JoeLeg

tomdhu > > Absolutely! The photo indicates there is a severe > credibility issue in the OP. > > If the guy had finished blowing the leaves out > through the railings, why would he be outside the > railings? > > There appears to be no trees inside the railings ( > I will check tomorrow) so he couldn't be blowing > out leaves and debris that originated inside > Alleyns. > > Could it be that the OP has an old axe to grind? Do you work for Alleyns or something? You seem intent on deliberately ignoring what the OP *wrote*, instead focusing on the photo and somehow believing that tells the whole story. Do you have a particular axe to grind against the council? Because that?s all you came on this thread to do.

tomdhu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > > The OP *specifically* refers to an Alleyns > > employee blowing debris from fauna on Alleyns > > property out onto the street and nonchalantly > > expecting the council to pick it up. > > > > Sorry, but I would respectfully suggest you?ve > > misunderstood the OP. > > Don't think so. The photo doesn't lie. I love the idea that you think a photo tells an exact tale! For all we know that?s just a photo of the individual concerned after they finished their work. The photo > shows the guy with the blower is on the pavement > and cannot therefor be blowing the leaves and > debris through the railings out on to the > pavement. In which case there is a discrepancy between the visual image of the photo and the written words of the OP. ?I have just seen one of the Alleyn's grounds staff blowing leaves and debris from their garden in the grounds of the school, through the railings, onto the pavement and curb of Hillsborough Road. I asked him what would happen to the debris, he replied "the council will pick it up". The way I read that, an Alleyns employee is blowing flora debris out of the school grounds and onto the street, presumably in order to avoid having to take and bag the leaves etc. If so, that?s pretty poor. Hopefully the OP can come back on here to clarify exactly what they saw.

tomdhu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Look at in a more balance manner please. > > 1. The trees are the Council's responsibility. But this is to do with leaves etc from plants *on Alleyns property*, which are Alleyns responsibility to dispose of. > 2. The Council chose this species of tree (London > Plane) > 3. This species is deciduous. > 4. The leaves from the trees fall on the pavement > and into surrounding properties. > 5. This species also sheds bark huge numbers of > fluffy seed balls which provoke hay fever. > 6. This debris clogs up the drains every year in > the Autumn. None of that has anything to do with the plants *on Alleyns property*. > > The Council would have saved a massive amount of > money if they had chosen to plant a species that > didnt come with all this baggage. > Probably, but that?s a different conversation. > Why knock Alleyn's when it is a problem the > Council chose to create? Well, because this is nothing to do with the councils trees? The OP *specifically* refers to an Alleyns employee blowing debris from fauna on Alleyns property out onto the street and nonchalantly expecting the council to pick it up. Sorry, but I would respectfully suggest you?ve misunderstood the OP.

Alleyns really don?t give two figs for anyone but themselves, and they never have. The rot set in under the headmaster Colin Niven, as unpleasant a money-obsessed piece of work as you could have the misfortune to encounter, who told a parent of my acquaintance ?This is a business, not a school?. If you don?t spend money with them, they?ll ignore you.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg and RH, those are both fair challenges and > I can't answer the first without naming peoole, > which obviously isn't appropriate. Then I fear to say, given the points made by other posters, I?m not sure the people you know necessarily have a grip the on the full picture. The underlying > point, though, is that any managed or forced > change to our culture tends to leave some people > feeling pushed out, and others just fearful. You > can mitigate that in my opinion by organising > people around an idea effectively (whether a good > or bad one), or evolution will eventually probably > take care of it, Well, I agree in broad principle with what you say, but in this day and age there is really very little excuse for reactionary attitudes to govern a persons attitude to social change. If we?ve learnt anything from the last fifty years in this respect, it?s that society is in a constant state of flux. A lot of the problems resulting from this are laid at the door of local and central government mismanagement. I?m not trying to say that people should not feel hard done by - successive administrations in the U.K. have absolutely taken the white working class for granted, from Penzance to Perth and more besides. But the reaction of individuals is to blame other people, not the power structures actually responsible for this. if very slowly - for example, > most white native Londoners in the last few > generations have grown up in increasingly > multi-cultural surroundings. My younger family > members, for example, are genuinely colour-blind > in a way that I, forty to fifty years older, am > not. That doesn't mean I'm racist - I really hope > not, anyway - but like many people my age, my idea > and attitudes (and relationships) have changed > over time as society has changed. When I look back > to my childhood, or read books written in the > first half of the 20th century it seems > unbelievable how normal casual racism was. Casual > sexism and ageism have persisted even longer. All very true. I had an argument with a recent Oxford graduate a couple of months ago who tried to tell me that I did not understand how prevalent racism and sexism is, and what needed to be done to combat it. I enjoyed pointing out that the battles they and their friends are now - quite rightly - fighting are only possible because people of my generation decided we?d not tolerate the casual, endemic racism in society, and the people before us had enough of the legalised racism in this country and abroad. I guess my point is that we, as a society, don?t seem to have moved in too far. We still find it much easier to blame others creeds, colours, ethnicities and beliefs than to look closer and ask ourselves - ?who is actually benefitting from what?s going on??. I have no time for the dog whistle sound bite bigotry that UG, Tommy Robinson and others peddle. All it does is turn us against each other and tell us that someone else is responsible for our problems. And that someone is always an ethnic group, who strangely somehow have great influence on those in power. Nope, I?m not buying it either.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can't we have a debate without people launching > personal attacks all the time? Firstly, I make no apology for pointing out that UG has repeatedly posted anecdotally-sourced personal beliefs and refused to back them up with even the flimsiest of arguments, almost all of which are anusive towards non-white British people. There is a pattern of bigotry to his posts. Secondly he isn?t interested in debate - he comes on here to tell us how stupid we all are and how we know nothing of the world outside SE22. I?ve tries to engage him in debate in the past, now I?m content to call him what he is; a racist and a keyboard warrior. > > Perhaps uncleglen was thinking of Southwark's > housing policy, for example. Some local people, > not me but certainly people using this forum, have > been told by council staff that BME have priority, > meaning some people who were born and lived all > their lives in Dulwich have had to move away from > their families, even out of London. It's not hard > to feel empathy for people in that position and > doing that doesn't mean you feel any less empathy > for people who do fit into the BME category. Can you point to anything to back that up? If it?s true then it?s hard to see how it?s legal, and certainly not morally supportable. But I?d like to see some evidence.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And positive discrimination and affirmative action > has done nothing to alleviate racism- it has > exacerbated it in some areas of our cities and set > up serious resentments... More Alf Garnett style rubbish from the keyboard warrior. What he wants to say is that he thinks white British people are being discriminated against, but he hasn?t actually got anything to prove it. Or have you? Come on then mate, back up your arguments.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One word for you..Huddersfield Is that the best you can do, keyboard warrior? Do you see anyone on here defending sex abusers? Oh yes, your man Tommy does! So it?s not a problem when it?s a nice white boy, but immigrants of any type must be deported because of some criminal immigrants? Looks to me like Huddersfield is an example of the police doing a good job, and they should be applauded. What more do you want? Seriously, what do you want to happen? You?re not even trying to hide your hatred and racism any more, keyboard warrior.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I had to interview someone once and she was > accompanied by a woman in a burka.....the > experience left me believing it should definitely > be banned...and they were referred to as > letterboxes YEARS before Boris used it... There?s a lot of stuff bigots like yo have been saying for years. You?re such a keyboard warrior...

While you make good points Cat, I still find it difficult to feel sympathy for a section of society which does, whatever we say, suffer far FAR less from endemic prejudice and bigotry than others. I could write endless tiresome pages on my feelings about racism in the modern age, but that would annoy everyone else so I?ll keep it to this; just last week three young white guys liberally tossed the ?n-word? at my wife in the little convenience store on Wood Vale. It?s 2018, in south London, and that crap is STILL going on. It was in front of our 8 year old daughter as well. You are right that there is a moral equivalence between the use of various terms based on skin colour, and none are acceptable. But the balance of abuse, as it were, is still very much in one direction and it?s really hard to argue otherwise. As another thread on here clearly demonstrates, it is not all one way and I don?t for one second advocate that it is anything other than abhorrent. But I have trouble putting someone being called a gammon into the same category as those poor people who posted in the Adys Road thread.

What edcam said, exactly what edcam said.

I agree, the new playground isn?t the best thought out when it comes to toddlers. Wha I would say is that we should remember it?s smer holidays now when - in this weather especially - parents are going to have those older children out of the house as often as possible! During term time toddlers will have more free reign over the place, which I acknowledge isn?t much help right now. My 8 year old loves it, but the 4 year old doesn?t get much out of it, which is annoying. Agree fully about the lack of shade.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > His early ventures into the public spotlight was > relating the activities of muslims in Luton....his > own personal experience and TRUE events in his own > neighbourhood. > The muslim who exposed a grooming gang was best > placed to do what he did because the only reason > these and other nefarious activities go on is > because the 'communities' are self-contained and > protectionist and this goes for Saville, Catholic > Institutions etc as well. That has nothing to do with Robinson?s curious reluctance to challenge child abusers from any other religion. He seems very...focused, shall we say, on Islam. Have you seen who is funding his high-powered legal team? He?s got quite a lot of support from American groups who seem keen to impose their own narrative on the U.K. So Nazir Afzal got the conviction in 2014 was > it(?) What about Sara Rowbotham MP who tried to > alert authorities in 2005....how come Nazir Afzam > didn't pick up on it back then? I?m slightly confused here. Given that Afzal did not have the legal authority in 2005 to initiator proceedings (a year in whic he was prosecuting people for honour killings), I can hardly see how he can be held responsible for a lack of action in Rochdale. Have you checked out Richard Price yet?

FreyaMikaelson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Holy sh*t, giant stick up your ass much? Try > saying that to Toffee in person without looking > like an absolute asshole. I doubt you would, so > don't hide behind your screen to do it... > RH is more than capable of fighting his own battles, and I'm sure he'll be along soon to respond to you, but I just want to make one point (at this risk of thread drift). I take Toffee at their word when they say they do not condone racism in any form, and I doubt Toffee understands why the language they used can be seen as clumsy. However, a phrase like this - "Racism is a 2 way thing I?m afraid. We only ever hear of one side though" smacks greatly of 'whataboutism'. In other words, while it is of course very, very true that racism goes in all directions, it's undeniable that the worst of it, by a country mile, is still white prejudice towards BAME people. I don't think Toffee meant to deflect from or deny that fact. But it's a form of words that can give rise to that interpretation. I'm hardly a poster boy for political correctness and I have very little time for backwards-looking guilt trips, but it's really, really easy for a white person in this part of the world to forget that most racism, almost all of it, is directed against BAME communities, and it's still a big thing. Anyone who wants to point out that there are those from all backgrounds who engage in bigotry needs to do so a little bit carefully. Not too carefully, but people need to be aware that in some folks minds it's still the 1920's. We've come so far from the institutionalised - and almost institutionally approved - views of yesteryear that we often forget there's still a long way to go. If we don't hear about other sides of racism, it's probably because there's so little of it, comparatively speaking. Edit - And there he is while I type...

Sounds like those two were/still are looking for trouble, and wanting to start it in any way possible. They?ll reap what they sow, not that it?s any consolation to their victims.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > about time- he has only EVER told the TRUTH I would have time for him if he was truly attacking religious extremism and child abuse equally. But he?s not. He?s only focused on Muslims. Do you wonder why he never mentions the abuses by the Catholic Church, for example? Or the bigotry found within Hindu fundamentalists? Do you wonder why he?s only interested in targeting Islam, while excusing a pedophile friend of his? Google Richard Price.

I?ve PM?d you.

Publically all I will say is that Jamie Younger is a vile, rude piece of work who does not deserve the success he?s had. Let?s just say your boyfriend is not the first person I?ve heard of this happening to - not by a long way. I?ve known several waiters from Begging Bowl who all tell tales of it being a crap place to work. Hey Jaime, if you?re reading this, are you still shouting at elderly ladies in your dining room? Don?t back down. Jaime is a nasty piece of work who thinks he can intimidate his way out of any situation.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting but I don't think Doc Martens are any > cheaper than when they were made in the UK so > perhaps they simply make more profit shifting to > China. Or possibly the increasing labour costs in the U.K. were eating into their profit margin and that was the only way they could hold the price. Other stuff of course - economies of > scale, decent engineering, cheap labour. > > where does Japan fit into the equation? And are > not labour costs going up in Korea? There?s hardly any outsourcing to Japan, unless I misunderstand your point. Korea I don?t know about, but again I?d hazard that they aren?t likely to be building much stuff for other people, in the manner that Bangladesh, Malaysia or China do. Korea and Japan both have their own businesses which they need staff for. I could be wrong about all that though, I know far less about those two nations than I do other SE Asian countries.

Toffee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > There is a website called ?made in Britain ? but > if you?re expecting cheap prices forget it. This is also an important point. In the ?West? we?ve become accustomed to prices for goods which - if produced in this country - we might well balk at, because wages are substantially higher here than in, say, China. Have ou seen how much an Apple product would cost if made in the USA? We are essentially complicit in this; Primark thrives because it?s cheap, and it?s all made in Asia, and there?s countless similar examples (James Dyson anyone?). Would we be so willing to pay the prices that local labour would demand? There?s also the question of whether or not there would be enough people for the jobs. I imagine the production lines for clothing and technological goods alone are massive, could we realistically staff it in the West? I?m not really sure what the answer is. Global demand is such that I don?t know how we could return manufacturing of such items to our shores, or even if we should.

I thought the mention of Malbec was a clear pointer to Louisa? Isn?t that one of her favourite tipples?

Surely it?s Louisa and Foxy...? Though if it is I?d take issue with the ?always reasonable never rude? part. Foxy is a masterclass in passive-aggressive baiting.

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This article sums up one of the new realisations I > have about my country. I'd always wondered how our > famous phlegmatic identity, which has been in > evidence for all of my lifetime, and for decades > prior to that, could be reconciled with the more > extreme moments of our national history. And of > course it was simply that that that 'level headed' > pragmatism was just another phase - not permanent > at all. I do, however, still think we could have > maintained that mature, balanced approach if our > politicians had understood that this was a > hard-won, valuable quality that needed preserving, > not an inherent part of our national DNA that > could be relied on, no matter what. > > https://www.ft.com/content/14cec2ea-8b45-11e8-b18d > -0181731a0340 Paywall there I?m afraid. Any chance of surmising the key points for us?

Yeah, fair enough!

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue, I am sure that can find conspiracy sites > where the UK is bending over backwards to > accommodate Russian interests too. Which we are. Go on then. Not sure what it has to do with Trump though?