Blah Blah

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I feel privileged that you all feel you can use me to virtue signal at length about something most of you have NO first hand experience of- well, watch this if you dare....and watch 3 Girls....and it is all true. > And who broke the story on '3 girls'? It wasn't Tommy Robinson was it? It was a real investigative journalist called Andrew Norfolk. Stop swallowing the cool aid of the far right Uncleglen. And better still, stop posting it here.

This has always been the MO of the far right. They want class war, street brawls, anarchy. For a brief spell, Tommy Robinson deluded himself he could get elected to the EU Parliament, and then played the victim when it didn't happen. And all of them, from him to Hatey Hopkins, are now being funded by alt and far right American Islamaphobic organisations and lauded by the likes of nutjobs like Alex Jones and Ezra Levant, who wouldn't know honest journalism if it hit them in the face. Tommy has that defamation case to look forward to when he gets out as well. Costly business being a rabble rousing liar.

And just to add that anyone in central London today, around Westminster would have seen what despicable thugs follow the likes of Tommy Robinson. Up to 200 hooligans attacked the remain protesters outside Parliament and the press at College Green. These are not people who believe in freedom of speech or difference of opinion. They are boot boys who beat the crap out of anyone with a different view. So Uncleglen, you can go do one with your defence of a rabble rousing thug who today, got just what he has been asking for.

Tommy Robinson, or rather Stephen Yaxley-Lennon hasn't merely highlighted the activities of certain muslims. He has led a crusade to bait gullible hooligans to hate ALL muslims. He does not care about the victims of CSA. He has used them to fuel his real agenda which is a crusade against an entire religion. And yes, why is the vile apologism of Uncleglen still here?

No it isn't.

Can't be a serious post surely? What genuine cat owner would ever take their cats to a public park on a leash? Very bad idea though if serious. Cats are not dogs and become stressed out by unfamiliar environments.

Exactly that. He was prosecuted under his real name, just as he always is. That is why they report it.

As Mrs S says, you will find that your smoke and fire alarm systems have to be mains operated with battery back up in order to pass that required certificate. So you will need an electrician to carry out that work.

snoopy17 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's the street behind the tennis courts in > Brunswick park not very fancy, its the worst road > for potholes especially if your on a bike. Can't > believe I live 1 minute away from him without > seeing him. Is it his flat or his fancy woman's? It is her flat I believe (hence her telling him to get out).

There is a precedent on this. A case where a driver killed a cyclist he did not see under the same weather and invisibility conditions. The driver was judged not to blame. I will see if I can find the case.

From sweets to crack - geez - only on EDF. Who cares what the decor is like? If you want specific sweets, you are going to find them here probably. Be nice people.

No it wouldn't. You don't get fined for being in the wrong lane.

He seems quite clear it was for making a left turn, but yes, let us know what happens. A left turn there is allowed and always has been.

dresswaves Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That doesn't make sense. The only banned left turn > is travelling south on Peckham Rye, you can't turn > left towards Nunhead. And that's a red no left > turn sign & road markings. This is correct. I use that junction every day and this is the only place to my knowledge that such a ticket would be issued. But the OP was not on PR, not traveling south, not turning left toward Nunhead.So it makes no sense. They have made a mistake. Appeal it. It would only take a 5 min movie clip of the junction to show you are right.

Must be a mistake. Left turn is allowed off East Dulwich Road at that junction, in both directions.

These types of muggers are always looking for things they can snatch easily, so while it shouldn't have to be that way, the usual common sense about bags and phones is advisable.

Yet more sanctimonious crap from Sue. She's been getting into infantile rows with people for thirteen years apparently.

So still no hard evidence Davis? You know, the hard evidence YOU claimed you had, but, just as you have elsewhere, deflecting instead of producing it. And yes, I would tell you to your face that you are engaging in fairy tales over real science because that is just about the crux of it when you claim to have science that you don't. Look at how you started your engagement with me. By citing 'errors' but not bothering to address a single one of those supposed errors. You were condescending, lazy and rude. I offered to discuss the hard science with you and you refused, with some protracted waffle that it was beyond the scope of the discussion (again condescending and rude). Well fairy tales are beyond the scope of scientific discussion aren't they? So, are you going to provide hard science that a creator exists (your claim remember) or not? (you can admit you made that up) My explanation of evolution is based on hard science (a universally accepted understanding validated by people far cleverer than you or I), but you don't want to have that conversation, and not willing to have that conversation, then have the nerve to say that I have offered no explanation of why I believe the science. It seems Cardelia has taken the time to explain some physics to you. I hope you will give her and the science more respect than you seem to have for the science around evolution.

I agree with all of that TE44, but you see, our little friend here, made a claim, that he can not back up. At the same time, he is dismissing very advanced and complex science (a level of complexity he does not want to discuss btw), because he does not understand it, for some simplistic armchair logic that he thinks disproves Evolution. So let me see. Well funded genome research with tons of academic papers readily available. Mechanical biological developments with tons of academic papers readily available, or Davis and his armchair theories, with no academic research available. I wonder which I should believe. See the problem? And also just to add, note how he also seeks to control the narrative. He only wants to have a discussion within the frame he creates. Start getting into real science with him and he can not cope.

I will use scientific language if necessary, because it reflects the depth of my scientific knowledge. If you can't cope with it, then I suggest you don't get into debates on things you are not knowledgeable enough on (I note you using well worn lines paraded out by creationists all the time though). I also suggest you cease dismissing science you do not understand, while pushing fairy tales, and trying to sound clever with playground logic. You made a claim that a creator exists and you have hard science to prove it, so, academic papers please Davis. No amount of condescending long winded deflection from you changes that you have made a claim you have not as yet backed up. Hard science please.

It may also be a health and safety issue, blocking access to emergency services etc. Check your lease but it is at the very least what would be considered as a shared access pathway, which would mean that you do have a right to ask for it to be kept clear. But as Ilona says, get some legal advice on how to proceed.

Farage is an opportunist charlatan with a complete disregard for electoral funding law. And in spite of never having himself been an MP, has caused more chaos in Parliament than any politician in living memory. A truly self serving snake oil salesman of the worst kind. As to voting, in spite of being a Labour voter, I felt I could not vote for a party that isn't advocating for a 2nd ref, so I used my postal vote to vote Change UK. I also know I am not the only Labour voter jumping ship on this one.

'It is not a question of knowing or not knowing, it is both. I believe the idea of one or the other, has evolved into our everyday life through this quest for the ultimate answers, this is not denying the amazing discoveries in science. The law for a concept, the belief of the learned, the proof.' Exactly that TE44. It is that quest to know what we do not know, to understand what we do not understand, that drives all discovery, science and philosophy. This is partly why religion evolved also. But there comes a point where hard science tells us otherwise on many things. Why some people are so wedded to religious fairy tales in spite of that, is a mystery.

'When was the last time you saw a half human half primate in the museum?' That is just about the most ridiculous argument for refusing Darwin's theory I have ever read. Seriously Davis, the evidence from DNA alone shows that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct in principle. He did not have the benefit of the level of science that we do, so of course made some errors in the detail and even his understanding of it, but to reject it all out of hand because of this, is just wilful ignorance. I suggest you go and speak to a geneticist and educate yourself on how genes mutate and evolve. It is an incredibly slow process (on a scale that most people find hard to grasp to be honest) that has taken billions of years. Better still, speak to those biochemists that have shown that primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units. Science is closer to the truth than you perhaps realise. 'I do not have the time to address every error in your previous post' You haven't addressed a single thing (so I suspect you are confusing error for your opinion) and yet write that after calling out KK for being condescending! What you mean is that you do not have the hard science to challenge your pseudo science. I have had these kinds of conversations many times and it always ends the same way. A deliberate refusal to accept the real science. I did answer your question. I pointed out to you that science does not know the beginining for sure, or why it came about. But it can use Physics to make a pretty good theory, the same physics that has given us a pretty good level of understanding of our universe so far, debunking pretty much all religious and supernatural theory that offers other explanations. That is good enough for me. So yes, I think science can, in time, explain everything. 'dbboy, I believe in a God, a Creator, who brought the universe into existence with purpose and wisdom. My belief is based on 'hard science' and objectively quantifiable evidence.' There is no hard science of such. Where is it? Links to academic papers please. Let's get into this, because I would love to show just how unscientific any belief in creationism really is.

You can argue it Davis, but you seem to have little understanding of the science around DNA. We may not have all the links for every species and their evolution, but the principle is correct. And creationists and all the other religious detractors to that out there, are cranks. The Sun God was an an example of the form that the evolution of god theories took. There are plenty of written examples of pagan civilisations and their supernatural beliefs, and polytheism like the early Romans and Greeks, so we do know a fair amount about why these beliefs existed. It is also why transitions from that to monotheism have made absolutely no difference to anything whatsoever. The sun still rises, the wind still blows a gale sometimes, and sometimes crops still fail. I think everything that genuinely exists can be measured yes, because we can already measure so much and the history of science is in part the history of debunking previously held beliefs and theories that were based on no real science whatsoever. Science does not claim to know for certain there was a big bang, nor of what existed before. But people far cleverer than you and I have got us to the level of understanding that we do have, about what we are, and what the universe is around us. We know for example that this solar system will cease to exist at some point as the Sun expands and swallows us up (we will be long gone before then). Only the arrogance of human philosophy thinks we are any more important than that. I certainly won't be entertaining fantasy theories around God or creators as fact, unless someone provides scientific evidence of such, and think it perfectly sensible to hold that approach. TE44, I tend to agree with you. I just get annoyed at anyone saying certain ideas exist in a measurable way, when they absolutely don't, and Gods/ creators are an example of that. There is a big difference between saying, I think God exists, and saying I know God exists. Knowing something that is not proven (or disproved even), is kind of where this conversation began anyway.