JoeLeg

I?ve seen those videos. Like I say, I?ll watch/hear the opposing view. I strongly suspect that it is in Tommy/Stephen?s interest to only show footage which backs up his claims. There are disgusting Muslim individuals who do indeed want only Sharia law - and I would point out that they are singularly failing on their aim - just as there is the Westboro Baptist Church, rabid militant Indian Hindus and pretty appalling ultra-Orthodox Jews. Religious extremism in any form can get to %^*$! Dig deep enough into any religion and you will find nasty stuff hiding under the stones. The point about Tommy and his ?I?m not racist, but...? friends is that they *are* a bunch of racist thugs. I fully agree mistakes have been made by government agencies terrified of being labelled as racist or bigoted by criminals ready to claim prejudice to get out of bring charged. Heads should have rolled over certain things on that respect. But Tommy doesn?t just want to deal with that. He won?t stop there. The internet is filled with sensationalist claptrap, a lot of it from America, that paints this nation as about to be over run by Jihadist insurgents and saying that we have already prioritised their needs over good British folk. Take a look outside your window - do you see any race war going on? Didn?t think so, but this sounds remarkably like the claptrap peddled on the sixties by opponents of civil rights.

There?s not enough brain bleach on the world to scrub from the dirge that I watched over the last 24 hours in support of him online. Videos from supposed experts, academics, people with inside knowledge - all of whom happily decry opposing opinion by other academics and experts as being ?out of touch?, or pawns of the coming war against our own society. I watched them because I figured I should hear the dissenting view; I believe it?s encumbrance on us as a society to listen to those whom we disagree with. But the bollocks being spouted by people like Paul Weston is astonishing. The beauty of the internet is that people like that can put forward any outlandish theory and *never have to back it up*. One guy said that a British judge let a migrant off a child rape charge because the accused didn?t know it was wrong, and then said ?I can?t remember the details, you can google it.? In other words, here?s a lie that I?m not going to back up. I tried googling it, found nothing. Tommy Robinson (who calls himself that to seem more English) is the lowest form of pond life, who claims to only want to protect British people but uses the whole thing as a cover for a nasty, extremist political creed. The Rotherham child abuse scandal (over which many, many people should hang their heads in lifelong, never-ending shame while imprisoned for savage dereliction of duty) was a gift to Yaxley and his cretinous ilk. They have run with it and tried to turn it into a race war. Don?t be fooled by these people; while they accuse politicians of silencing free speech and the MSM of willing complicity, their desired end result isn?t too different. The best one I saw was a Facebook post which claimed an Army source had told them the Chinook seen over London had been carrying SAS troops to Downing Street in order to shoot protesters who might attempt to storm the PM?s residence, and that this demonstrated the govt had taken the side of Islamic terrorists and was ready to shoot British citizens. Now, this is a perfect example of how conspiracy theorists fit whatever they see to their own narratives. I?ve been out of the Army about 25 years, and I know enough still to pick so many holes in that statement that it would be mostly thin air, but yet these twats go online and are entirely unchallenged in their nonsense; anyone who disagrees with them is told they?ve already been brainwashed by the establishment, and are ignored. Tommy Robinson was explicitly told wha would happen if he did what he did. He did it, knowing he would be jailed, having already put up videos saying ?they will jail me?, which allows him to play the martyred lion. How ironic. How transparent. What a wanker. Sorry, these ?people? make me so furious. There are debates that we need to have about some things, but not like this.

To be fair Louisa, you do bang the same drum *a lot*, and as I?ve said to you before, there?s no law against the changes that ED has gone through and there never was. You seem awfully bitter about something that you - and I - can do nothing about, whatever our feelings. All that being said, people who send complaints to Admin about you are - in my opinion - forgetting that this is the internet...

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are alternatives to WR and this new butchers > in the Village. Personally I use and can happily > recommend W,Buntings on Peckham Park Road, it's on > the 78 bus route just off Peckham Hill street > close to the junction with the Old Kent Road. I > always get well looked after, is a family run > business who care about what they do. These guys are great. It may not look as suave as WR but I?ve been using them both personally and professionally for six years. They supply a surprising number of well known restaurants, including Franklin?s. Chris and Mark really know their stuff.

William Rose are not, shall we say, very well respected by other people in the meat trade. Style over substance is a commonly held opinion about them by their peers.

Where else are they supposed to use? Any wide expanse suitable for this kind of thing (assuming it is open air)is either going to be a park/heath of some kind, or private land which will be extortionately expensive - have you seen how much it costs to hire the Honourable Artillery Company grounds? I won?t be going, but even though it?s my local park I personally don?t begrudge this. I appreciate residents on the immediate edge of the festival may not be so pleased, but this is part and parcel of living in London. An awful lot of people will be very happy about it. Should we just never hold events like this at all in inner cities?

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think we'll hear very much more from the > East Dulwich councillors on this forum. On the other hand... Give them a chance, eh?

Precisely. Plus I suspect there?s far more support for them than republicans would like. I doubt we?ll be seeing any more referendums anytime soon anyway, but even if one was held, I think we?re many, many years away from support for wholesale reform. Plus it?s tied up with many other constitutional issues.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------ > > Such cynicism! She's worth $5M apparently, Pocket money next to the insane wealth of the Windsors. so > probably the status rather than the money that > attracted her - after all you can have all the > money in the world but you don't get to live in > Kensington Palace. And she does seem genuinely > smitten with him, and he seems a fairly decent > sort of cove. I think it?s fair to say that William and Harry have learnt to play the media game far better than their dad did. Plus all the stuff he?s done with the Invictus games, help for injured veterans and the mental health charities is good. As a fellow human, I wish them all > the best. As a taxpayer and a republican I wish > everyone would just shut up about it and I wish we > weren't paying for it! Indeed. It?s not often I find myself in agreement with Uncleglen, but while I recognise they tried to dial it back from the previous gross excesses and pomp of royal weddings, I still feel this has the smell of ?bread and circuses? about it. All that said, the royal family is changing. If we?re stuck with them, the least they can do is behave less like arses, which those two seem to understand. Although it?s debatable whether that stems from a desire to help and serve or something closer to self-preservation.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ellem86 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > But I cant see it working long term. She has a > career and has achieved a lot already - I don't > know how she's going to come to terms with royal > life in the longer term. To paraphrase the late, great Mrs Merton... ?So what first attracted you to the famously wealthy Royal Prince...??

Lynne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, they are facts, not "just your opinions". I > didn't actually give an opinion Yeah you did, you know what you meant. Don?t act innocent. At least own your opinions.

Lynne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course, not, but there was also the Gambling > Bill, making it easier for people to gamble, and > the Licensing Act, extending drinking hours, and > the cutting of the arts budget to fund the > Olympics.Not to mention being the only London MP > not to live in their constituency. Ok, she did some stuff that you disapprove of. She wasn?t perfect; none of us are. I wasn?t her biggest fan either, but I hardly think this is the time and place to conduct an excoriation of her work. But if it makes you feel better carry on.

There?s a lot of people who were part of that. But it wasn?t the sum total of everything she did.

Wow, is Lewis still at it? That?s hilarious... And I wouldn?t call him annoying. I?d call him aggressive and threatening.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I read the OP's description of events ,the amount > of detail and balanced tone led me to believe that > something had s gone seriously wrong . The OP gave > credit where it was due and referred to one of the > managers as intervening in a helpful way and that > a further response from the pub was awaited . > I hold no brief for the Greyhound - in fact I think it?s an utterly dull pub which should be replaced with something much better, which frankly wouldn?t be hard - but it?s entitled to the same defence as any other business. They?ve been accused of something pretty heinous, and while I have great sympathy for the OP insofar as they feel aggrieved and abused, there is a basic level of understanding (or at least there should be), in that it?s not cool to go onto social media and tell your side of the story before they?ve had a chance to check things their end, *especially* when in your original post (which I read) you *admit* that a senior manager intervened, was reasonable, and vowed to investigate. As recent events in a Philadelphia Starbucks showed, there is a time and a place for using social media to highlight blatant injustice. This was not such a time. The manager said he would find out what happened. If, after that, they are still not satisfied then of course they can escalate their complaint, and taking it public is part of that. It?s the rapid leap onto a forum without thinking first which bothers me. > I didn't read later posts by the OP - perhaps they > weren't balanced or calm . Well they accused the forum of supporting racism, so no, they weren?t. But from the description > of what happened I can understand how he/his wife > drew the conclusions they did .Possibly the > conclusions were incorrect ,but we weren't in > their shoes and I can see how deeply upset the > OP/her husband would be .Upset enough to loose > their cool and go on to post incautious posts . > > Cut them some slack . I find it hard to, to be honest. Every day minorities around the world get treated badly because people make assumptions about them, and it?s very possible this happened here. But many of those have incidents wouldn?t happen for if the perpetrators acknowledged their unconscious bias and stopped to listen to the other persons views. In other words, letting people explain themselves. A good example is this incident - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44068305. This crap is still happening All The Time. I don?t deny it, and it?s shameful, and something like this may well have happened at the Greyhound. But the flip side to that is, when someone defends themselves, we have to let them try and explain too. And hitting up Twitter, Faceache, local forums and Instagram *before investigations are complete * is not helpful, especially if someone may lose their job over it. Stuff like that can help them make a case for unfair dismissal, even if they are guilty as sin. I think this whole thing is a perfect example of why people need to be really careful with social media. It?s a double-edged sword, responsibility with it goes both ways.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jellybean?s a long time poster. I?ll believe them. > rh back off. Why does the longevity of someone posting on a local forum somehow ensure their veracity? Moreover, why does it mean they shouldn?t have to let the business investigate the allegations before coming on social media? This is a serious complaint that should be treated as such, and part of that is not rushing to judgement before the accused has been given the chance to conduct internal enquiries. How long someone has been on the EDG has no bearing on this.

What has the pub management said? Have they had a chance to investigate? Allegations like this must rightly be taken seriously but along with that goes an understanding that the business will be given a reasonable timeframe within which to complete such investigations and report back to the customer. To come on social media beforehand, however aggrieved one might feel, is simply unfair. For all any of us know disciplinary procedures might already be underway. Of course, if you aren?t happy with the response then at that point social media can be your weapon of choice, but until then restraint must be shown.

I read the post as well, and to be honest I thought it was a bit much going on a public forum before the general manager had been given a chance to respond. Incidents like that are unfortunately still going on, but I have no time for people who hit up social media without giving a functioning business the opportunity to investigate and come back to them. To then accuse the admin of supporting racism is, as you point out, way over the line.

Jellybeanz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wrote about my personal experience today at the > Crown & Greyhound today but tragically the admin > have deleted the post. I understand you?re upset at the post being removed, but legally speaking you?ve put the forum in a tricky position. I can understand why it was removed. > > Sad times when racist actions are supported even > by this forum. > However this part is just you talking ?^*$?#~ rubbish. As my Glaswegian relatives might say, ?get to #%^^!? > Never mind I have almost 3,000 followers on > Twitter so there are always other ways of telling > the truth and making others aware. And that?s what Twitter is for...?nuff said.

Stop derailing the thread and take it to PM Uncleglen, not that you have the stones for that...

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > P68 the latter part of yr convoluted 2nd paragraph > is ugly. I disagree. I think it?s actually fairly clear, concise and reasonable.

dogdish Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am horrified by the tone of this discussion, the > way people who weren't there are piling in with > derogatory comments and calls to involve the > police, it's like mob rule. Getting shouted at in > the park by people who are being protective of > their dog is not a crime, however unpalatable it > may be. Actually as has been shown you are quite probably wrong here. This couple are very good people and their > dog is seriously unwell. So it sounds like you know them. I don't know what > happened Hmmm, you seem to know the couple, so I?m reckoning you?ve heard their side of the story. but for goodness sake please stop all > this mindless condemnation and apply some > emotional intelligence. Frankly it sounds like your mates could benefit from the same advice. Nice try, 1/10.

flocker spotter Wrote: > > The raison d'etre behind brexit is not about > change,it never was, it is about the continuity, > consolidation and affirmation of what already > exist. I've come to believe that this is probably the most accurate statement I've seen regarding Brexit.

That OP may well be over the top and very angry, but if you think that was homophobic, then I really have to disagree, personally. Just to reiterate - Lee?s wife was verbally attacked for no reason whatsoever, and he came on here trying to give as much information as possible. That is perfectly understandable when seen in context. I would?ve done the same thing. Is it possibly ill-judged? Yes. But not homophobic, and frankly understandable. Imagine how any of you would react if your partner came home with a similar tale? Context, sometimes it matters.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Without threat no asssault. > Insult. This is correct, and of course none of us know what was actually said. Whether an assault took place is probably not something we will ever know, though it?s not out of the realm of possibility. However, I think it can be agreed that this was a vile attack on innocent people, which is to be deplored. ?Attack? is not an incorrect term for this, I feel.