Loz

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BrandNewGuy, > > You need to get this from the context: > "In some areas, the designation is subdivided, or additional, more local designations are also used. > For example, in Greater London SINCs are divided into the following grades:[3] > > Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation > Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation (Grade I and Grade II) > Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation" It's worth noting that the granter of such designation is the council itself, to which they say that its importance comes mostly from its location and extent as an area (11.8 ha) of semi natural open space within an otherwise built up residential area, which it will continue as. Even after the works, it will remain "Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation (Grade I)".

OK, so there was a jump - but what happened in that time - are you claiming more happened? Or did they just jump the cricket? And if indeed the panel did laugh, were they laughing at the interviewer, or were they laughing a Gayle making a prize chump of himself? Unfortunately, you link disproves your own assertion about what happened: "I [the boss] immediately called (host) Mark Howard and we had a long talk about it. He was very upset about it as well and that?s when he decided to make his statement.? *He* decided. So, he didn't "read them the riot act". And have you decided that no one actually said, "hur hur, he's a cheeky chap"? You seem to be avoiding that question. You are going a bit SSW on the evidence here, miga. Anyway, to the important point - I'll repeat again... "As rahrahrah correctly pointed out above, when it becomes clear that one party isn't receptive, obviously feels uncomfortable and yet it continues, that's when there is an issue. Gayle tried to flirt, got (very) short shrift and stopped. Made himself look very silly, certainly, but not worth a $10000 fine. And certainly note worth the threats to his career." Are you saying it was worth that punishment? And can you - hand on heart - say that if the male reporter had not played along that you would consider both case as equals?

Newton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not sure I can think of anything that has got me angrier on the forum than reading this. Let's > be absolutely clear: the internet isn't magic. If you're a garbage person on-line, you're a garbage > person in real life. And if any of you associate with Lewis during or after this, you're part of > the problem. Seriously, if you care more about some trees than an actual real live woman getting > harassed you deserve to have children spit in your face on the street. If you want to continue your > campaign, fine, but get him out of your group. > > Oh and one last thing for women associating with Lewis, don't think that because you're not the > target this week you won't be next. Oh, heck - you're going to get me (sort of) defending Lewis now. Lewis was being deeply unpleasant, nasty and spiteful in tweeting that about Sue and completely out of order, but let's not extrapolate that out to him being some sort of monster roaming the countryside.

Yep - just rewatched it. The panel defended her immediately. No one - no one at all - ever said "hur hur, he's a cheeky chap" as you claim (or have you realised that didn't happen either). And the "playing shots on and off the field" was clearly a dig at/criticism of Gayle. You also seem to be suggesting that the panel set her up, which AFAIK is the first time anyone has claimed that. In fact everyone can look at it on YouTube and see you are utterly wrong. It's at https://youtu.be/lnLHUr60HK0 - the change back to the studio starts at 1'56. > Isn't it clear that in the other (stupid, asinine) video the interviewer is playing along? As rahrahrah correctly pointed out above, when it becomes clear that one party isn't receptive, obviously feels uncomfortable and yet it continues, that's when there is an issue. Gayle tried to flirt, got (very) short shrift and stopped. Made himself look very silly, certainly, but not worth a $10000 fine. And certainly note worth the threats to his career. As it happens, had the women in the video suffered the same rejection as Gayle suffered and they too stopped, I don't think they should have been fined/punished either. There has to be consistency - anything else is, by definition, a double standard.

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz - I think part of the reason the Gayle story made headlines around the world is that it proved > popular with the people who are ready and loaded to shout "PC gone mad!", "Feminism gone awry!", > "SJWs ruining free speech" etc. If the female journalist in question is to be believed he had a > history of making passes/unwelcome remarks at her/other women/journalists who were in his > surrounding. That and the reaction from the "panel" back in the studio which was along the > lines of "hur hur, he's a cheeky chap" would have probably made her feel a bit shit - she wanted to > talk to him about the game, as part of her job, on live telly, and he wanted a date, which her male > colleagues thought hilarious. She clearly didn't, and made a fuss. I think she had every right to. Where on earth are you getting your information from?? Did you just make all that up as you typed? The panel didn't go "hur hur, he's a cheeky chap" nor find it hilarious - in fact almost diametrically the opposite. Actually, she didn't really make a fuss at all in the beginning - it was all done by other people. And yes, she did talk about it a few days later, but that was probably because she was being chased by all and sundry to make a comment. And the story went round the world not for the reasons you outlined (because she didn't make a fuss), but the usual hyped up 'fury!!!' by the usual people who like making the full song and dance over this sort of thing (boosted, of course, by the Twitterati). The same ones that suddenly go very, very quiet and/or start making vague excuses when something like the interview in the OP comes out. It's all, as the thread title asks, double standards. You can try and justify why there is a double standard, but a double standard it is.

peckham_ryu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Absolute honesty on the biohazard entry questionnaire. Everyone gets inspected. People get > fined if they say they have no food but actually have a snickers bar somewhere. This is true. Airports have sniffer dogs trained to detect food. You will never see anything in the world with more job satisfaction than those beagles. You probably won't get fined, but you will have the experience of everyone else in arrivals seeing you being treated like you are a drug trafficker.

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue, this is off topic. Please start a new thread > about goose related matters. Not really - have a look at what Lewis tweeted (his own account, not the SSW one).

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lewis Schaffer has posted again on Twitter, again > using my surname and again linking me with The > Goose Is Out! > > Can anybody tell me if there is something I can do > about this? > > ETA: This is harassment. Sue, I assume this would fall under 'release of private information' and you an report him directly to Twitter using this page: https://support.twitter.com/forms/private_information Alternatively, you can report a single tweet for abuse with a link in the tweet itself: https://support.twitter.com/articles/20170408#

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is nothing sexist with a man (or woman) flirting. But when it becomes clear that one party > isn't receptive, obviously feels uncomfortable and yet it continues, that's when there is an issue. Absolutely - I fully agree. But Gayle didn't continue - he flirted for a sentence or two. realised he wasn't getting a welcome reaction and then continued the (brief) interview fairly normally. Yet Gayle was fined $10000 for that interview, it made newspapers around the world and there were calls for him to be banned from the competition. If the interviewer in the Dakota Johnson/Leslie Mann interview had reacted similarly does anyone actually think they would have received anything near the same level of opprobrium Gayle received?

Did you follow the Chris Gayle story about a month ago, KK?

Ha. It's like the Sony Sound Bar thread all over again!

After the Chris Gayle 'furore', someone dug a clip of Maria Sharapova doing exactly the same thing and usual double standards and excuses were trotted out. Have to say though, men are our own worst enemies when it comes to things like this. We're a bit rubbish at standing up for ourselves when this kind of thing happens.

To be fair on James, the EDF gets quite a few posts that are the people in question 'recommending' their business/group/whatever.

As far as the post office is concerned, if you have a EC/WC/E/W/N/NW/SE/SW postcode, you live in 'London'. You can subdivide that down to whatever you please. I used to have a flatmate who lived in Saffron Walden, which is in Essex, but has a Cambridge postcode. Because they weren't actually in Cambridgeshire (much to their annoyance), but Essex caused confusion (given the postcode), they used to put their county down as 'Near Cambridge'.

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So sorry, these are conservation sites. That include woodland. What makes them 'conservation sites'?? Which government body has deemed them so?

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which didn't include felling of trees of any size in a conservation area. That sounds like an official term - what makes you think it's a conservation area (so the answer is not "well, we think it should be conserved")

Might be, might not. It definitely looks like the corner of Underhill and Hillcourt, but if you go far enough in there, you get to Block 107, which is unconsecrated. Lewis needs to get phone out and take lat/long coordinates!

A bit more info would be useful - you've given us quite a broad remit! Where in Oz are they going? What sort of experience are they looking for? Personally (and as an ex-pat Aussie) I'd say get out of the cities. Australian cities are much of a muchness - the real things to see are in the country area. Where exactly really depends on which states they plan to go to. For money, I use a MetroBank account. It used to be fee-free for ATM withdrawals in Oz, but they changed it last year. It's still much better than most, but there are better options now - see this page for suggestions. Oh, and keep a credit card somewhere for emergencies (see that same web page for the best ones for travelling). Finally, tell him/her to save lots of dosh - Australia is hideously expensive at them moment due to the Aussie dollar being so strong.

panda boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Church Permission - Still not been granted by the Church of England, yet the council have started > 'preparatory work' which has included felling trees and rather large scale digging. I think that the current work is on unconsecrated ground, which does not require Faculty. See the map I posted a few pages ago. > Especially considering the criminal actions of a previous councillor which caused the contamination > and helped result in the situation in COC in the first place. AFAIK it was a 'council officer', not a 'councillor'.

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > No, she hasn't. She has asked for time for > > > > further drainage reports to be completed and for a > > > > graphic to be updated. > > > > > > > > You really have an amazing ability to mound over a > > > > molehill to try make it a mountain, Lewis. > > > > > > Though I agree it is a grainy image, I believe > > > that the third paragraph says this: > > > '...it would be wise to await any further report, > > > including report from an independent expert, > > > before clearing any further trees or shrubs' > > > > Yeah, that's what I wrote. > > Not quite. You also seem to be implying that Ms Harman had not called for a stop to tree felling. > She has, so edborders was correct about that. (Sorry if I have misunderstood you but am sure > others could reach the same conclusion). Sadly, in this instance, I think that councillors have no > obligation to follow her advice. Actually, Lewis wrote that Harman called on Southwark to "stop destruction of Camberwell Cemeteries", which she plainly did not. I wrote that Harman asked for "time for further drainage reports to be completed", which is not an unfair description of the passage you quoted.

I think you've got good points on the drainage, pandaboy. Ensuring that this ongoing work helps fix any drainage issues is a reasonable request. I think what Harman wrote backs you up and you could work on the back of that. But I also think the council is going to press on with the cemetery works and any wider issues (i.e. costs, etc) will land on deaf ears.

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > edborders Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > @HarrietHarman calls on @lb_southwark to stop > > > destruction of Camberwell Cemeteries. > > > https://t.co/vYQfn3oPEe > > > > No, she hasn't. She has asked for time for > > further drainage reports to be completed and for > a > > graphic to be updated. > > > > You really have an amazing ability to mound over > a > > molehill to try make it a mountain, Lewis. > > Though I agree it is a grainy image, I believe > that the third paragraph says this: > '...it would be wise to await any further report, > including report from an independent expert, > before clearing any further trees or shrubs' Yeah, that's what I wrote.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am going to propose having a debate of some sort and need someone to represent the pro camp > > Would someone on this Forum give me the name of a group or a person who supports the Council's > cemetery strategy Well, in that case, get the experts in, i.e. the council. I think you'll need someone of the calibre of Kofi Annan to chair that kind of debate, though.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can someone on this forum tell me the name of a group or a person who supports the Council's > cemetery strategy I.e. cutting down trees, removing headstones, and digging up and mounding > over graves to provide burial spaces in crushed construction waste on top of the buried dead or to > provide space in confiscated graves above the remains of the previous occupants? (Besides an > undertaker, a council worker, a Councillor or contractor.) You really have quite an unhealthy fascination about collecting the names of those who oppose your little group, don't you? It really is quite creepy. SSW: We are making notes, and when we win the war, you will be brought to account. You - what is your name. Mainwaring: Don't tell him, Pike! SSW: [writes down name] Pike...

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Report back from SSW table at the CoOp is near universal revulsion at tree cutting and disgust at > local people's graves being dug up and mounded over. And not to mention the incedulity at the > council leasing plots in crushed building waste above the remains of the dead. Considering how Lewis re-interpreted Harman's letter, I think we can safely say this hasn't actually happened.