Jeremy

A disavowal of multiculturalism? Support for the traditional family unit?

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Neither Meatliquor nor Honest Burger give free > nuts. Has the thread moved on from nuts? Kinda. KeekySnorky sort of broadened the discussion to the wider hipster "dirty" burger thing. Then someone said that GBK predates that. I was pointing out that... oh who cares...

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Govt has to keep cutting expenditure until the budget balances. That's what the tories tell us. But when they simultaneously pledge to lower taxes, and arguably don't do enough to counter corporate and HNWI tax avoidance, it is easy to see that balancing the budget is not their only agenda. Besides, when it comes to balancing the deficit, spending is just one piece of the puzzle. You also need to grow the economy, and ensure taxes are set at the right levels to cover our expenditure. Saying that.. I don't necessarily buy the theory that the tories/coalition did a terrible job with the economy. While it's easy to say that other countries which opted for more sutained stimulus have fared better, it's hard to say what would have happened in the UK under an alternative strategy, especially in a country which is so dependant on financial services. The economy is growing (just), employment is increasing, the markets have renewed faith in gilts and UK stocks. It is an unremarkable performance but far from disastrous.

Yeah but GBK is about as trendy as Garfunkels... I think peachycheeks is talking about places like meatliquor, honest burgers, etc.

Snorky.. when presented with a burger/hotdog at some kind of social gathering (perhaps outdoors in the summer), would you a) refuse to eat it b) eat with your hands but discretely force yourself to vomit afterwards c) request a knife and fork a la DavCam

Not really sure what you're getting at, robbin. By "greater good", I was really referring to the rationale that a state/society might apply to killing an individual as punishment.

I remain to be convinced by the "new" Prince Albert. Pretty poor beer selection. Refurb-by-numbers.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Murder is where innocent people are killed by > criminals. The two are surely very different. I'm not sure the difference between murder and death penalty is so clear cut. Sure, the death penalty might have a certain validity because there's some kind of consensus that it's for the greater good. But it still boils down to a group of people deciding that someone deserves to be killed. Some people would consider that stoning an adulterer to death is a fair and just punishment.

Selling nuts? In a pub? Further evidence of East Dulwich disappearing up it's own arse.

Huh. Church weddings. Awkward and joyless. I can see why going outside with a crying baby is preferable to pretending to sing a load of old junk containing words like "thy" and "hast".

Because they're cheap?

My mistake!

Fox - the gravitational pull of all the combined egos from the surrounding estate agents causes a time dilation effect (have you seen Interstellar?)

Duncan - you start with a flawed assumption that people are generally motivated by self-interest. And nevertheless, many people who would be financially better off under a Tory government have no interest in watching public services (which we all depend on to varying degrees) eroded for another five years.

Makes little difference because the whole thing is a fabrication. There is no new Waitrose.

Been to some great weddings with kids present, some without. You get rather a different "vibe"... more hard drinking when the kids are safely away with the grandparents. But the daytime bit is probably more relaxed and chaotic (in a good way) when kids are around. Fine with me either way.. the only problem is that there will inevitably be some people who won't be able to come as a result.

Beulah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @OP > It's probably more useful to think of it as who > has priority rather than right of way. > In the scenario u gave u have priority if the > pedestrians have not started crossing. > However pedestrians often walk out in front of > cyclists even if you've signalled and made eye > contact. > The law is designed to protect vulnerable road > users and even if pedestrians do the most stupid > things you must do everything you can to avoid an > accident I think it's pretty obvious that you need to stop, instead of colliding with the pedestrians! I don't think anybody's suggesting otherwise. Doesn't mean that we should all start stepping out into the road in front of vehicles though.

ZT - I've got that one a few times (getting on at PR), and it's always busy but never rammed.

Chuka Umunna to run in 2020 blates. Surely just a question of whether he will be facing Cameron or Boris Johnson. Meanwhile Johnson returning to parliament leaves a vacancy for London mayor soon... and I hear the Tories are pinning their hopes on their exciting new face... Sol Campbell. Sol Campbell??!!

goosey-goosey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bellenden Rd apparently stretches all the way to Queens Rd. Really? Well Peckham High St is just a continuation of Queens Rd, so it's almost right. It's probably the most factually correct sentence in that joke of an article.

What BR said!

curmudgeon certainly living up to his name on this thread! We all know that pedestrians have right of way when they have already started crossing, but this does not mean you should just step out in front of a moving vehicle and force it to stop.. some common sense is needed...

Might be easier to do it from the upstairs flat and take up the floorboards (does depend what flooring they have down though). Worth asking. They might be happy for a couple of days of inconvenience in return for better sound insulation.

Penguin - I agree with your summary of Labour voters in cities (i.e. mix of educated professionals, young idealists, working class and the disadvantaged) but I disagree that it's only worked in London. There seems to be pronounced Labour support around most bigger cities.. Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Birmingham, etc.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mick Mac Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's the economy stupid and most people have recognised that the > > Tories have done a good job. > > Most people have swallowed the lie that they've done a good job. Not really sure about this one. We don't really know what would have happened under a different leadership, we only have anecdotal evidence about what has happened in other countries. All we really know as that the Tories haven't screwed up the economy (modest growth, lower unemployment), although they have of course failed in their deficit reduction aims.