robbin

You see in my eyes that is more ill placed assumption and also, I'm afraid to say it is again somewhat patronising. I quite accept you are still fuming over the result as many are and that you may not have intended it that way, but it does seem to take a few things for granted. You say "whatever the ultimate outcome of the UK leaving the EU (which doubtless we'll be able to judge in 30 years time or so) there will be a period of economic uncertainty and upheaval that accompanies this process" as if you presume that the poor weak-minded Leave voting majority didn't appreciate that such a massive step would have adverse short term consequences as the economy was forced in some areas to re-balance and/or take a hit. Both sides lied. Cameron and Osborne and their supporters came out with absurd hyperbole and lies about dire immediate consequences (which have since been proved beyond doubt to have been way off the mark). Immediate emergency tax rises, emergency budget, housing crash, FTSE crash etc. etc. etc. Yet, you choose only to refer to one side's lies as if the poor simple Leave voters were duped. I believe that some of the lies from the Remain camp were patronising and seen as an insult to voters' intelligence and that turned many off voting to Remain. Could it possibly be that such Leave voters thought it couldn't be much worse than it is, or that they were prepared to take some short or medium term pain for their long term benefit and for the longer term benefit of their children? Or are they too simple to have engaged such thought processes? What you said above credits them with no intelligence at all, or at least presumes they believed there would be no fall out at all in the short term and I think that is fundamentally wrong and missing the point entirely.

With respect, that sounds both patronising and presumptuous in equal measure. It's the sort of privileged, sheltered liberal narrative that caused quite a number of non-Londoners to vote Leave, I think.

I won't! In the meantime, keep working on that sense of humour.

Maybe the dog had been reading some of your massive posts?

My bet is on the other side of it - in the disabled parking space! I await being criticised by the usual crowd for being cynical, prejudiced, etc, etc.

Anyway, back on topic, I'll be pleased when the environment of PR Common is cleaned up for the whole community to enjoy. Littering is a blight on the environment, as is fly tipping. I'm sure most people agree with that - even apologists for fly tippers would object if dumping took place in their back yard.

Yawn! There it is again!

I think my point has just been supported!

Well said Stephen Fry! I'm sick of the snowflake, hand-wringing, quick to accuse others of any sort of 'ism' they choose, generation. What's funny is that as you meet people in the real world in ED you hardly ever hear that sort of stuff, but on the EDF such accusations seem to be liberally (no pun intended) levelled at people, often in response to perfectly appropriate remarks. The anonymity of the keyboard sometimes seems to have the effect of encouraging the sanctimonious.

Yep. I take your point Lazero, but the crap appears mostly at the weekend and its almost always the sort of domestic stuff (sofas, crappy broken flat pack furniture, etc.) that people would dump to save moving it to their next place. I would be very surprised it if is the product of random dumping and not residents clearing out.

Posted by Lazero October 07, 03:07PM " Do you know for sure that it's the tenants of Greenview who are doing the dumping? If I lived there I wouldn't dump rubbish so close to my own home." It is obviously end of tenancy sh*te which they are dumping, so that's the answer to your point, I think. They don't live there any more.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, and unless they then take it with them it's > called fly tipping. Oh, it's fly tipping then. What a surprise! I didn't see that coming.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All schools have a system in place for the many > Children who cannot keep up with an institutional > Learning, for whatever reason the child has > difficulties. A different kind of teaching does > not reflect learning being neither behind or in > front, it is merely different. I can see where it > would be difficult for both teacher and pupil, > when child has been used to learning in a very > different way. It just seems a shame our > education > system make it hard to recognise and welcome > instead of only seeing a problem. That sort of liberal handwringing is all very well, but it doesn't necessarily do any favours to the children concerned. In fact, it might well harm them. You end by suggesting that the system makes it "hard to recognise and welcome instead of only seeing a problem". I'm not sure what that assertion actually means and it appears to be your assumption that it is correct, but whatever be the case I don't quite understand what you suggest might be a solution? Are you just saying wouldn't it be nice and better if things were better and nicer?

Yes, that's obviously what he is saying isn't it? If its a problem that can be addressed it certainly should be.

Yes, and unless they then take it with them it's called fly tipping.

Jennys Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Louisa Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I guess if you don't live in the immediate > streets > > surrounding this new store it's not a problem. > As > > long as you get your hands on some overpriced > > ready meals. > > > > I went in earlier (on foot) to buy butter, > their > > basic variety was 1.30, walked back home jumped > in > > car and drove to Lidl in Penge and paid 79p for > > same size. I'll be buying my wine from marks > from > > now on though. When I can be bothered to walk. > > > > Louisa. > > How much did the petrol cost to Penge and back? > What about pollution from an unnecessary car > journey? And did the butter taste good? Price of > an item isn't the only consideration, important > though it is. I'm having a quiet day today so - fair questions - would it be a worthwhile exercise to drive to Penge to try to save 51p on butter? Let's ignore the obvious environmental issues and stick to some easily calculable facts to objectively assess this (it was after all the price of the butter that was relied upon as the reason for driving to Lidl in Penge). To be fair it was never suggested that was good time management, or environmentally responsible. Assume the journey is made in a new, very economical small car that does a good urban 80 mpg/17.6 miles per litre Assume also that the drive was only 4.1 miles each way (the shortest route) to High Street Penge from (say) The Actress pub in Northcross Road - that's 8.2 miles round trip. Assume a good deal on unleaded petrol to put in the small economy car - ?1.09.9 per litre (cheapest supermarket price today). Assume no wear and tear, no parking charges, no allocation of the fixed costs of owning the car - no other costs at all. Based on those most generous of assumptions, the trip of at least 38 minutes driving time to get the 'cheaper' butter (in order to 'save' 51p) cost no less than 51.2p. In reality it probably cost significantly more. I suppose on this occasion at least the multi-national oil company and the petrol retailing chain benefitted from the price of the M&S butter!

I live in hope that this isn't going to trigger the usual nimby comments (lorry parking, customers all over the place, noise of people walking in the shop, people laughing, whistling after sundown etc. etc.)! All accompanied with a healthy dose of faux indignation - it's not like it used to be, its only for the rich, its all in the worst possible taste, it'll never succeed... what? they've sold out already? that first week was a blip/their stock management is woeful.. blah blah blah... I suppose the silver lining might be that at least the M&S thread might go quiet for a while!

1/10

"Iceland" "Mandate" "National conversation" "could of" (as opposed to the grammatically correct "could have").

"They have no mandate at all as to what leave means." Ah, silly me. I thought 'leave' meant to leave! I should have read the ballot paper as asking do you want to (1) stay; or (2) leave (whatever that means - we don't know)! "Democracy is mob rule, at its most extreme." - Oh, well you'll forgive me if I don't take your opinion too seriously then!

Wow - there some real apologists on here!

Anyway, you'll no doubt be glad to know I have to go back to work now so won't be on here for a bit. Try not to get too stressed by the news reports. It's not worth it.

What are you complaining about then! You are quids in! You really should properly read posts before getting snippy. You definitely should read them before repeating the same bad point. In the post you erroneously (again) refer to, I actually said: "...7 days ago (i.e. before the vote) the FTSE 100 opened at 6021. This morning it opened at 6049. 28 points higher than a week ago, so it was up on the week of the Brexit vote, not down. Yes it went down on Thursday as speculators cashed in (in fact I did ok on some short positions - in a very moderate way) and profits were taken from the FTSE's earlier inflated position, but really - they are markets - what do you think they are!! You can't look at one day's fall (actually, in this instance a few hours in one day) and start running around..." You see what I said there?? Not what you say I said!

"Mandate, mandate, mandate..." What good is a 'mandate' if its just a mandate from a tiny selection of your overall 'target market' and the vast majority would want nothing to do with you?!! It's just a word. If you just want to meet with your friends in your little club in the village hall and to agree with each other about what could be better in the world, then that's fine - no problem. But if your club wants to have some actual influence outside the village hall it's an insanely blinkered response just to say a few people like me and gave me a 'mandate'. Its like creating a club and making a rule that just your mum and your friends are allowed to decide who the leader is. You might get to be leader, but that doesn't mean the rest of the country might choose you and your club to lead them. Your mum and your friends' views might not represent the views of the wider public, no matter how nice or great your mum thinks you are.

I think that would be such a shame if it does. This country needs a credible opposition. It would not be good for the governing party never to be challenged or held to account. The idea that Corbyn and his followers could ever form some sort of a party that could be elected, seems to me to be so far into cloud cuckoo land as to have disappeared over the horizon.