Loz

> Our electoral system on the one hand can provide stable governemnt with the mandate of the people but on > this occasion it is the government of the few. It's perfectly ok to say that and people will say that > everytime Cameron says he has the mandate of the people. Actually, that makes EVERY government in living memory the government of the few, but I didn't hear anyone on the left complaining during the Blair/Brown years. You can fiddle about with voting percentages and spurious assumptions any way you want in order to try and prop up any ropey old argument you want to make. For instance, Tory, Lab, LD and UKIP all had similar forms of austerity in their manifestos, so you could argue that 87.8% of people who voted actually voted for austerity. The main point I was making is trying to claim that the marchers represented each and every eligible voter that didn't vote Tory (me being one of them) is disingenuous in the extreme.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > I was refused entry to the Peckhample as I > failed > > to use 'innit' correctly in a sentence when > > challenged. Wasn't my fault - I thought they > said > > 'Inuit' and I started chatting about Eskimos. > > Loz needs to read a little about "inuit" and "eskimos". And to think I accused you yesterday of having no sense of humour...

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KidKruger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > We don't want riff-raff in our cinema, so sod > the > > benches idea. > > > Lol, and as a Peckhamplex patron, can we introduce a test to determine whether the hopeful entrants > of said fine establishment know the proper meaning of words such as 'blud', 'shank' and 'ratchet ho' > so we can keep the twats out? I was refused entry to the Peckhample as I failed to use 'innit' correctly in a sentence when challenged. Wasn't my fault - I thought they said 'Inuit' and I started chatting about Eskimos.

PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And let's remember that only 23.5% of the electorate voted for this miracle conservative majority. They don't > represent 76.5% of the electorate at all AAAAARRRGH. I hate this piece of brain-dead illogic, over and above the fallacious suggestion that this mythical 76.5% want the marchers to represent their views. Caroline Lucas (whom I normally have a lot of respect for) tried it on with this yesterday on Twitter... until someone pointed out that over 70% of the Brighton Pavilion electorate didn't vote for her as MP, so was Lucas actually saying she didn't have a mandate as MP for the area. She ran away from that question pretty damn quickly.

Not so very long ago... Now she doesn't earn much, she's become suddenly keen on people paying tax.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Ha! 'Blow-in'? You're just a male Louisa, > aren't > > you? But without the popularity and sense of > > humour. And less interesting to read. > > Good advice: > > Stop digging you hole else you might end up in Australia. That is very, very good advice and you really should follow it.

JOHNNYBOY Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In future I will not bother to inform the East Dulwich Forum of any new Material, > Memories or Photos relating to East Dulwich if it is going to be moved to the lounge or is of no > interest I'm sure if you posted specific ED stories (rather than just post a link to your website) they would be more likely to stay in the other section. That's what computedshorty does, and they are always a good read and well received.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > I had a read of the site. I always like to read > > computershorty's stuff. > > > > There is a lot on non-ED stuff on there. Or > > haven't you looked at the site yet? > > More ignorance compounded. > > Perhapd Loz is a blow-in who doesn't know East Dulwich very well. Ha! 'Blow-in'? You're just a male Louisa, aren't you? But without the popularity and sense of humour. And less interesting to read.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > As it's not specifically about East Dulwich I'm > > not surprised. > > Don't post in ignorance. Don't be an a**e. > Have a look at the new material about the Underhill Road area. I had a read of the site. I always like to read computershorty's stuff. There is a lot on non-ED stuff on there. Or haven't you looked at the site yet?

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The new JOHNNYBOY thread > > http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1534523 > > was lounged too. > > John K As it's not specifically about East Dulwich I'm not surprised.

Was it crowded? Organisers have claimed that 478 trillion billion squazillion people attended. The police counted 18 people and a budgerigar.

northdulmum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just watching London news now. Another case of ambulance not turning up when they should have, to > a man attacked for his bike. > > Pretty depressing and I suspect it's everything to do with cuts. But isn't the ambulance service part of the NHS, and so therefore not part of the cuts?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > edborders Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > The council want to rebury the bones of poor people and sell plots to rich people from out of the borough > > without a monument to them, without a ceremony, without any respect at all for those people and > > their descendants. > > Is there any evidence for this, or is this just Occupy-style hyperbole? Then, edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As for the council selling off the graves spaces to rich people, the council themselves say about > 10% of sales are to out of borough people and the council is charging three times as much as residents. So, it was complete and utter hyperbole then. Was your argument so weak you had to resort to what was essentially a bare-faced lie?

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The council want to rebury the bones of poor people and sell plots to rich people from out of the borough > without a monument to them, without a ceremony, without any respect at all for those people and > their descendants. Is there any evidence for this, or is this just Occupy-style hyperbole?

Most Chromebooks have about 1GB or 2GB of memory and a tiny amount of flash storage. Good luck running Windows on that! Personally, I'd fork out another ?100 and get an entry level Windows laptop.

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That being said I doubt many who do object to planning applications, especially the ones you've > identified, can be rightly accused of only objecting just for the sake of it (my > interpretation of your points) or that they are afraid of "change". ... then these was this thread, where some people didn't like the thought of the industrial warehouse on CPR being knocked down to build houses! http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1464013,1465130

Ex-boyfriend and father of the baby, according to the Beeb. I suspect he'll be watching his back constantly when they throw him in Wormwood Scrubs. Someone will sort him out. I only hope they have enough evidence, seeing as there was two of them and they were wearing motorbike helmets. So if anyone did see anything, phone it in to the police. You may make a big difference.

But DaveR is talking about the stuff BNG mentioned and you supported - namely "rent controls, protected tenancies, limits on buy to let, restrictions on foreign buyers, penalties for empty properties and more". No one except you has mentioned planning regs - we have those in place, they are generally fit for purpose and there is still a crisis. I'm not sure why you've raised it, unless you think they should be changed.

I think you are being a little purposefully obtuse, RRR. DaveR is talking market regulation and you've conflated it with planning regulations.

I'd pull the whole bush out, Lou, and concrete over the entire area.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > With properties being bought and left empty and relatively low price elasticity due to latent > demand from a huge overseas market, I would say it broadly is. Out of interest, do you support > deregulation of the housing market? As DaveR said, what you are talking about is a very small percentage of home. As far as I can work out there are about 25000 homes empty in London (>6 months) of 3.2m houses. Now I'd like to see all 25000 of those homes back into use, but if you put them back tomorrow it would make negligible difference to the problem, if any at all. I want solutions, not gestures. As far as deregulation goes, what do you mean? Deregulation how?

DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz wrote > > ... that is almost certainly currently sited in > the wrong place anyway. > > This isn't true. There is strong evidence that the > plaque is exactly where it should be. According to the Dulwich Society the plaque was moved to the current location in 1968. And is almost certainly currently in the wrong position. http://www.dulwichsociety.com/2015-summer/1190-english-heritage-grade-2-listings-village-lock-up-stone-and-st-barnabas-parish-hall

DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > 2. It has a huge basement for underground car > parking - with good public transport out of > Dulwich, and ample on street parking, who needs > that? It is completely out of keeping with both > the area and 21st century environmental realities. Public transport to Dulwich Village is pretty dire. It's the P4 and that's about it.

Here you go, Louisa and *Bob*.

My favourite is still the Osbourne Stewart (RIP) thread.