robbin

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.

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