robbin

That was unlucky, but it's good advice. Having said that, it's not often that many animals are taken out of VCF. The weekend of the Lambeth Country Show is one - VCF has a large presence there, so that weekend will be one (21-22 July). The Dulwich Fair (or whatever it is called) at Dulwich Park has also seen a reasonable VCF animal presence in the past (not sure what VCF's presence will be this year).

And btw, a stranger aggressively shouting at someone in a park, in the manner described, may amount to a crime. Perhaps not a serious crime, but a crime nonetheless. If you think otherwise (i.e. that shouting is not, per se, capable of being a crime) then you are wrong.

dogdish Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...the way people who weren't there are piling in with > derogatory comments... ...I don't know what happened but for goodness sake please stop all > this mindless condemnation and apply some emotional intelligence. See the irony in what you just said there, dogdish?

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > its a meeting of minds on here. Huh?

... oh, and maybe not the best skiing destination if you are gay! Each to their own though - some people are not bothered by discrimination, or would have no difficulty in economically supporting it through tourism - being able to rationalise it as just a 'cultural' thing or by pointing out that there are other countries also in the dark ages from a social or human rights perspective. Btw Malumbu, I'm not sure I understand your first two sentences. If you mean, didn't we vote for inequality between genders, discrimination against LGBT people, etc. the answer is 'no' (unless there has been some weird election I didn't notice was going on)!

Hmmm, I see that article is written by a man, so to add some balance (some of the things he didn't mention)... let's not forget worryingly segregated ski lifts (no mixing with your wife or girlfriend), worryingly alcohol free apr?s ski (and worryingly quiet - music and dancing both being prohibited) and worryingly unequal treatment of the men and women in your ski party (women are not permitted to ski unless accompanied by their father, brother or husband). All good if that's not a problem for you. However, if you like the conventional apr?s ski beer, or your wife or girlfriend have a thing about being treated equally, you may want to factor those issues into your decision on destination.

I can't believe it took someone so long to make the predictable crass comment on this thread! I've never owned or driven an Audi, but I can't say I can see anything particularly objectionable about them or how they are driven. Is your objection to them based on the fact they are German?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Cardelia Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > JohnL Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > I absolutely detested the way my last vote > > for > > > > Labour was used by Theresa May as an > > endorsement > > > > of Brexit - disgusting. > > > > > > Well, what do you expect when you vote for a > > party > > > that backs Brexit? > > > > > > I understand that not everyone who voted for > > > Labour wanted to leave the EU. But if you > felt > > > that strongly about Brexit, why did you vote > for > > a > > > party which was committed to leaving the EU? > > > > Exactly. As per the point I made earlier, the > > Brexiters are making their vote count. Leavers > > are still voting all over the shop - and some > of > > them are voting Labour, which is, essentially, > a > > vote for Brexit. Especially as their leader is > a > > committed Brexiter and always has been. > > Well my original plan was cause chaos, get rid of > May and avert catastrophe by the skin of our teeth > as public opinion changed. > > There's a vote on the single market in the Lords > today - with the Labour front bench abstaining. > Might still pass - but I don't want us to be in > the single market and customs union - I want us to > be back in and leading the EU. That makes it sound like you are living in some sort of na?ve fantasy world. As if we were ever "leading the EU" to begin with!

Fair point!

VCF is a fantastic place - maybe it's an over-used term, but I think it truly is a hidden gem. The music nights are quite a new innovation, but so far have been very well attended and I've heard a lot of good feedback about them. On a sunny day there are few better places to take children to have fun and to meet (and learn about) the animals, learn about food etc. at the same time. It's free entry too (although donations are always welcome).

Reg Smeeton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In April the number of properties for sale in SE22 > on Rightmove was 220. It's now just over 300. > Supply is going up and/or demand going down. My > prediction in April was that prices would be 10% > below their peak by this autumn (peak having been > reached around Jan/Feb this year), and I'm > sticking to it. In other words, a place that would > have gone for ?1m at the start of 2016, will soon > 'only' be going for ?900k. Out of interest - Zoopla is telling me our house has risen in value by 8.1% since your prediction of a 10% fall 2 years ago.

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5 > ,1931142 > > Mental > > is this just off the cuff throwaway term based on > generations of hand me down tropes or worse? Slow news day? Nothing any good on daytime tv and Sky Plus is busted?

I've pm'd you my card details and PIN.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so I guess the answer to the question, robbin, is > No, you haven't tried silk bedding. Wrong guess. I have - didn't much care for it - too slippy and not comfortable enough. Good quality white linen (the sort you get in a nice hotel) is my preference - crisp, but soft, comfortable, neither hot nor cold - worth spending extra money on, I think - after all you spend an awful lot of time next to your bed linen.

No. They are local elections.

Ha ha! - be my guest Louisa!

It's unlikely to make any material difference.

Louisa wrote... "The practicality wares off and it can give terrible chaffing in summer..." "I discovered the luxury bedding range at primark..." Cool - something for my child's English lesson tomorrow - two spelling errors and an oxymoron in the same posting - discuss!

Agreed! I too experienced the Cold War and recall being terrified as a kid at some of it. It generally pays not to watch the news - which is a problem if you're addicted to it like I am! I'm very suspicious of the whole thing - TM just wants to keep in with POTUS (no bad thing up to a point) but I wouldn't be at all surprised if some bunch of desperate religious zealots on the verge of defeat set off chlorine gas themselves, with the hope of getting someone to intervene and come to their rescue. But then it is at least as likely it was the regime. Either way, for the reasons I have already mentioned I can't agree its a good idea to intervene with token bombing.

I remain of the view that any attack would just be for PR. It will have no military value. It would also be the height of hypocrisy to take action just because a different form of killing has been used on a relatively very small number of people, while doing nothing when hundreds of thousands are killed, but just in a different way.

JL wrote: "...if Putin decides to shoot more it?ll be those he uses to hit ships..." How do you sleep at night JL?!! No matter what some of the excesses of tabloid click-bait hysteria, or propaganda may suggest, I really don't think Putin's some sort of crazed maniac who is going to suddenly start 'hitting' US warships, killing hundreds. He's very clever and calculating and that sort of conduct would be completely out of character and different to his past record. I very much doubt he would see anything good for him or Russia coming from a massively disproportionate escalation. There's escalation and then just pure insanity and I don't think he's got some sort of wish to self-destruct - even if it's mutual destruction. We are talking about Syrian regime casualties (which he won't give a t*ss about) or at worst a few Russian casualties (a large number - up to 200 or so were already reportedly killed by US and allied air strikes in Syria in February and that didn't trigger WW3). If we are talking 'defensive retaliation' it's more like an aircraft or two getting shot down - not some full scale assault on US forces. Also, the reason Russia started supporting Assad in the first place was to protect their naval base at Tartus - because it is their ONLY facility in the entire Mediterranean. They don't have forces in the area capable of dealing with a sustained NATO response (which comparatively has huge forces in the entire area surrounding Syria. NATO would, of course be obliged to respond to such an attack on its own member's forces. I sincerely hope I'm not wrong, but I don't think you need get too worked up just yet. I can say all this confidently without fear of embarrassment, because if I do turn out to be wrong, posting this on EDF will be the least of my worries!

I'm sure that's right. We're not in a position to know how many (if any) missiles were shot down. It appears a fair few got through though (but that said - who ever really knows? The Israelis were keeping very quiet about even being involved.

JL wrote: "while the Russians have dispersed their air > units to a variety of locations so that America > can?t target them" Oh, I see - I didn't understand you to be saying (as you did since) that they are intermingling them - I read that as saying they were moving Russian assets AWAY from possible government regime targets. Anyway, the reports I have been reading suggest the Russians have moved their stuff away from regime targets, not right next to them or intermingled with them - that would be contrary to what they did last time. I doubt they are doing that, but then maybe the reports you have read are right and the others wrong. JL wrote: "I?d disagree over the idea that Russia would be outgunned. They have the S400 air defence system deployed in Syria, and if they want they can deny airspace out across part of the Mediterranean; the S400 is pretty much the best SAM system in the world, and the Russians are very capable operators of it. Add to that their cruise missile abilities, and I?d say they would give as good as they got." Well, in terms of air and naval forces in the region there's no comparison at all. As for the S400 its an air defence system - not offensive. Its supposed to be good and I'm sure it's effective (the Daily Mail was getting all excited about it the other day!) but the Israelis hit a Syrian air base pretty hard last week and weren't affected by it - they (and the US) can hit any place in Syria without having to even fly into Syrian airspace (the Israelis fired their missiles from over Lebanon). As for cruise missiles, sure Russia has them but where are they going to fire those to? They are not going to challenge any US air attack, surely. I agree the danger is something happening by mistake, but I do think there's a lot of overblown tabloid hysteria (partly fed by bellicose propaganda from Russia about 'hitting back' when in reality how they would do that (or why) remains a bit of a mystery. Seriously, what does Russia care about some dead Syrian conscripts and a few blown up buildings in desert air bases, so long as they don't themselves suffer casualties? Personally, I don't think the US should do anything, but that's on the basis I just don't think it would make a jot of difference and its not as if the Syrian regime are continuing to gas tens of thousands. They are, however, continuing to kill tens of thousands by conventional means and that's not going to stop because of a few missile strikes. I think the risk (even if limited) of a mistake or something else sparking wider conflict is not worth taking because there is nothing positive that might come out of it. If air strikes might change anything I may take a different view.

'Gypsies' - I think is what the post above was referring to. That's the term the Guardian article used.