robbin

No description?

Would you otherwise have left your valuables in the car?!

Is there not a Camberwell forum, where this might possibly be of some interest?

dimples Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There was an attempted abduction ! Was there? I suppose the nursery referred to above might be wrong.

I'm relieved to hear that there was no attempted abduction. I'm sure the police treated it seriously enough to satisfy themselves it was not a criminal matter. I'm sure it's not the sort of thing they do (or should) take lightly.

Any description of these three people? I cycle, walk and run up that way quite often and it would be good to have a general description, if only to rule out other sets of 3 people who may be hanging/walking about. As you say we should all be extra vigilant and aware, and it would help in that regard if we knew what in particular to be aware of. It would set alarm bells ringing if I saw people loitering who fitted a description of these three. I wouldn't rush off and call the police just on the basis of a description, but I might pay a bit more attention than normal (from a safe distance) to see if they were truly acting suspiciously. I hope your partner's doing ok now mitchcoker and that these people get caught very soon.

City won't win the CL, but otherwise I reckon that's worth a bet. By 'the bubble' I presume you mean the sneering metropolitan liberal 'elite'?

By significant, I mean in a range of 3-6 years imprisonment, with a starting point of 4 years (according to the 2016 Definitive Guideline from the Sentencing Council).

I agree the precise term doesn't change the awful nature of the crime, but the crime/offence is robbery and it would be charged under Section 8(1) of the Theft Act. Because the assailant was armed with a knife it is particularly serious and possession/use of offensive weapons charges would also follow, which would increase the sentencing on conviction. The maximum term for robbery is life imprisonment, although obviously nothing anywhere approaching that would be the sentence. Street robbery using an offensive weapon would normally carry a significant custodial sentence.

Better still get your phone out and make a video and send that to the School/Police?

To be fair they were pretty offensive!

Bitter, no doubt, but surely this bit of vitriol is more opinion than 'experience'? "They're TK Maxx cars - entry level for idiots who believe that a brand name says something about you (other than you're a d1ck)."

I like it - more of the same off-topic bigotry, but thinly disguised (by the first of five lines) as a serious and relevant post, in the apparent hope of avoiding The Administrator's 'amber warning indicator'!

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "...narcissistic, self important ignorant people... > Hmmm.

Just the 3 involving a bus. Two of him stood in front of a bus brandishing a 2 journeys for the price of 1 leaflet and one of him on a bus brandishing an Oyster card. You are correct about his Dad - as Sadiq explains in his Foreword to the brochure, his dad was indeed a bus driver in London.

I know! That's dedicated work-avoidance for you! In my defence I didn't start off counting until I got a few pages in and noticed I had seen Sadiq several times in different poses - Smiling Sadiq, Authoritative Sadiq, Concerned Sadiq, Happy Sadiq, Laughing Sadiq, In-charge Sadiq, etc. I do think he missed an opportunity though - no Holding a Baby Sadiq pic.

I do wonder whether the glossy (and obviously very expensive) brochure about London really needed 33 separate pictures of Sadiq Khan!

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you find that people are generally unpleasant > towards you? No. But then I'm pleased to say that in the real world neither do I come across people that deliberately try to pick an argument by setting up false constructs or by asking fatuous questions designed merely to provoke a response or to make a bad point.

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > no, it's not. > > >I thought there were more dodgy 'experts' trotted > out on the Remain side > > (probably because of the vested interests they > tend to have) > > Define vested interest (V) amounts as follows: > > RSCE - remain so-called experts V > LSCE - leave so-called experts V > RE - remain experts V > LE - leave experts V > R - remain opinion holders in general V > L - leave opinion holders in general V > > Are you saying: > RSCE > LSCE > RE > LE > R > L > > ...or something else? Sorry but that's complete nonsense! Your time would have been better spent reading my clear and simple wording than writing all that guff! To save you scrolling up - I said "I thought there were more dodgy 'experts' trotted out on the Remain side (probably because of the vested interests they tend to have). What part of that sentence don't you understand? You ask "who is 'they'?" Seriously?

Read it again - it's clear enough.

But for the avoidance of doubt there were experts on both sides and so-called experts and 'experts' in abundance too. I thought there were more dodgy 'experts' trotted out on the Remain side (probably because of the vested interests they tend to have) but that is nothing whatsoever to do with whether I favoured Remain or Leave - just my view. But to suggest (as you seem to) that I've taken a view against certain 'experts' because they were in favour of the Remain camp just underlines the fact that you have not read my post properly - had you done so it would have been pretty clear I voted to remain, otherwise I would not have said "I'm disappointed about the vote result"!

No. You are being deliberately obtuse. It doesn't help your argument to say stuff I never said and then try to knock it down! Your original point remains inapposite. Now so is your follow up.

I believe you have not read my post properly. If you had, you would have noticed that on occasions I used speech marks or the prefix 'so-called' and other times I did not - I simply referred to experts. If you take a bit more time to read it again, more carefully, you will see the distinction I was plainly making between experts and 'experts' or so-called experts. Indeed, that was the entire thrust of my post. So, your point is inapposite.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue > > Proofreading a flyer before going to print is no > guarantee that the printers will not cock it up. > > Most people here do not have the time to do the > job as you seem to of done. :) > > Having said that.. you failed to observe Bhaji > was spelt incorrectly several times as Bhajee. > > If you are going to do a job.. ? > > Foxy Nice use of irony in your comment on the subject of spelling and grammar!

I don't think some of the Leave tactics were any more (in fact were probably less - although that's hard to judge) dishonest than some of the Remain campaigners. As for 'experts' the dodgiest of the Remain campaigners were surely the architects of the push back against the views of so-called experts. I lost track of the number of 'experts' who were wheeled out to spout doom and gloom and/or to make thinly veiled accusations of racism or stupidity at anybody holding a different view to their own. Events have subsequently shown many of them to have been utterly wrong, so that speaks for itself doesn't it? Often when you looked to see what the so-called experts' backgrounds were they often had vested interests. They were not independent experts like you might normally expect to rely upon. I remember listening to one person on the radio feverishly making a point about how our legal system would be at risk of collapse and how human rights and workers rights would be abandoned almost overnight if there was a Leave vote. What he was saying seemed to me to be nonsense. He could have made some proper expert points in a valid and measured way (as you would normally expect an expert commentator to do) but instead he chose not to do that in favour of grossly exaggerating various points. At the end of his scare mongering I Googled him to find out he was a professor in European Law at a poly (or university as it is now called). He clearly had his own personal interests to consider when espousing his 'expert' opinion on what was essentially a political issue. A career as an EU lawyer may obviously be at risk of being somewhat curtailed in the event of a Leave vote, I thought. I therefore discounted his opinion rather than blindly accepting it. I too deprecate any dumbing down of debate. I also do think there is a place for proper expert opinion to be voiced and taken properly into account. The problem was we were terribly let down by Cameron and his cohort's campaigning tactics and their (and their metropolitan elite's) misjudging of the attitude and intelligence of vast swathes of the population. It seems some still harbour the view that the intelligence of the majority just was not up to the task. I'm afraid to me that just suggests those people still just don't 'get it'. I'm disappointed about the vote result, but it was no massive surprise (unless you live in London, it seems). I think the real people who are responsible are those that chose to underestimate the electorate and as a consequence to insult them. I think they still do.