Blah Blah

I have to echo Higgers here Sally. The vast majority referred to food banks are simply without money, experiencing benefit delays, subject to the Universal Credit waiting, and experiencing sanctions (often which are overturned for being spurious) and not because of some self induced poverty due to being unable to manage money. The explosion in referrals to foodbanks since 2010 is a direct consequence of this governments policies. Many people referred to foodbanks need more than food as well. They need some way to feed an electric or gas meter to cook the food. They also need toiletries and all the things that enable you and me to feel clean and human every day. They people best qualified to say what is needed are those on the front line delivering services, and if they say they need money, they have very good reason for asking for it.

Wouldn't she be better with a DSLR camera? I have no idea what a selfie clog is but most selfie videos seem to be shot on smartphones using instagram and fb live from what I can see.

I think all major world powers do that to be honest JoeLeg. Lots of pot calling kettle black going on.

And while all of this brexit stuff is going on, very little other legislation is going through the house, at a time when there is lots that needs to be addressed.

We would be happy to help too when that list is ready. Maybe even consider setting a 'just giving' page for those who might want to donate money instead. There are going to be things they will need to buy and with Christmas coming too, even a couple of hundred pounds raised would make a big difference I'm sure.

The police have a team on this and have forensic evidence too. I find any suggestion that SNARL are fabricating anything deeply offensive personally, given how many much loved pets have been murdered. A simple google search shows press coverage of all of this.

Gaynor Hill Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Susan Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Does anyone know if he is still there? > > will bring him some hot food > > Thanks > > > Yes he's still there I took him a duvet on > Saturday had long chat he's got a camping gas > cooker top and saucepans. He's been on Street for > a long time was in shelter accommodation but felt > trapped for personal reasons > I was going down to see him again but my hubby had > car crash just as we left him found out it's a > right off > Will try and see him soon as do not live far away > and will take him food Christmas day which is the > worst of days to be alone > Hope this helps you > Gaynor He might want to come to the Crisis day centre any day over Christmas in Bermondsey, where he can get hot meals and all kinds of other services and entertainment. Alternately there are residential Crisis centres open during Christmas week. They are not the same as hostels or sheltered accomodation and he can come and go as he pleases.

Some of them do. Have seen it plenty of times, including by buses.

Houseoflego Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But removing someone from a film when there is > absolutely no evidence is just not part of a > modern democratic system of justice. Career's and > reputations totally ruined on no evidence of > anything illegal and often years ago when there > was a very different culture! > > Is that ok? On that basis I think almost anyone > could be taken down if they spoke out against the > wrong people. > > Also not condoning anything Spacey did or did not > do! Would you extend that to the removal of Saville's headstone? And when was there ever a culture that saw sexual harassment/ assault and rape as acceptable? It was not more acceptable at the time any more than it is now. It is just that now, we don't turn a blind eye.

walkman, why do I feel I am being drawn into sink hole. No-one's life was at risk if there was no oncoming traffic. This is no different than crossing the road at a non designated crossing point, or crossing a pelican crossing when the man is red with no traffic coming. My original point was that an adult can not 'shoot' anywhere when followed by two five year olds. It is that which I am questioning - the need for embellishment, to make the cyclists sound more wreckless than they probably were. Ergo a disproportionate reaction to a cyclist going through a red light.

LOL true Seabag and Jenny1. Anyone watch Question Time then?

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > All I have pointed to is that people exaggerate > > when they feel disproportionately outraged. > > > You think he "exaggerated" when he said he saw > somebody encouraging two children to ride through > a red light? > > And you think his outrage at that was > "disproportionate"? > > ETA: What would your response have been if one or > both of the children had been hit by a car? See, you are making the same mistake as everyone else of actually believing at face value that anyones life was in danger. This is not about what ifs. The OP does not say at any point that anyone was nearly hit by a car or that a car was forced to emergency stop. The whole account is outrage at someone jumping a red light and having their children do it too. This is further shown by his admission of trying to pull up another cyclist for doing the same thing. So this to me is an obsession with reprimanding cyclists who go through red lights irregardless of whether there is any danger in doing so. Does the OP reprimand drivers on their phones? Or pedestrians that cross anywhere but at designated crossings (because that surely is wreckless too)? And I still maintain that no five year old is capable of speed, wreckless or otherwise.

All I have pointed to is that people exaggerate when they feel disproportionately outraged. Anyone who feels the need to pull up every cyclist they see doing sometihng wrong is not looking at things with sensible persepctive imo. That they then feel the need to post on a forum about it is also something most people would not do either (and I would say the same about the other threads that fullfil this criteria as well). It is just my opinion though.

She had to go. She is one of the most right wing thinkers in the government and fiercely ambitious. She won't be a silent backbencher.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why are you posting here? Yes sadly some cyclists > jump red lights. This is a societal thing unless > we want to live in a police state. Write to your > MP, the Met Police, your Borough, the Times, > rather than on this site. Then when you've got a > response you can discuss that. > > Today I saw a motorist forward of an advanced stop > line, a pedestrian cross the road whilst looking > at their smart phone, and a car across the > pedestrian crossings whilst the lights were red. > Just a normal day, nothing to see here people, > move on. Because their outrage isn't satisfied unless they have pages of agreement from people who accept everything at face value. It reminds of that 5 year old cycling on the pavemnt thread.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Having literally just been repeatedly called a > '@#$%& four eyed c*nt' by a cyclist for asking > politely why they were going through a red light > right towards me,as i was crossing my goodwill to > them is reduced right now. No excuse for that kind > of behaviour. So you have an obsesion with this and again you are asking people to believe your account at face value.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > How can a five year old 'shoot' anywhere? They > > just do not cycle that fast. > > Even more reason not to cycle through red lights > on a junction into the flow of traffic then? > Please tell me you are not seriously trying to > justify this? To be fair, neither you or I were there. I am questioning the detail of what is an anecdotal account. Nowhere have I written anything that suggests condoning anything, I just find a paradox in a suggestion that a five year old 'shot' accross a junction. What is more likely to have happened is that the father saw a clear junction and ignored the lights. Whilst I do not condone that, that is very different to 'shooting' accross a junction with oncoming traffic in sight and making two five year olds do the same. One is relatively risk free, the other is not. There is an embellishment to this account, that is suggested by that contradiction, in my opinion.

How can a five year old 'shoot' anywhere? They just do not cycle that fast.

How pathetic that we are now in a society where bureacracy gets in the way of humanity Burbage. Helping anyone is always a risk, even helping family members, but what a poorer society we would be if everyone used bureaucracy as an excuse for not helping someone if they could. It is an utter disgrace that anyone should be without shelter in this country. I regularly volunteer for crisis Pugwash. You would be surprised at the numbers of older women who are homeless in their 50's too. But yes, breakdown of relationships, usually following job losses, are a common story of homeless men. And single men with no dependents are always bottom of social housing waiting lists in terms of priority too. What we are desperately lacking in, is sheltered housing. Helping the homeless is not just about finding them shelter. It is also about reintegrating them into society.

'do you think Harman's previous 'issues' with the Paedophile Information Exchange in the 70's means her views on sexual misconduct are dismissable as well?' Yes I do. We expect those we elect to have moral standards, and be that extra marital affairs or failure to deal with paedophile's, MPs should be taking a stand on these things - not excusing them.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That is an entire non-sequitur, BB. A consensual > relationship (even if one or both are married) is > not sexual misconduct or harassment. That may be but it is not a good benchmark from which to have any moral compass on sexual misconduct imo.

I wouldn't put anything past any of them with the mess the Tory Party is in right now. I had to baulk at Edwina Currie going at Harriet Harman on This Week and claming there was very little sexual misconduct or harassment in Westminster. Yes that would the same Edwina Currie that had an affair with the married John Major of course.

Without knowing his story, there is no automatic right to housing for the homeless. And Southwark council have been busy selling off council homes and council property to corporate developers over replacing lost council homes. I would try putting him in contact with one of the various homeless outreach programmes. Someone will then go and speak with him.

He clearly has something in his past he wants to stay in his past.