Earl Aelfheah

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but were working nearby in local businesses and > indeed schools etc. The point was made that these > people were coming into the area from outside to > benefit the area by teaching our children, serving > us in shops and restaurants, mending our houses > etc. yeh, the whole idea that only residents have the 'right' to park in a particular area is ridiculous. what's the point in keeping a car, parked right outside your house, if you can't actually use it to travel anywhere.

I generally don't buy the idea that there are large numbers of people driving to ED station. If there are any, they're likely to be those from other parts of ED (who would presumably have a permit, in a CPZ scenario anyway). It's much quicker for people out of town to get a train in from further out.

Parking is not a problem on roads much closer to the station than Ondine or Oglander (eg. Quorn Road). I therefore, seriously doubt that commuters are the problem on those streets.

I was only joking.

Do they also sell sock puppets?

Hitler was only a vegetarian before he went mad.

Londis is of course a chain. The replacement may be a chain, or possibly an independent. I'm not sure what the point is either way. There is no shortage of convenience stores on LL, so I don't know why anyone woudl be particularly exercised about the change without even knowing what's going to be there. Is it evidence the ED is dying. Not really.

I think the chain thing is a red herring, in terms of being any indicator of 'gentrification'. There are plenty of down at heal areas which have lot's of chains, as well as very affluent ones with none. Rye Lane could not in any sense be said to be 'gentrified'. Gentrifying perhaps, but's that's different. I don't really know what people want. to live in an area which is solely 'working class' (however that is defined)? Seems very insular to me. This part of SE London is actually pretty diverse on almost any measure and all the better for that.

Good. It may as well be used

The main guy reminds me of Ronnie Corbett for some reason

Oh right, that explains why I wasnt' aware of it. I was just talking about the garden as was. Anyway I look forward to the pub openign again, wish they'd get on with it.

peckham_ryu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They're transmitters disguised as cameras. One for > each hemisphere of your brain. Beaming > subconscious thoughts from our lizard overlords. > They need to keep us cattle docile by divide and > conquer - if you don't immediately start wearing a > heavy-bottomed pan* on your head when you're near > them, you'll be susceptible to ideas like > "outsiders are bad"; "People from other > neighbourhoods are a threat to your lifestyle"; > "Your territory is being invaded and changed for > the worse". You will develop irrational phobias - > of random things, like estate agents, or > croissants. > > Be vigilant! > > > *p.s. I recommend Le Creuset. If you are > instinctively horrified, I'm afraid it's already > too late. Ha!

That's a shame, I didn't realise it had been closed because of noise complaints (seems a little unreasonable considering how long it's been there).

muffins78 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In my line of work and it has been the case with > my three previous employers, they have a standard > reference which confirms the position of the > individual, and their start and end dates. > Nothing more than that. > > The reason been is if the information outside the > hard facts is incorrect or becomes incorrect, the > company who gave the reference could be liable (or > something)! These companies are big names, so > they will know why they are doing, what they are > doing! I hope this helps!! It does depend on the industry. If it's standard practice to give a basic reference then fine. In sectors where a very basic reference is unusual, it could in itself be viewed as 'negative'. Honestly the best thing is just to make sure that what you say is factual and can be objectively justified.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's just a camera, attached to a battery, > recording to a hard disk and very similar to ones > used to record traffic data in the past, but if > you really want to know for sure, just ring the > council. That's no fun. I want to speculate about an elaborate conspiracy.

The question is often asked as to why people focus their criticism disproportionately on Israel, as opposed to say Iran. The answer is exactly as Taper says, that we hold Israel to higher standards, they are supported by Western governments and that it may be possible for Western governments and politicians to influence Israeli policy (as an ally of ours). So yes, it's unbalanced, but I don't think that in itself signifies antisemitism.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pro-Palestine-Anti-State-Of-Israel has been a > leftie 'given' for as many years as I can > remember, but let's be honest, Ken's lost the plot > on this one. > > There might have been some kind of point in there > (more of a historical footnote than a point I > suppose) - but the attempt at making it and, worse > still, trying to turn it into anything of value or > worth that somehow means something in the current > debate defies belief. This ^

Wow, that really is shocking.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It just so happens that the Right To Buy was first > in the 1959 General Election Manifesto of the > LABOUR Party (Labour lost though)- which only goes > to prove that the fascist left LIE and LIE... Jeez Unclglen, your constant fury and obsession with 'the left' is almost pathological. Have a cup of tea and a nice sit down.

That's pretty outrageous, must be a nightmare for the families involved.

This is another good summary imo: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-antisemitism-row-ken-livingstone-naz-shah-jeremy-corbyn-a7006176.html I think Ken should be kicked out of the party personally. He's too divisive a figure and his bringing Hitler into a rebuttal against allegations of antisemitism, is pretty bizarre and unhelpful. That said, there is a lot of mischief making on the part of Guido et al. and I don't buy the accusation that there is some bigger problem with the Labour Party being antisemitic generally.

Thanks Jah. I agree with everything in that statement.

It's not illegal to give a negative reference, as long as it's factual

Instead of a minimum wage, perhaps we ought to be looking for a maximum wage (as a multiple of average earnings for example). Dunno.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just saw on Twitter (Jim Waterson) > > "Ken Livingstone is in a toilet and the British > news media are camped > outside the door asking if he agrees with Hitler" An episode from a Chris Morris show, surely.