Earl Aelfheah

tinfoil hat stuff from 'migration watch'(the name of that organisation says a lot about its state of mind).

Here's the whole thing in context: https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/social-affairs/discrimination/news/74365/ken-livingstone-bbc-radio-london-israel-lobby-tries

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > Surprised you don't find the new layout easier for > changing to Charing Cross - under 2 minutes to > walk down the stairs, across the lower concourse > and up the stairs to the Charing Cross platforms? > Surely that's quicker than the old layout? The footbridge had a lot fewer steps. There were no lifts before though, so obviously not great if you had a pushchair.

Thank god May confirmed that Brexit is goin to be red white and blue. My biggest concern in all of this hasn't been a loss of rights or damage to the economy, but what colours would be conjured in my mind by an infantilising politician.

When's national meaness day?

I hope you're right LL - I would put money on the opportunity to quietly reduce the service (i.e. not returning it to previous levels), being taken by the train companies even post 2018, but maybe I'm a cynic. Re. the transfer at London Bridge - I certainly don't think it's quicker than it used to be, quite the opposite. It's nicer and better for those with buggies / disabilities (so definitely overall an improvement), but it's not faster.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...there is a > common sense to it somewhere but it's not one > we're privvy to and it's not one where ED's > regular and speedy and consistent commute is the > objective. The objective is to make money. That is the problem with privatising a 'public service'.

You compare and contrast McGuinesses failure to express regret to that of the British state. The implication is that the failure of one party somehow mitigates the failure of the other. I would say that actually, both are failures.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > That's a mainly accurate account Lordship, but > it > > overstates one point.. that McGuiness used > > 'necessary violence' - I think often the IRA > used > > quite unnecessary levels of violence against > the > > civilian populations and their own people. > > If you care to read what I wrote you will see I > actually wrote carefully & deliberately... > > "what he considered necessary violence" - as he > was quoted to have said on a number of occasions. > > On your point of expressing regret for > victims...it took over 200 years for the British > Government to express regret for their shameful > behaviour in regard to the Great Famine...and over > 40 years to apologize for the murders by the brave > 1st Para on Bloody Sunday 1972... > > It takes time to heal. Just let's be happy the > violence has diminished and we can be neighbours > at peace. The British state behaved terribly and took 200 years to express regret. Is that then the standard we hold others to?

Who owns the Watson Telegraph? Anyway, they do good roasts.

I think ultimately (and similar to a lot of 'political' threads here), people wrongly see it as a zero sum game. It's not the case that if you criticise the IRA then you're ignoring, or excusing Unionist violence, or the violence of the British state. it is quite possible to think that there were terrible things done on all sides and that it's a generally shameful period in our history. It's also possible to have sympathy with the cause, without agreeing with the means.

That's a mainly accurate account Lordship, but it overstates one point.. that McGuiness used 'necessary violence' - I think often the IRA used quite unnecessary levels of violence against the civilian populations and their own people. Your key point that he was 'no better & no worse' than many of those involved in violence on the part of the Unionists or in genocide on the part of the British Empire is hardly a ringing endorsement. The truth is that the Troubles were a shameful episode in our history. It's been suggested that I believe in forgetting or ignoring our history. Obviously I don't think this, but I do think that as those who were responsible for the worst of the atrocities (which includes members of the British government at the time) pass, it is a good opportunity to move on / find some closure, in the sense that there is little point in recriminations against those who weren't directly involved. As I previously said, I think people like McGuiness were part of the problem and then they stopped being part of the problem. I don't think they should be lionised, just as I wouldn't suggest that we praise the British Government for their role in Northern Ireland. I think we should all be pleased that common sense and decency finally prevailed and rue the fact that it didn't happen sooner. I don't underestimate the context in which the violence occurred, but when it comes to making an assessment of the man and his character, you cannot ignore the fact that even after the peace, he refused to express regret for his part in the violence. He offered no olive branch to the families of his victims.

It's just s bit of fun Loz

FFS. Local politicians, what say you? What is being done to address this constant chipping away at our transport infrastructure?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Garages and workshops the country over will soon > have Page 3 Calendars back on the walls. It is Brexit eve, so perhaps appropriate that we've jumped back 40 years.

I saw 'Greek style salad cheese' in Sainsburys the other day.

... it's yet another example of the closing down of debate! By jove you're right Lou!

That's funny - Louisa - one of your favourite phrases for people who have been brought in to the area 'upon the wind', has been blocked and now appears as @#$%&

You would never belittle anyone hey Lou? Not blow-ins, 'yummys', 'Gaurdinaistas' etc, etc. No one much shuts down debate and people disagree all the time about all sorts of things. I'm not sure the idea that this is some sort of echo chamber stands up to much scrutiny.

In answer to your question Abe - no, they won't take the blind bit of notice.

We're a pretty tolerant country, but also a rather racist one. It's why there isn't a lot of open hostility, but still quite a lot of discrimination. Although you're not meant to say it - I do think a lot (not all) of UKIP supporters are xenophobic in the true sense - they're deeply suspicious / afraid of 'foreigners'. Despite the fact that this kind of assertion tends to get shouted down, actually, if you just look at their own rhetoric, to me at least, it seems pretty self evident.

Read past the headline and it actually gets worse. Have we been sucked through some kind of wormhole and found our selves back in the early seventies?

The Daily Mail : http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_58d98af1e4b0f805b322d870 Cutting straight to the issues that matter. 🙄

Dulwich estate are bar stewards. They just don't have a bar.