TheCat

Not a campaign group, but a political party...haha...look who's 'nit-picking' now.... In anycase, you've managed to build your strawman about my support or other wise of women's equality issues, and have totally ignored the specific issue I raised, likely because you've no decent response....happy to hear otherwise if you've something to add on the actual issue I raised...

So I criticise this party on one specific issue, and that must make me 'not supportive' of women and women's issues? Are women 'doing things for themselves' immune from any criticism of their actions? This is often the case with many campaign groups, that they shutdown any debate or opportunity to appeal to a broader audience by painting any criticism or disagreement as being anti-whatever the group stands for. (In this case anti-women) The only depressing thing here is the predictability of your response.

So, the new leader of the Women's Equality Party makes the claim that their candidate list is the MOST DIVERSE of all political parties....how can they say this with a straight face when there isn't one candidate representative of half the population? I understand their reason for being, and don't doubt they do good work raising awareness of issues that affect women. But, we are constantly being told that more diverse workplaces, politics etc etc will make us more successful and more productive due to the kaleidescope of different experiences and ideas it brings.....sounds great...funny though that diversity in membership,management team and candidates selection is clearly not really that important for a party that like to claim it as one of their key goals.... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/27/mandu-reid-womens-equality-party-first-black-leader-proud-daunted

If there's one thing south london needs, its more super drugs.....

Sorry to hear that. Especially upsetting with all your family kit in the car. Just one question...how do you know there were no signs of forced entry if the car hasn't turned up yet? you mean there was no shattered glass around where it was parked?

I often bang on about the lack of nuance in public debate these days, and the lack of any middle ground. I.e. if I voted tory it must mean that I love all of their policies, including fox hunting, and laughing at poor people. I often ask people to name one policy from the 'other side' (No matter your 'side'), that they appreciate. And also name one politician you like from the other side. If a person can't do that, then I think that they are not objectively assessing the political landscape.... So....I did indeed vote tory in 2017...but I like labours policy to reinstate the lower small-business corporation tax rate. I also quite like David lammy and dianne abbott....no just kidding....only David lammy..... Anyone else?

This looks nice.....

lavender27 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you feel like a complete shit when you see > people sleeping on the streets in doorways and all > you can think of is where to get your craft butter > to spread on your "artisan" ******* bread. 1p from every tub of craft butter sold at my local organic, gluten free farmers market stall, goes to help weave new sleeping bags out of leftover artisan loaves for the homeless to use. so I feel good.

Bob Buzzard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I really want some craft butter - are the butters > in the General Store and Mons crafted or > manufactured butters? I think the major brand of hand churned butter available is called "Crafty Nutter"....but its only available from 100% plastic free vendors...so you have to take a scoop home in your hands....

Bob Buzzard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does the Chesse Block sell craft butter? I just > read an article in the Guardian about small > batches of craft butter which people spread on > artisan bread - it sounds lush - much nicer than > that President butter from Normandy. Sounds amazing...hopefully they do a vegan version too...

Gett is rubbish. I use MyTaxi all the time, its got better coverage than Gett, and many more cabbies signed up to MyTaxi than to gett. Occasionally, you can have trouble getting a cab quickly in Dulwich depending on the time of day, but Gett was considerably worse when I used it. MyTaxi is no not perfect, but def the best black cab app for mine

Jennys Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mikeb Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Interesting that Townley Road is not in the > zone. > > It is probably the local road most parked upon > by > > non-residents, particularly schoolkids in their > > Fiat 500s. > > > I thought from looking at the map that Townley > Road is included. Can anyone confirm one way or > the other. We live in Beauval Road and I am > assuming we will get the cars from the Health > Centre, dentist, and the staff and students from > Alleyn?s school. We're in Beauval as well. I think we are in for an absolute nightmare. Given the zone will almost surround us on 3 sides (i.e. goes all the up lordship lane parallel to Beauval, finishing at the junction with Barry Road). As you say, with Alleyns and the Townley Clinic, we already have enough non-residents parking on the road as it is. I expect they've just stopped at the ward boundary which runs along LL...But I feel a more 'natural' boundary as far as parking is concerned would be to take the whole scheme to the village intersection - i.e. so taking in Beauval, Dovercourt, Woodwarde, Dekker, Druce etc. Alternatively, perhaps Woodwarde road would make a better boundary, seeing Beauval, the lower part of Dovercourt, Townley and Calton all come into the zone. But I can pontificate until the cows come home, Southwark will do what Southwark want to do...

I have come very late to this party...and only now looked at the consultation properly. As a Beauval Road resident...which is NOT in the proposed zone by a whisker, all I can say is, if this proposal come is, our street is right on the frontline of the zone border, and is now f~cked....

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > I am saying that under the name of religion, there > are people who do great deeds of good. > Just as there are people who use religion to > permit their nasty views. Thats more than fair..if you do good deeds and want to cite religion as your reason, then good for you. But I think what many people are saying is that aggregating it all up over the history of people on this planet, many would argue that things being done in the name of 'religion' are clearly a net negative contributor on the good/bad deeds scale....

To the OP....I've always wondered why God needed to write down on paper his 'word'...why not just beam it straight into our heads, or have it pre-programmed into our psyche....but in anycase, you've obvioulsy not read the bible enought to know where the true immorality lies... As you'll see in this link, there are countless references in the bible decrying eating prawns and shellfish as a sin https://www.openbible.info/topics/eating_shrimp SO let the gays be gay, its the people dining down at Moxons this weekend who are the true sinners.....

I ordered my toddler son a 'babylager' the other day....got some funny looks...probably because he was smoking a 'babyfag' at the time too...and shouting to the whole pub how the influx of new babies in the last 6 months have ruined the area, and how its not like it was back in the good old days in 2016 when babies could leave their prams unlocked...

RobWD Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >I?m all for anything that will keep a child occupied while I enjoy a > coffee.... Rob, you could of course just choose to get yourself one of those now ubiquitous ?5 pints, therefore keeping yourself occupied instead of the child....

Id be keen to see Louisa's reaction to this thread.... ..and not the new and improved 'Loutwo'...proper old school Louisa....

As an Australian and a rock fan....I have always had a special affinity for Bon Scott (the original lead singer of AC/DC when they first 'broke through' for those not aware) Next week (19th Feb) marks the 39th Anniversary of his Death, which I've only just learned was in East Dulwich...in a car outside 67 Overhill Road... A sad day to reflect on for his family/friends and AC/DC fans...while also a notable link for East Dulwich with a rock and Roll Hall of Famer... Any other historic ED rock linkages forumites are aware of?

The fancy new signage, im pretty sure, says something about NHS patients. I must say, I don't understand why it must be branded as such....if you're a dentist...call yourself a dentist...

Diable... "advocating the so-called positives of No Deal" I don't ever recall having done that. I think a few weeks ago I asked the question of what people though would be the impact of no deal, as I have been trying to understand better what the impacts might be. I don't ever recall 'advocating' the benefits of no deal. Perhaps you're referring to me saying that 'leaving' would likely see short term disruption, perhaps even recession, and at the time of the vote I feltthat was a risk worth taking...yes I said that, but not specifically about no deal, which is whole other ketlle of fish. In anycase, on the questioning in any second referendum. I don't have a strong view. That's was my off the cuff thoughts. You asked (after politley putting your hand up:)) and I answered. But unlike some other topics we've discused on here I haven't really though about it enough to have a strong view to be honest.

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cat - Thanks for the reply. A few quick thoughts: > > Fair points. I think my own 'mea culpa' is that I totally misjudged the post vote division. So the detailed discussion/informed public debate which we needed to have to get to that plan that you originally asked me about didn't happen. So hands up on that one. Outside of that, I generally stick by my reasons at the time, but certainly take onbaord the comment that as a relatively comfortable, middle class dulwicher, I personally probably have more capacity to absorb a short term hit. It so perhaps my risk tolerance is higher by virtue of it not being as large of a risk. Impossible to be definitive on in anycase. I get your point about being a 'reasonable leaver' who probbaly got what he wanted on the back of some other leavers being extreme or poorly informed. But equally I know personally many people who voted remain purely and solely becuase 'im not a racist' ...so to me that's showing a similar (albeit significantly less distasteful) lack of knowledge of some of the key issues. We could argue till the cows come home about who benefitted more from ignorant voters...but it wouldn't achieve anything. That said, I do think that if some portions of the remain campaign/lobby had tried early-on after the vote to engage with 'reasonable' leavers, instead of dismissing everyone who voted Leave as 'ignorant leavers', then we may actualy be in a better position today than we find ourselves.

Thanks alex-!m but it's far too long for me to read... ..kidding.... I appreciate your responses, some of them are reasonable, some of them are just matters of opinion (I.e. I think 'criminally negligent' is a little of an exaggeration), some things I disagree as to how things will play out (I.e. I am a senior manager at a large investment bank, and if we are moving 25 percent of our staff, someone should probbaly have told me by now), some of them are not really addressing what I've said, but more what you think I said, or what other leavers have said (I.e. I have said repeatedly that I DO NOT want to reduce immigration,, i've also said that I don't think immigrants are a drain, so the repatriation clause is irrelevant to my arguement). But overall I do thank you and appreciate your now substantive comments. I think you are perhaps slightly dismissive about the idea of voting against something becuase one doesnt like it. What's wrong with that? There's plenty of people who've just 'moved to california' to make their fortune. Many pages ago on this thread, I spoke about personal risk tolerance, and was mocked for it, but I maintain that this plays a big part in what level on uncertainty one is prepared to wear. This is perhaps a key difference between you and I...as on the more rationale discusion, there are many things that we would likely agree on. Anyway. Bon weekend

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi TheCat. I take your point that the referendum > in 2016 didn't offer us the chance to get into the > detail of what the future might look like for the > UK, either in or out of the EU. I was wondering if > you thought, in retrospect, that it would have > been useful if that process had allowed more time > and space for that very thing (along with fuller > debate of all the issues)? See my mention above of > the 'peoples assemblies' they held in Ireland to > fully dive into the contentious debate over > abortion. Yep. Absolutely. In a number of my comments above I have bemoaned the terrible nature of both campaigns and their lack of ability to focus on what really mattered. It right from the start we descended into soundbites and mud-slinging...i'd optimistically hoped after the vote, we migh be able to assess those things with a more informed public debate, but thats never happened unfortunately.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > *Sticks hand up in the air* > > I'd like to ask Cat if he felt it wasn't possible > at the time of voting to have a detailed plan of > what Brexit entailed, does it now make sense to > have a second vote now that there is a detailed > plan?... Yes. It certainly does. But, in the interest of public harmony (which we have a distinct lack of already), I don't think it would be wise for one of the options to be..rescind article 50/remain (again not because I personally would cry if the result was reversed (remember i've said both options have their positives and negatives), but other leavers certainly would and I worry that a swing in the in vote would create significant social unrest - probably more than leaving). So it would probably be advisable to have a vote on options to Leave....ie may's deal, no deal or extend article 50....