Jeremy

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That the EDF has a number of average musicians and > that Jeremy hates all bands that play at Dulwich > Festival. And carps on

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd have thought a "professional musician" was > somebody who made their living from playing music, > but what would I know :)) Yep, I'd agree. And semi-pro if it's a regular side-line with reasonable pay.. (e.g. most covers/functions bands)

Yep it's a bit weird. There isn't really any pattern at all that I can see.. it's clutching at straws. Wonder what motivates someone to come up with such bizarre conspiracy claims.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When I first moved over the hill from Camberwell, > one of the first things I witnessed on Lordship > Lane was a child having a full on melt down, > screaming "I WANT A BABYCHINO!". Ha. When was that? I think we've had one of those moments. You're playing with fire if you try to separate ours from her croissant and babyccino.

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy, you only get to carp on about it if you > pay the piper - if your fun was free, it's only > right to take it as it comes Not sure why this is aimed at me. I said I enjoyed the band, and was using it as an example of the kind of thing I might expect to see at a free local event. I am not "carping on", Sue specifically asked me to clarify. Whatever.

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have found during the campaign that I have no empathy with the leader - > my atheism I suspect, for better or worse; but > also I want someone who personally BELIEVES in > freedom of sexual expression and other > forward-looking social change and is free of the > constraints of religious faith. Yes I think that sums up the way I've started to feel. Like I say... they'll probably still get my vote though.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I disagree, personally. I think it's good that on > a subject like abortion, which let's face it he > plainly opposes, he understands that his personal > religious views have no place in government > legislation. Yeah I know what you mean, and I do appreciate the fact he makes a point of separating his personal beliefs from legislation/governance. It shows maturity and a sense of perspective. But nevertheless, I think liberal-minded people may feel uneasy about voting for a leader with these beliefs. And I know I'm biased here, but I generally place more trust in the judgement of the non-religious. > They're in a lot of trouble, and will take years to rebuild, if they can. It's quite possible that we're going to see the Labour party splitting into two factions, which would possibly render the LDs obsolete...

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bit of bullying towards GG here because he doesn't agree with the popular view. I dunno... if you don't agree with the strike (and I personally have some misgivings too) by all means say your piece, but I think he's a bit over-the-top here...

Saffron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can you see a pattern?? Erm... no not really!

It doesn't come across at all well when he says he's pro-choice, but refuses to say "no, it's not wrong". It's a strange sort of dichotomy... as a liberal he believes in individual liberty, but at the same time has private views grounded in religion which he's unwilling to share. I'll probably be voting LD, but I think he's the wrong man to lead the party, and a poor choice as a figurehead for British liberalism. A missed opportunity in the current political landscape.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've just looked over our running orders and the > only band I can think it might have been from your > description was a local band from five years ago > who to the best of my knowledge no longer exist :) Five years ago??!! Maybe that's it! Shocking to think I could confuse 2012 for "last year", but hey. Anyway, "it's all good", as they say. lightweight Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Musicians, on the other hand, rarely have > any job security; income is erratic; time spent > chasing fees owed is onerous; sick > pay/holiday/maternity leave is non-existent, the list goes on. Again, I don't think anybody is expecting professional musicians.

Well said, catty.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > At things like Goose Green festival > > (last year), it appeared to be a bunch of mates > > playing blues jams and a few covers they knew. > > > I hope you aren't talking about the music at the > Dulwich Festival Fair on Goose Green? > > We take pride in booking good musicians. Yes I was. But actually, upon reflection I think it must have been two years ago. They were fine, I had fun, and they looked like they were having fun. I am not complaining. No offence meant, that's just how it came across to me.

Yeah the organisers/residents would have to club together to sort out a PA, and presumably arrange some sort of makeshift stage.

I've used the carpet shop twice (once for a single room, the second time for a whole house). One of the guys does have a slightly gruff demeanour, but that doesn't bother me. I thought they were perfectly fine.

Dunno KK. At things like Goose Green festival (last year), it appeared to be a bunch of mates playing blues jams and a few covers they knew. Imagine if you gave a bunch of the Dulwich Jam guys an hour long slot... that's the kind of thing you might get. Without wishing to speak for the OP, I would imagine that yeah, the odd forgotten lyric or fluffed note would be expected. Clearly you are not going to get some sort of slick functions band for nothing (where would the money come from, anyway?) You thinking of volunteering?!

Yep I'm with rendel, DC (and others). Yes, if you're of a high standard and are used to getting paid reasonably well to play at functions, etc then this probably won't appeal. But if you do it purely for a laugh and are a bit more of a ramshackle outfit, then why not? Also, pretty much any band playing original material is accustomed to basically not being paid for playing. They might be interested in something like this, especially if they have a few crowd-pleasing covers they can roll out. Assuming the residents can club together to arrange a stage and basic PA. Either way, no point arguing about it. Either bands are interested, or they're not.

mik322 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If they were used for something like delivering > medicines to elderly patients that are housebound > I could understand, but surely if people want > their shopping delivered they could just use a > supermarket delivery service. I got the impression they were more for smaller shops, or individual items that were required a bit more urgently than the big weekly delivery (which has to be booked a little way in advance). But I agree with mikeb, they're just going to be targets for vandalism. Perhaps they might fare better in Japan or Korea...

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agreed. Joke to say she's anywhere near left. JohnL pointed out that she advocates greater intervention in businesses that her predecessors, which I accept is a step back from the recent neoliberal ethos. I guess it's one of the few facets of her leadership that I cautiously welcome. But I'm not sure it makes her categorically less right wing. > I really wanted the LD's to sweep me off of my feet. Hasn't happened at all. It's not so much that they're heading in the wrong direction, but they need a charismatic leader who can give the party some get-up-and-go, a stronger identity, get people talking about them, and convince us that they're a serious alternative.

I struggle to see how Theresa May is particularly "left wing" even by Tory standards, but happy to be educated. In some ways she seems to have taken the party to the right with her brand of neo-nationalism. A real shame that the Lib Dems aren't making more of an inroad.. the main two parties have both abandoned the centre ground, and along with Brexit (hugely unpopular with half of the country), this should be their best chance since the party's inception. Poor leader.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Talking of Laughing Stock Boris has been in a Sikh > temple trying to sell Whisky A bit stupid of Boris, of course. But religious people getting all angry and offended... yawn...

Yeah some lefties complain the BBC has a right wing bias (particularly the paranoid and deluded Corbynistas, who are convinced that #mainstreammedia has an anti-Corbyn agenda). At the same time, right wingers think the BBC is overtly lefty and too "politically correct". Of course, both are wrong.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Firstly, people who go private will tend not to > care about the NHS, so they're not going to vote > for policies to improve it (please don't tell me > everyone's so lovely and caring they'll gladly > vote for tax rises to improve a service they don't > use, because 99% won't) I think you're wrong there. Lots of people have private cover - it's almost the norm if you're in a professional private sector job. But we still rely on NHS for GPs, A&E, maternity, etc. We ALL need an effective public health service. Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of affluent voters who have an interest in at least a degree of social justice.. certainly more than 1% anyway. But yes, clearly they're in the minority.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > if the spread of international workers in say > banking in London is anything to go by - and very > many of them work for big, international financial > services with plenty of offices overseas (that > will be exacerbated by Brexit) and easily > transferable within their companies; many won't > share Left wing views on sharing half of their > income for the greater good either; - not hard to > say a 100,000 of these moving off the UK payroll > with devastating results for tax take. I'm sure there's some truth in that (just look at the number of westerners living in Singapore and HK, etc) but personally I'm not opposed to modest tax hikes for high earners. I think the proposed financial transaction tax would have far more serious repercussions for the City - along with Brexit of course.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > borrowing against investments. I assume you're talking about borrowing to fund the proposed renationalisation programme? I'm not sure Labour are viewing these as "investments" in the financial sense of the word... i.e. running them as profit making businesses capable of repaying the initial capital. But not sure.