KidKruger

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Approaching from behind - runner should make the > space. > > Approaching head on - should be 50/50 (with > runner's responsibility to assess mobility issues, > etc). Assuming two able-bodied people, you have > equal time and ability to respond. Shifting over > to one side of the pavement is not exactly > difficult. A cooperative attitude is better than a > combative one. Hmmm.. Nope. The runner has the speed and is in command of his movements at that speed. The walker is much more static, doesn?t know the runners intentions, has to 2nd guess what?s going to happen. It?s not evenly balanced no matter how much people insist it is. It?s galling that in a pandemic spread by droplet (with 18,000 dead since 27/1/21 when our beloved BoJo announced 22days ago there would possibly be 50,000 more dead before the pandemic is over) that people actually feel entitled to approach at speed people walking on pavements, breathing heavily, seriously thinking it?s just a 50/50 convenience issue. To me that?s as clever as anti-vaxer mentality !

It?s up to the runners to avoid pedestrians on pavements or wherever they may be. People walking have less time to react to runners than they do other people who are walking like them. Walking on a pavement having a runner approach close from behind or not give you space from the front when oncoming means you?re getting large volumes (compared to walkers) of heavy breathing air in a short period of time. It?s not fair and it?s not the runners automatic privilege to negatively impact the safety of pedestrians with respect to Covid. It?s not a god-given right to slather over people during a pandemic, just cos they feel their freedoms are being impinged otherwise.

Do we need a tin-foil hat thread ? Sort of like the lounge, but Year11 type content.

Sounds like it was an unexpected accident and in the instant the natural reaction was to chase the errant dog to secure catching it as soon as possible. Doesn?t sound like an issue with care, diligence, or professionalism.

The previous salon Headnizm is being fixed-up by the looks of it when I passed a coupla days ago. Dunno what it?s gonna be doe.

looks like roller to my untrained eye, especially if older.

I redid my bathroom 5yrs ago, to provide my first ever shower ! I also made provision for a Bath, a lovely roll top claw feet number. Thing is, I haven?t plumbed the Bath in yet, and that?s after being a Bath-fiend all my life 🤣 Would only take a day or so (need to get through 9? wall and fit the waste pipes etc). So baths not essential IMO.

Hopefully won?t be too much ice and make road / pavement more dangerous.

Ooh that?s a shame, he seemed sooo aligned to the ED kinsfolk.

well I guess no-one put a gun to her head when she chose to marry him (I'm speculating there..!). But imagine actually choosing to breed with him, the mind boggles.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seabag Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Now Melania can divorce him > > Or maybe she'll just avoid his hand when he tries > to hold it as she usually does. > > I suspect this will come back to bite the > republicans at some stage. What - the divorce ?!

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I disagree that calling someone a name is worthy > of taking someone's job away from them. I think > that everyone deserves a chance to express regret > and to make amends, and be punished accordingly, > like being put on warning, or losing a portion of > one's wages, writing to express regret, making a > donation to a charity, etc. (I can "tick a fair > few boxes" and would not like it at all if a > person who called me a derogatory name in the > street had his or her job taken away for a one-off > offence.) I would want him or her to apologise in > writing to me and for the employer to assure me > that punishment was given. The witch hunt aspect > of the current discourse (going from 0 - 80) is > evident when people demand the ultimate penalty > available for a first offence. A lot of speculation there Nigello. There?s ?calling names? and insulting someone because of their relationship choices - personally I see them as grossly different. Being treated like that makes you feel threatened and unsafe. And you seriously reckon the culprit was doing that for the ?first time? ? Or does first time only mean ?first time caught?. Do me a favour. Harassment such as this needs dealing with hard, people have choices and if they purposefully want to threaten other people minding their own business they can dwell on it after being punished. No-one walking about our streets should feel threatened.

All valid and pertinent points, Cat. Interesting how some Rep senators, pre-election, repeatedly branded the Dems ?far left, extreme left, left wing radicals?. When actually the Dems are Right wing, if anything. They just are not extreme like some of the Rep senators. It?d take some doing to be further right than the Reps now !

Your stories are great OPTIC, and your comment here highlights that even now, 70yrs after the 50?s, we?ve not come the whole way yet and there are morons determined to stay in the swamp.

If not a sackable offence then it?s not treated seriously enough. How can you go about (while doing your job) and insult someone?s sexuality - bullying someone for being themselves - and not get sacked ?! Guy deserves a good kicking IMO.

snowy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tell me who just said this Keane: > > "There's no question - none - that President Trump > is practically and morally responsible for > provoking the events of the day." I think it was Mitch McConnell, leader of the senate Republicans. He (said he) voted not guilty because he thinks Trump shouldn?t have been impeached in the first place. Keano: ?Perhaps Nancy and her gang should now consider resigning?? Like you do when you?ve set-up a trial that found Trump 57-Guilty and 43-Not Guilty of inciting insurrection. The record stands, Trump is Guilty. Just the 2/3 required majority, which was not met, means he?s acquitted. Republicans scared to vote against Trump, immediately after the vote Don Jr announces we?re coming to get those 7 senators. Demonstrating the fear being justified. Disgusting.

Republicans should be ashamed of themselves, hiding behind ?law? and ignoring what Trump did. Oh well, they can?t deny they had the chance when this goes tits up.

I saved about ?362,783.28 over the last 12months on alcohol, based on me going into every pub on LL every night and ordering drinks for everyone in there, as a gesture of goodwill. I don?t actually do that, usually I just have a pint or two over the weekend, but still - the savings as you can see have been huge.

Yeah there?s a few roads in ED that are now main rat runs compared to previously, the problem?s just moved to other people?s streets since the LTNs.

Ha ha - TS is now the self-proclaimed spokesman for the forum members and locals he openly insults.

?...the government basically saying 'we dont trust the Britsh public to follow the rules we put in place if they've been drinking' ? To be fair, Cat, the Govt allowed pubs to open didn?t they ? And we had loads more infections. And they closed again. Perhaps the increase in infections was a coincidence, I don?t know. Either way I never understood why letting the population go to a hub to take a drug that increases their level of risk-taking, lowers their inhibitions and predictably causes more aggression and hospital intake was ever suggested during a pandemic - maybe it?s just me.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Honestly trolley....this is getting seriously > tedious now. You don't have to ruin every thread > on here....maybe just pick 1 or 2... > > In anycase, perhaps you should just leave us > middle class tw@ts alone to chatter amongst > ourselves, while you go off and do real things, in > the real world, with real people... Yeah but the intention is to insult as many people as possible. So picking just a couple of threads would spoil the intention.

Don?t waste time on this numpty. He?s not interested in those details, because it?s just about insulting an intended audience.

He doesn?t care who the food critic is, it?s whatever will insult the intended audience that matters.

Haha Johnl, perhaps that?s it !! 🤣