JohnL

Complain online... https://communications-crm.custhelp.com/

MissKing Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fox tons is opening on Rye Lane in Peckham! How long before it gets vandalised/tagged

Govia are going to change the timetables You just know that this is some plan to run less trains whatever they say. edit: and 0.9m to buy alarm clocks for oversleeping staff

I know it's inconsistent, but we just have to make a decision I suppose. I have headphones on half the time so it's pretty obvious where the phone is, it's pointless having technology if you're afraid to use it because of some scumbags. Hope someone steals their mopeds.

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We are frequently told not to use phones in the > street to avoid having them stolen. But TFL is removing bus times as we can use our phones Anyway no one will try it with me - too loud and grumpy :) Edit: meaning I've never even had anyone try and I'm always out maybe my (mis)demeanour so I've made my own risk assessment

Those are worth something now I think.

I feel for Hillary then. LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is exactly my point. In the US, its exactly > the same. I'm not sure there is a human being > capable of what could be universally acclaimed as > good leadership. There are extremely tough > choices to be made in politics and no crystal > ball. The hubris it takes to even think you are > capable of running a country like the US or the UK > explains why these guys are all somewhat unhinged. > It takes a deluded level of self confidence to > make these kinds of calls and decisions. I can > pontificate on my keyboard but in real life the > weight of it would give me heart attack. Do you > see how old every US president looks by the end of > the 8 year tenures? Its like the picture of > Dorian Grey! >

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Evidence is that > > grammar schools are bad for social mobility and > > bring overall attainment down. > > A few things. Firstly - that's not evidence, > that's an assertion. Secondly, if you look at the > painstakingly non-partisan Full Fact summary you > linked to, they're careful to refer to the > "current" and "existing" grammar system. (What > happens when a lot more grammar places free up? > What shape will the new grammars take?) Thirdly - > the conclusion they draw is very qualified, it's > really not that black and white - it includes > words like "slightly" and "marginally" in front of > "worse" or "better". (I mean, why are the > comprehensives in Kent worse than in other areas?) > Finally - social mobility is a generally good > idea, but it's only one aspect of what education > is about. But the general perception about schools (I maybe wrong) is that most people pass and most people pass well and then most people go on to university. Most parents now care about there children's education. On the old criteria almost everybody should go to grammar. In my day (1980s) 50% passed no matter what the marks were and there was a large swathe of children who didn't care about qualifications (only half in my year were in the 'O' level stream - the rest did CSE or nothing). Times have changed.

I think Osborne will just be forgotten (Sometimes I almost liked him but not quite - why would a sensible man do the below) http://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2015/oct/07/who-told I get the feeling Cameron's reputation will be trashed. Edit: actually thinking of it - they were a bunch of d**kheads :)

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Exactly rahrah-- as long as there is still a > deficit the debt will continue to go up. Only a > surplus position can reverse that. > A country can run a deficit and inflate/grow it's way out of debt IIRC. %GDP is the correct measure I think. Edit: this website shows it's actually leveling out now. http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't know OZ, but what I find different about > US class and UK class is that in the UK you can > have relatively very little money and still be > seen as being middle or upper class. Class here > is more than your specific financial circumstances > and money alone doesn't allow you to move between > classes quite as fluidly as would be the case in > the US. Also, in the US ordinary people careless > about it. I doubt if even 10% of people in the US > outside of the northeast could even name any of > the ultra prestigious boarding schools that are > feeders to the Ivy League in the same way Eton etc > are for Oxbridge. People just don't care about > the upper classes in the same way. I judge middle class as when you want your son/daughter to go to University. Nobody younger than me distinguishes University, Polytechnic and Institute of Higher Education - but my mother would have looked down on the latter 2 when I was growing up - I saw her as much more middle class than my dad, born in Neath.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Aristide, but without room at the top, its > impossible to have social mobility unless some of > those at the top fall down a level socially, which > I'm not sure happened even in the 50s. Could new areas emerge - allowing more room at the top ?

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Over 120 Conservative MPs said they were voting > leave and at least 10 Labour ones including Kate > Hoey, Frank Skinner and Frank Field,- hopefully > representing the views of their constituents > rather than toeing the party line which is what > Labour politicians do all the time. > The more some of us found out about the ridiculous > goings on in the EU the more likely we were to > vote leave. > This article summed it up for me > http://labour-uncut.co.uk/tag/lucy-ashton/ But "MPs are governed by *** their determination *** of the best interests of their constituency, their party and the country as a whole." http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/mps-and-political-artiesp

Cassius Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I did feel that Dave and Sam would be quite nice > to go out for a drink with - something that I > certainly wouldn't say about Tony and Cherie (who > would no doubt not pay their round either) - but > Prime Minister material??? Tony would charge you for drinking with him.

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree entirely with rahrahrah. I'm sure Dave is > pleasant. But he's also a foolish lightweight. Not > good enough when you're trying to run a country. But before him as Tory leader we had Howard IDS Hague The first two were strange and I'm not at all sure about the third :)

Buying ice cubes is one of the best things of the 21st century. The nightmare of getting ice from the freezer in the 70s/80s will come back with Brexit I suppose.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Could it be the change from 16:10 to 16:9 ? > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:10 > > > > Your new one would be smaller diagonally then > I'd > > think. > > I don't know but I'm talking about a laptop > screen. > > I no longer use a freestanding monitor, they take > up too much room on my desk! > > And the diagonals if both the old and the new ones > are more or less identical, presumably because the > extra on the horizontal side has compensated for > the reduction on the vertical side. I think laptop screen dimensions have changed too. http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2013-02/lets-get-rid-169-laptops-forever This guy wanted to bring back squarer screens in 2013 - nobody cared :) But seems the dimensions are mainly for video.

Could it be the change from 16:10 to 16:9 ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:10 Your new one would be smaller diagonally then I'd think. (a 19" 16:9 will be shorter than a 19" 16:10)

Yes - they went widescreen about 5 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widescreen "..according to Samsung that the "Demand for the old 'Square monitors' has decreased rapidly over the last couple of years," and "I predict that by the end of 2011, production on all 4:3 or similar panels will be halted due to a lack of demand." "

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Since then Peckham has completed its arrival, > Forest Hill is now something first-time buyers can > only dream of and I'm told Deptford is pretty > happening now. Haven't been to see for myself, > obviously. > > I would say that the South Bank is now no longer > worth visiting unless you love crowds and eating > overpriced food standing up. I was in The Anchor last night and it was just me and the bouncer inside :)

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jenny1 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'd be careful about giving too much attention > to > > this announcement (vital though education > policy > > is). I suspect the government is keen to > distract > > us from their lack of post-EU planning. > > That and Keith Vaz He's Labour (cough)

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but that's how it worked in the past - there's a > vast difference between saying schools can choose > to become selective grammar schools and "from 2017 > alll schools will be become Grammar Schools or > Secondary Moderns" as always most opposition to > change in Education comes from the deeply small > 'c' conservative Public Sector unions and the > regressive elements of the left (ie most of it). My Dad failed 11+ and went to technical college then first in our family to get a degree (a degree was something then)

Maybe the Secondary Modern could get sponsorship of say a carpet manufacturer and compete with the Grammar. It would only take a few to show the way and throw the system into chaos.

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't entirely agree JohnL. My heart sank the > minute Ed Milliband won the leadership, rather > than his brother. EM is clearly more impressive > than Corbyn - but he never looked like great > leadership material to me. I know we are none of > us entirely uninfluenced by 'the media', but I > would regard my opinion as having pre-dated any > 'media judgement'. Maybe David would have been better - but I think he is better appreciated in the US (He's going to be working for Hillary ?). Anyway this link shows how far his values are from those who voted Brexit. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/david-miliband-wants-to-close-the-worlds-refugee-camps_uk_57370134e4b0f0f53e36389e Ed Balls was treated horribly I think - he is a very clever man.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The problem is that Corbyn seems to have cast some > magical spell on people who don't think polling, > or election results or performance at PMQs > matters. Who knows how they think Labour will win > the next election. That's what irritates me most. > The naval gazing and ignorant blind faith, and > there's no reasoning with them. Like you Rendel, I > had great hope for Corbyn, and voted for him. But > I also didn't know very much about him and can now > see what a disaster he is for the party. But as > you say, his ego is massive, and he is living in > the past. Well if the media had given some respect to Ed Milliband and Ed Balls maybe the ordinary members would think differently. Whoever is Labour leader will be made a laughing stock by the press. Edit: Did anyone notice how they treated Angela Eagle at that press conference - that would have continued if she had become leader.