why this is the case, since both are well oversubscribed.

I think tennis is one of the few sports where the male and female versions are on par with watchability. But the figures still say that the income of the men's game is still greater than that of women's. I don't think how hard they work comes into it. Football is a good analogy here - championship teams work just as hard as premiership teams, but the salaries aren't comparable because it doesn't have the same spectator base and, thus, income. In fact, Last year someone complained about the salary difference between international level male and female footballers, calling it a 'gender pay gap', which somewhat ignored the underlying issue about why this is so (arguably, a bit like some of the wider gender pay gap arguments :) ). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/england/11693209/Is-Wayne-Rooney-260-times-better-than-England-women.html Being a cricket tragic, I watch a few women's matches and, although the quality has improved amazingly over the last 10 years, the men's game is still far ahead in terms of watchability. You can equally ask why top level footballers get paid more than rugby players, or cricketers, or netballers. Because it all lies in the question, 'can the women's game (in whatever sport) support equal salaries' and the answer to that is in the spectator base, both live and on TV. Women's football teams have attracted decent crowds of late - the latest Womens World Cup being a case in point - but it is still nowhere near that of the men. Women's netball superleague and netball internationals got very good coverage on Sky. But none of it is enough to support the same level of salaries.

I used to do the trip to Warren St. I found ED to LB and northern line the quickest and easiest, but Denmark Hill to Victoria and the Victoria Line to Warren St a good backup.

@Woodwarde Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A very interesting debate on changes to the Constitution, > the lack of consultation and transparency, takes > place at Minute 31.50. Can a council really change a constitution on the basis of a simple vote? I always thought a constitution should be difficult to change to keep councils from running wild. Makes a constitution completely pointless, really. I've not heard a council debate before and I have to say, most of the debate sounded like a lot of immature children bickering. The mayor seemed to have no control over the meeting whatsoever. I'm surprised that, not only did the councillor proposing the constitutional changes got away without due censure for her ageist, sexist and racist comment, but actually got a murmur of approval from the other councillors. Does the council not have a suitable discrimination rule/policy?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's not quite true Uncleglen. Technically, uncleglen is correct. RTB was originally a Labour idea, though they lost the election the proposed it in. It was then picked up by the Tories.

Councils don't have any excess money at the moment to fund things just because they are handy. If there are Early Years places available locally, then needlessly funding another nursery just isn't going to happen as the council simply can't afford it. saving Fairlawn would mean other services being cut.