numbers

love the Rib man too SJ - cannot believe he's got sauces that are hotter than Holy Fuck! I like my chillies but even I find that one a challenge at times...

mmmm it sounds delicious CC, your post is making me hungry (am already a fan of Andersons, lovely staff & great food) but as mick says, where's the pics to make us drool even more? :))

why would I compare the two to demonstrate fairness? simply because its not treating both equally. although of course I wouldn't throw mean spirited words someone's way because they are poor but to be honest, I wouldn't throw them someone's way because they were rich either. I wouldn't necessarily assume that just because someone's rich that 'their riches/goods/future was sorted/they were in clover' either. But yes I agree if you're poor it can indeed be a miserable daily grind. Don't even know why rich people should suffer a few people moaning about them being rich but yes, its not going to make their lives any harder. But they could still be miserable. And who knows what hard work and effort/sacrifice it took for them to get there in first place.

Sorry Mick Mac but I think if you've already had the jacket dry-cleaned then buying wax won't work. Dry cleaning seriously damages the waterproofing oils and they cannot be reproofed after that in my experience.

Okay I know this is about 'redistribution of wealth' as the title says and that its about 'fairness'. Am not taking sides either way but had to comment upon this: "How are high earners being treated unfairly? Why do I in particular support a different fairness for higher earners?" said by SJ. In my mind, this contradicts what's said above (also by SJ): "There is a perception that rich people are picked on simply for being rich, but I really don't think that is the case. Even if it was the case, they are rich, they'll get over it" That's an example of supporting a different fairness towards the rich isn't it? You might as easily say "they're poor, they'll get over it" then. If you're treating both groups equally. Although I guess you were meaning in relation to taxation as opposed to generally speaking.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don't really understand the original post... > > what's the argument? That tax for high earners > is > > too high? Or that there should be tax breaks > for > > people/businesses in certain situations? > > I didn't understand the original post either Thank god for Jeremy - I didn't understand the original post either (but didn't want to say as thought it was just me!) ;-)

There was a documentary on C4 this eve, Margaret Thatcher: Death of a Revolutionary. "Like North Korea without the hope" - Britain in the 70s. Sorry but it made me laugh. If you can avoid shouting at the screen when Polly Toynbee appears, barely able to disguise her contempt for the 'working classes' who wanted to get on in life. Learned quite a lot from watching this, I never fully used to understand her* appeal to the working classes if I'm honest. Even Neil Kinnock couldn't answer whether Britain was a better place before or after she came into power. Very interesting stuff. edit - Thatcher, not Toynbee.

woodrot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The world as I know it has ended. on bloody good for you. cheerio then.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure why so many people using this thread > (about potential new business) to have a pop at g > and b > > I miss it. Bag policy or no (and I fell fouls of > that more than once. I blamed myself not them tho > ) > > Anyway. To the new business. Best of luck to > whoever. am sure a lot of people posting here miss G&B strafer, it sold cracking wine not to found elsewhere. so not so much having a pop as realising others on here shared experiences in what they felt 'didn't work' from customer convenience perspective. now we've all seen its sad demise and people just hoping new owners don't make same mistakes & wishing them well of course.

1. Pickled onion anything esp space raiders/KP outer spacers/monster munch/discos 2. KP Worcestershire sauce 3. Spring onion squares 4. Salt n' vinegar chipsticks 5. Sour cream & chive discos 6. Golden Wonder hotdawg 7. Frazzles 8. Wotsits 9. Quavers 10. Golden Wonder Paprika skinny crinkle-cut

the Bonnington cafe at vauxhall is fantastic, its a veggie/vegan co-op with different chefs daily and lovely food even if you are an ardent meat lover. combined with delicious, reasonably priced menus its also a BYO so makes for an inexpensive eve. very relaxing and laidback place too. here's link http://www.bonningtoncafe.co.uk

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be fair, it sounds like they listened to the > feedback and started selling canvas bags... so > shouldn't hold it against them. good point (altho perhaps too little, too late. unless you were aware they'd started selling bags, there's already some lost custom not to mention negative feedback about it not to mention people who will happily spend 80 quid on decent wine but baulk at being asked to fork out more for a canvas bag to carry it home in!)

wtf is an 'overall wearing feminist' t-e-d? oh stereotyping. I see.

indiepanda Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If someone is spending ?80 on wine I think it > would be reasonable to give them a cheap canvas > bag. > > It's all very well having an environmental policy > but if it puts people off shopping with you it's > hardly good business. ^^ This! (esp for impulse buyers like me who don't always take their shopping bags out with them and/or who decide on spur of moment to pick something up later in eve on way home - that was my exact experience.)

Grace Dent nailed it: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/grace-dent-thatchers-children-we-may-be-but-these-death-parties-are-just-childish-8567288.html Pretty much bang on. (Except omission about all parties supporting phased removal of milk and no other party re-instating it when they had the opportunity.)

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > when we had the north sea oil money and > privatisation in full swing? > > Not so many. I know, I'm as surprised as you! > > We did have a big recession at the start and at > the end of her reign tho. So it wasn't all gravy > and prudence it was true that she did indeed squander the revenues from the North Sea oil & gas fields on the resulting 3 million unemployed (whether that figure was due to decimation of manufacturing base or not, I dunno). I think its really interesting to now have a constructive debate about politics and I'm glad to see young and older people having discussions. Despite (in my view) the narrow-mindedness of those celebrating/protesting/whatever in Brixton, Glasgow, Bristol I suppose it helps to remember the old adage of "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to do so". PS I concurred with what Huguenot said too. apart from last bit, like EP.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Its a simple point, "dont speak ill of the dead" > is a nonsense. Hitler was a complete @#$%&. There > I've done it, I've spoken ill of the dead. I feel > terrible. Yes Mick Mac I have grasped that its a simple point. I have spoken ill of the dead like you. I don't feel terrible. But thats not quite what I meant when in my poorly explained previous post. (to be fair, no-one understood me when trying to explain it IRL so perhaps I'm talking bollocks) what I'm trying to say is that all this "you mustn't speak ill of the dead" is being deliberately used by people who either wish to suppress criticism of Thatcher/Thatcherism or by those who are eager and delighted to boot the in no matter what 'the thought police' say. nah, I'm prob still not making sense. my head hurts.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich Squirrel Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > That's awful. Poor form indeed - don't speak > I'll > > of the dead. > > I have never understood that. Should we extend > that courtesy to everyone - What about Jimmy > Saville? you know I think this 'don't speak ill of the dead' thing is a red herring. People on both sides seem to be (deliberately) confusing this issue. there's a world of difference between discussing the impact of Thatcherism on the political landscape of the UK and how it has affected us all, whatever side of the fence you're on and then there's the vile glorification of her death. using your savile example, if the majority* of the public had been aware of his horrific crimes when he was alive they'd have been in a position to do something/protest about it. those people who were alive at the time when Thatcher was in power, or indeed those who weren't but subsequently feel they've been adversely affected (or not) by it are able to do something about it. as I think rosieh alluded to, why not focus as much effort in ousting the current lot from power. *majority because some people apparently knew what he was up to.

it would hardly be an Ottolenghi if there's any truth in the 'modern english restaurant' rumour. I can see it now....'The East Dulwich Chop House' 'The East Dulwich Oyster Bar & Grill' 'ED Brasserie/Bistro/Kitchen+whatever' etc etc. Complete with quintessentially english, no-nonsense menu of faggots, game, ox cheeks, rhubarb jelly & crumble.

edit - you tube is great for these downfall spoofs, so I'm told. great thread btw.

soon, El Pibe, soon. (actually just realised I really *am* Brian, oh my god)

when I first moved to the big bright lights of this majestic city, I remember my astonishment at seeing a bloke on the tube (hammersmith & city line, if you must know), carelessly discarding pistachio shells all over the adjacent seats and floor of the carriage as he nonchalantly popped each nut into his mouth one by one. Fucker. now its more, give me pistachio shells over stinky fast food wrappers any day of the week. ps applying lipstick is of course, fine. mascara, not so.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ah, pity. Mick would have loved the Bell Tower. :))

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > numbers Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Agree with jah. Loada bollocks and bollocks to > it > > all. > > > > Cringing when I see people post their category > on > > Facebook. Only the British eh! > > Xxxxx > > Ah come on numbers, it's just a bit of fun. > > Like what Family Guy character you come out of a > quiz as (Damn. I wasn't Brian :)). ) :)) I know its only a bit of fun Sue, obviously I *am* Brian, not sure I can talk about Shakespeare at length tho ;-) to prove it here's my FG quiz result: "You are Brian Griffin! Intelligent, well spoken, and...a dog. Literally. Your humor is somewhat dry at times but then again so are your martini's. Your half dog/half human characteristics make you infinitely interesting. Who else do you know who can talk about Shakespeare yet also lick his own b ..."

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why not just put one of these into the fireplace > and have done with it? > > http://www-4.plumbworld.co.uk/single-panel-single- > convector-600mm-00022949M.jpg *bob* you are priceless. Burst out laughing at that on the train!