BrandNewGuy

Sue Wrote: > St John the Unicorn - Ate there once. It was > delicious. Now the delicous food is no longer > served there :( Still a nice place to sit in the > window with a pint and watch the world go by, > though. Yeah right. You mean you sat in the window so you could be seen by all your bl#w-in friends ;-)

Well, we've had our (residential road) swept of leaves twice this autumn ? last year it didn't happen at all. Similarly with Melbourne Grove and East Dulwich Grove, so I think that's more than last year. As with snow sweeping, if we knew for certain that the Council weren't going to clear it, then I'd happily do my own. But it seems daft to do it if there's a Council sweeper on the way.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People knew exactly what they were voting for. > Trump didn't mince his words, he was clear what > his values were (he's an unreconstructed > misogynistic, racist bully). Well, a good friend of mine in California (who voted for Clinton) said that on the stump Trump banged on and on about the economy, wages, manufacturing, infrastructure, tariffs and free trade all the time ? far, far more than he did about Mexicans and Muslims. And lots of those speeches were shown live on TV (as indeed were Hillary's), so I suspect many Americans got a different perspective from those of us in this country who saw very little of that. Not that I think his 'solutions' make much sense...

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Except the poorest voted for Clinton in the > majority of cases and the richest for Trump. The > data doesn't support the prevailing narrative. > Whilst I agree that there are major issues with > how globalisation has effected the poorest and in > particular the young, look at who voted Brexit. It > wasn't the under thirties. The problem with > pretending that this was somehow an 'anti-elite' > vote is that it ignores the fact that the most > powerful and affluent people - the likes of > Murdoch for example have been pushing a far right > agenda which is anti immigrant, homophobic and > misogynistic for too long. I'm not dismissing the > real issues that have resulted from the loss of > high paid, blue collar manufacturing jobs. But to > say paint this as a working class revolution is > simply wrong. I don't think anyone here is suggesting it's a working class revolution, but I'll repeat what I put earlier about income brackets and votes: according to that exit poll (and we should beware of that*), yes, 53% of Americans who earn less than $30,000 a year voted for Clinton, while 41% voted for Trump, but that represented a swing of 16% from Dem to Rep, the biggest swing either way in all income brackets. For $30,000-$50,000 it was a 6% swing from Dem to Rep, while in fact both the $50,000-$100,000 and $100,000-$200,000 brackets saw swings from Rep to Dem. * There's also a chance that the exit poll consistently undercounted Trump voters, as did the opinion polls before it.

According to that exit poll (and we should beware of that...), yes, 53% of Americans who earn less than $30,000 a year voted for Clinton, while 41% voted for Trump, but that represented a swing of 16% from Dem to Rep, the biggest swing either way in all income brackets. For $30,000-$50,000 it was a 6% swing from Dem to Rep, while in fact both the $50,000-$100,000 and $100,000-$200,000 brackets saw swings from Rep to Dem.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Another year comes around. > > Attached is a scan of the lucifer box cover that > was produced by Dulwich Hamlet Football Club > during the 1919-20 season to record the club's > Roll of Honour. The club is having a wreath-laying ceremony on Friday from 7pm: "Dulwich Hamlet Football Club would like to invite all fans to a short non-denominational wreath laying service in the club?s boardroom to remember those connected with the club who gave their lives. The bar will be open after the service and we will be showing the England vs Scotland match."

George Orwell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd bet my mortgage that there are way fewer > electric cars in the area than there will be > charging points. Yes, forward thinking alright - > shame Southwark can't apply this notion to > countless more pressing issues. But that will always be the problem for any more widespread take-up of electric cars. People will only drive them if there are enough charging points. The latter have to come first. You can argue that the policy of encouraging electric car use is wrong, but the strategy is the only one that can work.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Funny how my top three are youR least favourite > BNG. Intending to try Yama Momo on your recommendation, in fact :-) The other two have a similar offering to the excellent Camberwell Arms, which is a shade cheaper and also doesn't have an East Dulwich clientele ;-)

Franklins - once Palmerston - never Yama Momo - never Le Chardon - never Tandoori Nights - three or four times, last time a few months ago Sema Thai - three or four times, last time ages ago Thai Corner Caf? - once The Lordship - five or six times (including as The Mag etc), last time recently Franco Manca - five or six times, last time recently Meat Liquour - not so far ToastED - never Mr Bao - never Bahn Bahn - never The Rye - never Surma - many times EDT - six or seven times, last time six months ago or so Mr Liu - six or seven times, last time ages ago Le Chandelier - never The Clockhouse - once Burro e Salvia - never Hisar - many times, last time recently Duleich Tandoori - many times, last time recently Gosh, that looks unexciting :-) Actually, if we 'go out', we're inclined to go further afield (Peckham Bazaar, Camberwell Arms, Catford Constitutional, Ganapati...).

I'm not necessarily saying Gram wrote it, but if he'd never hooked up with them, there's no way they would have written it.

Just to echo what Mike and Foxy have said ? the food here is really very good indeed. A significant step up from the usual Indo-Bangla fare (to which I'm partial, to be honest). Vibrant spices and flavours, great ingredients and very attentive service. Couldn't fault it. But... and it's big 'but'. Their menu offering is currently very confusing (as is their name) and I fear many people won't give them a chance. They should ditch everything on the menu that isn't South Asian. And probably get rid of the big cokctail list too and soften the lighting a bit. Their food is more than good enough to shout from the rooftops that it's the best Indian fare on Lordship Lane.

We have Gram Parsons to thank for "Wild Horses". And Gram would have been 70 this Saturday, which is a weird thought.

In the past, I suspect those who were ignorant of something kept quiet, even if they harboured irrational ideas about whatever it was. Now everyone is their own publicist and mouthpiece, with an opinion about everything, even in areas they're utterly ignorant of. I don't think people are more stupid or irrational than they used to be, they're just more audible. Which is really b****y annoying.

There'll be no budget for doing up the station. Despite its busyness at rush hour, the station's footfall is very modest compared to Denmark Hill or Peckham Rye.

Mr and Mrs BNG will be there.

pop9770 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BrandNewGuy and some others appear to have some > double standards I may be wrong but on what they > have said I don?t think I am. > Happy to be proven wrong. I'm not a saint, but I don't have to justify myself to a ranting troll. I won't be replying to any of your guff again.

Crikey, someone's off their medication.

pop9770 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks > Using your explanation. > I'd say calling a French person a Frog is equally > racist because it also a derogatory term > no different calling a Gypsy a Gyppo or Pikey You either didn't read my comment or didn't understand it ? possibly deliberately.

pop9770 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes I do need education on where the grey lines > are drawn is there a standard definition a rule > book which defines what is appropriate and what is > not? Was my previous attempt helpful? < It needn't be the case that the term is racial or national ? an upper middle class government minister calling a copper a 'pleb' is unacceptable, while a copper calling a minister a 'toff' is not.<<

It's easy to do pizza plus drink in Franco Manca for a tenner. Are the sandwich prices in Truly Scrumptious, for instance, more than Subway?

A derogatory term reinforces attitudes which can be materially to the detriment of that group. Using the 'N' word, for instance, reinforces a socially superior attitude towards black people and tacitly condones prejudice which can materiually affect people's life chances in terms of jobs, housing, encounters with the police etc. Calling a Frenchman a 'frog' does none of those things. The former is unacceptable, while the latter is just being impertinent :-) It needn't be the case that the term is racial or national ? an upper middle class government minister calling a copper a 'pleb' is unacceptable, while a copper calling a minister a 'toff' is not.

It's not really class warfare. The argument is that government subsidy of transport options that are skewed towards the better off are a regressive form of spending. You might argue that the 'business benefits' outweigh that, but the argument is still one that needs to be addressed.

The third runway's been given the go-ahead.

I think I'm with Peter Tatchell. Here's a closer analogy I think: a white baker refuses to make a cake for two black customers which says "Support Black Lives Matter" on it. Is the baker guilty of race discrimination? I don't think so ? after all, it's perfectly possible to be black and be vehenmently opposed to Black Lives Matter. In the same way, it's perfectly possible to be gay and opposed to gay marriage. What if it had been two gay bakers who were anti-gay marriage and who refused to make the cake...?

Peter Tatchell has changed his mind about the case: "There was never an intention that this law should compel people to promote political ideas with which they disagreed." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/01/gay-cake-row-i-changed-my-mind-ashers-bakery-freedom-of-conscience-religion