snorky

mightyroar Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it's good to have women only. I'd hate to > generalise but I too feel the need to rant..... > some of those male swimmers are just plain old bad > drivers when it comes to lane etiquette. In the > women only sessions you dont have to worry about > male swimmers who think that loads of splashing > amounts to good technique. You also dont have to > deal with so many other swimmers with serious > spatial awareness issues. Or overtaking right at > the end of the lane when you may as well just > wait. Or even one male swimmer overtaking another > male swimmer overtaking a female swimmer...all at > the same time in one lane! Seems like taking your > kit off and getting in the pool really brings out > the worst in (a very small group of some) men (who > clearly dont represent all the rest). Hurrah for > the groovy non competitive cooperative all female > swimming sessions. What utter rubbish. Im sorry, but it is

invaders

"I'm ranting"

PS - I can spell, I just cant be bothered when in Ranting

To assume that women need to feel more secure in a female only environment like a pool is regressive, sexist deplorable thinking - has anyone read Greer or Dworkin here ? this merely reinforces the gender gap and cements the outdated ntion that Women are fragile and shy creatures, forever in the shadow of men. at worst it is a Cowardly and indefensible praxis, as best it is slightly galling. With regatrd to religion - this is a choice people make - you want to follow whatever stone age imaginary rubbish you wish, but it is not longer a joke when others have to accomodate your blinkered beliefs. This is a sloppy and lazy way to add to the equality mantra that local authorities seem to have adopted in recent years, yet does nothing to aid equality and may even exaggerate the problem. apalling.

It wasnt me. Ive got an alibi.

how exciting! An interesting perspective on defamtion is the effect - i.e. that it sullies or causes problems for the "defamed" persons reputation - hence mr Archer will be unlikely to bring any slander / libel cases against anyone in the future, as he is "marked" already and his reputation is besmirched anyway. so if you have bad rep anyway, it poitless thinking about action. I cant wait for the next episode of this drama ! it beats watching reruns of The Rockford files on Freeview !

Quaywe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't be so naive to think that Nero being on LL > is a good thing. Nero set a precedent that will > make it easier for other shops like Starbucks to > appear...and they will if we don't unite against > them. NO thanks.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The slow and rude service is the worst thing. Some > of the incidents that me and my friends (on > separate occasions) have witnessed in there are > just unforgivable. Ditto terrible place shut them down. drive them out. no mercy for the Blue Mountains cafe

"dog eggs" if you please

I have yet to find a banksy on ED that depresses me

Grrrrrrrr.......these meddling kids @ ED Deli

"These are all locally owned and operated stores. They give something back to the community ..." What do these shops " give " back to the community ?

The buildings may have their detractors, but are solid and functional - and have served as comptent family homes fo a long time and could continue to do so , rather than spend on new biuldings with a 20 year life span - this has been a discussion amngst town planners for the past 50 years Current plans are to trim backl the estate periphery and utilise the cash gained in refurbishing the remaioning blocks I wonder how many of the Neg comments about the estate on this thread are more of a comment on the inhabitants than the buildings themselves ? tongue n cheek ? Im not entirely sure

pantha cabs didnt assault me, but didnt bother to turn up on a late night booking from Gatwick one night - slamming the phone down when I called them up to ask where our wheelz was. theyse rubbish.

we have so much access to information, its difficult to sort out what is rubbish and what is lucid and valuable &* thats the problem. So many people are utterly seething with anger all the time, patently unhappy with what they have got / what they have not got in their lives. Envy and jealousy are a subliminal tool of the marketers and ad men - you dont need that new Phone, as it does nothing much more than the 3 year old one youve got, apart from its a bit thinner and more importantly, it NEW, EXPENSIVE & you see FOOTBALLERS and their LADY FRIENDS usieng them therefore it must be something good. Role models are still footballers for many kids, but not cos theyse wopn the world cup, but cos theyse famous , have slim singer girlfriend and a Bently continental.Its not achievement, its image unfort.Everyone praised Beckham as a Role model - not me - He opitomised how facile we have become, even though he was a mildly talented footballer. The Gang Culture problem is exaggerated, but its a problem and the interesting thing is that its not so much about earning a living through crime - "propa" criminals keep their heads down and get on with it - its the "image" that matters - you get shot for disrespecting some one - insulting their image - not trying to sell crack on their turf.there is no money involved in these latest shootings - the ALbanian / Turkish and Jamiacan gangs make the money from the drugs - the deluded wannabes onthe streets are the ones that shoot each other over petty and trite slights. make no mistake, this isnt gun crime as part of estbalishing a capital wide SMERSH drug cartel , its a result of having wasted shallow lives, following fake role models projcted by the media and swallowing the entire admans output hook line and sinker. None of these kids shot or their killers have fortunes stashed awayr or head up crime syndicates with links to Colombian COke barons - these kids have nothing at all. they live at home and eat their mums food and prowl the streets. a wasted, exploted and utterly waylaid generation

The Catholic church is rich beyond belief. they should reject state funding for all their schools and thus can take whoever they want under whatever criteria they deem acceptable. When they however choose to take the local authorities shilling then they are fair game to anyone who needs to access public education.

swiders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i can't wait for the hysterical hyperdrive > reaction that will follow once the issue starts to > be looked at. classic phrases such as "stealth > tax" and "anti-motorist" etc will be wheeled out. > certainly if the last CPZ consultation is anything > to go by that will be the case. lest the facts get > in the way. > > I guess people just have to face facts, when there > are too many cars around the lack of control may > just create more problems than solve and thus a > form of road space charge can be an effective > solution. Its true that people have to change some > of their travel habits (we don't use our car for > local trips except for the odd big shop to > sainsburys) but hand in hand with this, people > have to accept with greater affluence comes > greater pressures on road space and ultimately > parking. Its really a matter now of examining, as > factually as possibly without people getting > juvenile and maniacal, the problems (if indeed > there are any and what is the most likely cause) > and if a CPZ is a logical and acceptable form of > response. WWord

**warning - this monologue contains primark refrences and Boden profanity ***** Some good points here and apart from the caning bollox, some sense. We can discuss this all day- whether Thatcher was to blame ( boo ! ) or the left councils ( hiss ) or the baby jesus ( hooray ) but its not going to sort this out We are all to blame up to a point - we all participate in ths culture of instant gratification, most of us are ostantatious consumers and have fallen for much of the marketers and advertisers guff. When the acumulation of consumer durables and badges of wealth become substitutes for relationships and affection, then you know we are in for a bad time and our society is in bad shape. We may critisise the 15 year old mugger for theiving the latest Mobile phone and quite rightly so, but if we are a society didnt embrace this "display of wealth = status & success" ethos, then we would not have half the problems we are currently exhibiting. We are all guilty of this change in priorities however we hate to admit it - we buy Boden becasuse it shows we are richer than Primark customers and it signifies how wealthy we are ( or aspire to be )....... you may justify this purchase by saying its is better quality or better fnished - which may well be true - but do you get that much MORE value out of a better made & more expensive toddler t shirt that will be orn for 2 months ? does it actually justify a 10 fold difference in price ? I dont think anyone could back up that differential I use Boden & Primark as an example, but this mentality seeps into every aspect of our lives - cars / washing machines/ plants in our garden/ the food we buy............so much of it is driven by the propaganda issued by others - those who manipulate our insecurities to make money for themselves and so much of it make no difference to the quality of our life, apart from the temporary satisfaction we get when buying something we think of a special or a treat - or rather what we have been taught to regard as special or a treat. whether we like it or not, we are all responsible to a greater or lesser degree - just becasue we dont go out an mug for the latest samsung phone & buy its instead does not absolve us of our responsibility yes, Even I, Snorky , am guilty of this.

northerner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Louisa Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > but once you are a parent you will realise that > > the rules of morality dont exist when > confronted > > with sending your child to a decent local > catholic > > school over a horridly under funded state > school, > > I don't think you should even consider it immoral > pulling the wool over the churches eyes to get > your child into the school of your choice. Why > should a significant percentage of local schools > be unavailable to you as a parent just because you > don't share the faith of the organisation that > governs it? > > Btw, I'm not anti church or anti faith, just anti > faith groups running schools. Personally I think > children should be taught about all the main > faiths and allowed to choose any or none when old > enough to make an intelligent choice ( dream on! > ). This does not imply that they should be raised > with no moral framework and allowed to run wild. > A school is perfectly capable of imposing a strong > moral framework without the help of the church. Word

all_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd say he has been here quite a while... 2 4X4's, > 2 People Carriers and a Van - he's certainly not > an environmentalist, thats for sure! I know him - not personally - and hes a long termer. that is no excuse tho'

capt_birdseye Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you drive Snorky? If yes are you happy to pay > ?80-?120 pa for the privilege of parking outside > of your house? yes I drive - yes I have a car - yes I would pay for a CPZ ( not the whole thing mind you, just my share )

agree with the CPZ.

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bonnie, was your original post "a wind up" as > Michael said? I'm intrigued. Even if it is, the debate is valid I think , given the situation in ED and Skoolz.

I can cope with and applaud Christian values Mikey.