red devil

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wall78's reply in For Sale section. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?9,1711290,1711624#msg-1711624

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Spurs (I can dream can't I?) > 2. Liverpool (No European distractions) > 3. Chelsea (Ditto) > 4. Man Utd (just pip a disappointing Man City to > 4th) > > Relegated - > > Middleboro > Hull City > Watford This gets harder each year. Can make a case for half a dozen teams to win it, so I'll follow Jah's lead and go with my heart... 1. Man Utd 2. Man City 3. Spurs 4. Chelsea Relegated... Watford Burnley Hull

If that's the case, I'm expecting big things of you this season maxxi. Deliverence...Brand...Sustainability...Sensational!

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I understand completely people sharing things on > social media about BLM, and I am pleased to have > read some very good posts from people on the > subject. > > But in terms of adopting the movement here, I have > to agree that it's badly thought out. In a world of social media and 'like' button pressing, I kinda 'liked' that they had a good old fashioned sit down protest, in keeping with the roots of the Suffragettes/Civil Rights movements...

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also, RD, you did that yourself when you said, > "The BBC licence fee is still amazingly good value > at just over ?12/month, far cheaper than > alternative forms of entertainment." My first > thought, on reading that, was that Netflix and > Amazon Prime are both cheaper. When I wrote that I actually had cinema and theatre in mind, alternative as in markedly different rather than a variation of the same thing, but I take your's and BB's point that it could've been read differently...

BB...I wasn't suggesting that at all. You made a direct comparison that Netflix subscriptions are cheaper than the BBC Licence Fee. I explained why that was an unfair comparison to make. You weren't comparing like for like...

The Fee makes up about 75% of their income. It generates a fair proportion of it's other income from selling/licensing programmes,programme formats, spin-off/merchandising etc. And what paid for those programmes in the first place?...

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Would also point out that services like Netflix > are far cheaper than a TV licence and Netflix now > distributes a lot of BBC drama and docs. Youtube > also carries a lot of BBC programming as well. Yes, but people need to stop seeing the BBC Licence Fee as a subscription/viewing fee, instead it's for the actual making of the programmes. No Licence Fee, no BBC programmes to watch on Netflix et al...

Meds, are you joining up this season?...

People who clog up the bar waiting for their Guiness to settle while I'm trying to get served... :)

The cookery/house-buying/celeb shows are not expensive to make at all, they're incredibly cheap compared to dramas. Take A Place in the Country, one presenter and a small behind the scenes crew, take joe public to see 3 homes, and then a lot of editing in a post-production suite. Compare that to the cast and production costs of The Night Manager, simply no contest. The hardcore audience wants Pointless, and boy do they get it. The BBC licence fee is still amazingly good value at just over ?12/month, far cheaper than alternative forms of entertainment....

It's a shame EP doesn't post on here anymore, he was very much against the whole corporate football club model, saying it wasn't about the CL, revenue streams etc, and that he would rather keep the then exisitng identity and ethos of WH even if it meant struggling to stay in the PL and occasional relegation. A few years have since passed and we now have a WH that has a flashy new stadium with lots of corporate boxes and sponsors, a club that has bought into the whole branding business model, a club wanting to be challenging for the top 4/CL and trophies. Just curious to see how he now feels about it all. Other WH fans on here seem to have accepted the change, certainly haven't heard any dissenting voices...

siousxiesue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is RD-I watch most telly that way now. Did you > ever get that dog!? Excellent, will check it out. No dog yet. I keep watching the Dog Rescuers prog, so probably only a matter of time before I succumb :)...

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Heard mixed from forums and a couple of mates - > not all finished but people say: > > - they reckon will be good atmosphere for big > games I think so too, esp if WH are as generous with the away allocation as they were at UP. > - policing will be difficult for big games as so > many ways to get there plus open space etc! I was thinking that this morning when I heard a bloke on the radio describing how lovely it was last night walking through the Olympic Park, admiring the boats etc. That's because there were no away fans there last night, just wait until the hordes of northern monkeys arrive :) ...

I've got a similar friend, his seat is directly opposite the director's seats, so should be one of the best views in the house. He's not going until the B'mouth game, so will wait and see what he says...

A round of applause for playing the martyr card. Point-scoring...your lack of self-awareness in all this is laughable. The only one being confrontational is yourself....the rendell is not for turning. Segregation, separation, pedestrian-free zones, cycle lane, call it what you want, you were clearly advocating for it. Those were your words I quoted, not mine. The majority of us get along just fine in the park as it is...the wheel ain't broke...poor grammar and pun intended.

No worries, just Parky and maxixillian missing from the usual suspects. ???? and Mick Mac, come on in, you know you want to...

I missed that, hope it's still on Catch-Up. Filming for the new series starts in September...

I don't agree that BTL doesn't make sense with the new taxes, maybe so for newcomers or those poorly leveraged. Why don't you speak to an accountant and look at your options, find out what the tax implications are if you continue to rent, what your CGT liabilities are if you sold etc...

Panini football sticker packets expertly slipped up the arm of my snorkel parka...Paul Daniels stylee :)

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Our first game at Taxpayers Park tonight - I'm not > going, really can't get into football on the 4th > of August, but was underwhelmed by our performance > last week and this has got 'Banana Skin' written > all over it.... No banana skin, good result and the stadium full looked good too. What's your first game there?...

It's Friday and the sun is shining, turn up the bass bins to 11...

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- When you go on the > Underground, do you object to signs asking you to > walk on the left as segregation? Using the claustrophobic rat runs of the Underground as some sort of analogy to the wide open spaces of the park is laughable. In the words of that other great 'socialist'...segregation, segregation, segregation :)

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh for goodness' sake. More pointless insults for > a perfectly innocuous suggestion. It's not an innocuous suggestion to say pedestrians shouldn't use the middle of the 'road' in order to create a pedestrian free zone for cyclists. That's clearly a form of segregation. On such a wide expanse there's no need for such measures. > Yes parks should be organic, natural and free-flowing - how does a > damned great piece of tarmac fit into that description? Therein lies your problem, you're seeing it as a road in the traditional sense. As has previously been pointed out to you, it was once a vehicular road, hence the tarmac, but it's now pedestianised except for occasional vehicular access, usually the park's maintenance teams, thus allowing all users free access to use it. In an ideal world it wouldn't be tarmac, but name me a park in London that doesn't have tarmac for some vehicular and/or pedestrian use. Peckham Rye has lots of tarmac paths. Straker Road cuts through the park to service the bins/cafe/nursery area. > Cyclists are just as much legitimate > users of the park as anyone else, can they be free > flowing and organic and ride wherever they like? I think they should, but earlier you said cyclists should be banned from the pond/cafe area, so you clearly don't think so. > You'd soon be complaining if they did. Never > heard such nonsense. No I wouldn't, as explained above. > Asking people to politely leave a bit of room is hardly segregation. > Ridiculous. Your not asking for that though are you. You want a pedestrian free-zone down the middle of the 'road'. You're not asking for room, you're asking for segregation... It just seems perfectly logical that when there's a pavement and a road that the cyclists stay on the road and the pedestrians stay on the pavement. And all for the sake of a tiny minority of non-cyclists who have shown the audacity to cause you to slow down, or god forbid, stop. Ridiculous indeed. > It's fine, if it's too much for you to share and > show a bit of common courtesy to other park users, > so be it. We'll still look out for you and be > polite and accommodating to where you want to go, > shame you can't do the same. Patronising and presumptuous to boot. Sorry to rain on your parade but I class myself as a cyclist, a very courteous one. One who has been cycling around the perimeter 'road' and through the park on average 3-4 times a week (return journeys) for nearly 10 years without experiencing any difficulty with my fellow park users and how they wish to use the park...

Fook, and Karren Brady is supposed to be the intelligent one...:)