JoeLeg

cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Chill Monica - if you are so confident about your > "legal rights" then you have nothing to fear from > Southwark. You clearly haven't properly read my > comments nor the more recent comments from others > and appear to be focussing only on your own narrow > interests. Wonder what sort of business you run as > you don't sound very welcoming. Ok, I think the problem here is that you are not delineating between the section of paving which is the public highway, and the private land owned by the shops. You describe Monica's "legal rights", putting quotation marks arounds the words legal rights which makes it seem as if you don't entirely agree on the authenticity of such rights. The simple fact is - as pointed out very early by Penguin68 - if that part of the paving is within the deeds of the shop, then it doesn't belong to anyone else, and nobody (not you, me, the council or the Prime Minister) can tell the shop how to administer it. The rest of the paving is public highway, and encroachment onto that can reasonably incur the wrath of Southwark's enforcement officers. Your comments are things such as: "The pavements are for people walking with everyone else on the actual road and it's not clear how life is to be improved for pedestrians with other users and shopkeepers asserting their rights." and "I think the point being made is that pedestrians need space on the pavements to walk freely and safely. Anything that impedes this needs to be looked at carefully." Nothing wrong with that per se, but it makes the assumption of an equivalence between the public highway part of the paving and the private land owned by the shop. There isn't one. Your beef, it seems, is not with the shopkeepers, but with the law that allows this in the first place. They aren't doing anything wrong, and those "legal rights" which you seem so disparaging of are actually legal rights. They aren't up for debate or interpretation - it's like someone trying to tell me that my front driveway is part of the pavement just because it isn't fenced off from the public highway. You disapprove of people "asserting their rights", so if you want things to change you'll need to force a change in the law and remove the land from the deeds held by the businesses. I'm genuinely mystified as to why you feel shops should not be allowed to put out an A board on their own land. Is it really so terrible?

I think it?s dangerous to assume that the countryside is some kind of idyll where everyone is content and balanced. This is only my own personal opinion, but I believe it comes down to what problems a person feels they can deal with on a daily basis. Outside of major metropolitan areas there are issues that we don?t have to worry about, and vice versa. I can understand someone deciding they?ve had enough of city life and heading for the sticks. But don?t go assuming there are no troubles to be found out there. ?Foolish? youth is to be found everywhere.

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you mustn't say "bastards" these days as it > offends those born out of wedlock and is very > un-PC. I put "lunatics running the asylum" on this > forum and was given a wigging as it offends real > lunatics. Beware the soppy PC bunch! Really? What would you consider to be properly offensive these days? What would you hate being called? Asking for a friend...

But I don?t understand what about this you don?t get? The land outside the shops belongs to them; we have no more say in what they put there than they do to tell us what we do in our front gardens. If they encroach beyond that then of course the council can do something about it, but for the rest of it they pay their business rates and are allowed to proceed as they please. These are independent businesses trying to make a living in an increasingly challenging area - just look at the number of places getting priced out by rent increases. Surely it?s in our interests locally to allow them as much opportunity as possible? Certainly the big chains won?t give a rodents backside what we think about how they proceed in any manner, so I?d rather allow small places the leeway to do what they are in fact legally entitled to do. I?d gently suggest that your energies might be better directed on getting Southwark to be a more responsible council, but I also recognise that getting Southwark to be better is a pipe dream.

Ah, I'll miss this shop, but that's mostly nostalgia on my part. It'd long since been superseded by many other places on the Lane, especially the excellent Organic Village place, which has turned itself into a really good little vendor. I understand why some are sad to see it go, but it was expensive and run down, you could tell ages ago they knew it was done for. I'm pessimistic about what might replace it, but we'll see I guess.

I?m beginning to think you?re deliberately trolling...

Given that it can supposedly drop the Tornado?s as soon as they?ve lifted off the runway in Cyprus, it?s nice to see someone showed restraint. Here?s hoping we go back to the diplomatic wrangling now, though I have no idea what to do about Syria in general.

Mattis has gone on tv to explicitly state the missiles were a ?one time shot?, and Russia is stating that none of them went into their ?air defence zones?, both of which is hopefully diplomatic code for ?its over? and ?we haven?t fired back...yet?. Of course we still have Russia threatening retaliation of some form, though who knows what that will be.

Ah #%^*! Here we go. This is not good, on any level.

Like pretty much every nationality, I?d imagine the people are cool; it?s the actions of their (and our) leaders which are the problem, but again that?s true for every nationality.

Well now Russia is blaming us, saying we staged the whole thing to frame them. (The UK, that is, not the EDF) Now I wonder why they would want to start blaming us for stuff...

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I remain of the view that any attack would just be > for PR. It will have no military value. It would > also be the height of hypocrisy to take action > just because a different form of killing has been > used on a relatively very small number of people, > while doing nothing when hundreds of thousands are > killed, but just in a different way. Maybe. I?m slightly suspicious (alright, very suspicious) of this whole thing. There is, I?m sure, much more to this than meets the eye, but I?m also sure we?ll probably never be told. Mostly this is world powers playing diplomacy with peoples lives.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JL wrote: "...if Putin decides to shoot more it?ll > be those he uses to hit ships..." > > How do you sleep at night JL?! Not particularly well, but that has more to do with my youngest insisting on climbing into our bed every night! No, seriously I don?t think Putin or anyone else wants a war, and again I agree with pretty much everything you say; my concern remains the ability of humans to make a mistake in the heat of the moment. That?s a danger I can?t discount. I?m also really not convinced that people like John Bolton or Mike Pence are who you want in the room if an American plane has been destroyed; there?s a fair few hawks around Trump. Ironically I would trust Mattis far more. > > I sincerely hope I'm not wrong, but I don't think > you need get too worked up just yet. Indeed, but like I say, child of the Cold War here, and knowing now as we do just how close we came on several occasions to a mistake leading to our annihilation, this is all too close for comfort to me. > > I can say all this confidently without fear of > embarrassment, because if I do turn out to be > wrong, posting this on EDF will be the least of my > worries! Very true! Here?s hoping...

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I will have a go at the as a matter of course - > I don't care who said what since the responses are > so predictable...in your bourgie way Now you?re just embarrassing yourself...again.

What I know of the S400 is informed from what few open-source points I can find, and the general opinion is that it?s a very serious piece of kit. That said, I take your point regarding lack of solid info, and the Israeli?s never give anything away. My point about cruise missiles is that they have always been a serious piece of Russian (and Soviet before that) hardware. While the SAM?s are defensive in nature (though I doubt the distinction would be made by aircraft launching TLAM?s from international airspace) if Putin decides to shoot more it?ll be those he uses to hit ships; they?re all based up around Murmansk, with some dispersed nearer, none of which is too far away. Russian EW capabilities are also considerable. I suspect that of push came to shooting the Russians would hit very hard at first, and we?d find out just how good Arleigh Burke?s and F-22?s are, while praying that it would stop before the worst happened. The trouble is that everything likely to be involved is untested as far as using it to its ?full potential? goes, so no one actually knows what would happen. All of this is really just armchair generalship of course. I remember the Cold War with horror, and have no desire to return to those times which is why I suppose this is of such macabre fascination to me. I fervently hope this is all the ?language? I referred to above, and that they understand each other. I was once told a bone-chilling tale by a former USAF communications officer - which he witnessed personally - of how the Americans came appallingly, sickeningly close to launching a first strike on the USSR, because of...sunspots! He averred, and I agree, that we should never underestimate the ability of simple human misinterpretation or misunderstanding to bring about catastrophe.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JL - "while the Russians have dispersed their air > units to a variety of locations so that America > can?t target them, leaving Trump with the thorny > problem of being unable to fire any missiles lest > the Russians get annoyed and start shooting back" > > I don't understand that - the sentence contradicts > itself. If the Russians have moved their aircraft > so they don't get targeted, how does that mean the > US can't fire missiles? They are not planning on > attacking Russian forces (obviously) but the Assad > regime - it suits the US to avoid having Russians > getting in the way and being killed. By intermingling Russian and Syrian units, Russia prevents the US from targeting Syrian Air Force (and other) facilities that would otherwise be needed to support the Russian/Syrian war effort; for example, the Syrians have flown pretty much every one of their serviceable a?c onto Russian-occupied bases, to protect them - as you say, Trump is not about to attack such locations as it would result in a shooting war between the USA and Russi, and terrible potential for ?instant sunshine?. Russia feels it cannot let the US have free reign over its ally; this is a move which passively restricts the US ability to target Assad. In fact it > suits Russia too - they don't want a fight > (themselves) with the USA - they would be > massively out-gunned and anyway it just doesn't > suit either power. I agree no one wants a war (we all hope), but I?d disagree over the idea that Russia would be outgunned. They have the S400 air defence system deployed in Syria, and if they want they can deny airspace out across part of the Mediterranean; the S400 is pretty much the best SAM system in the world, and the Russians are very capable operators of it. Add to that their cruise missile abilities, and I?d say they would give as good as they got. > > That is why the Russian ships just left their port > at Tartus - they don't want any strikes hitting > them. The two powers also have a system of direct > communications between their commanders on the > ground to avoid mistaken attacks - that will no > doubt also be used to try to make sure the > Russians are not in the firing line directly. The > real danger is they get hit because they happen to > be close by, hence the communications. Again, yes, all of that is true. But history is littered with examples of local screw-ups that had strategic ramifications, so let?s all hope those comms are clear and being used. No doubt there?s a lot of behind the scenes activity, but that doesn?t negate the possibility of someone doing something stupid. > > Last time when the US fired cruise missiles at the > Syrian air base they told the Russians in advance, > so they could move away and no Russians were > hurt. Which makes the redeployment of Russian units as cover for Syrian bases all the more notable. Russia is limiting the places it will let the US strike. > > All this amounts to is pointless virtue signalling > anyway. A night's strikes on a few bases in the > desert (with a couple of day's warning) is not > going to change the course of anything. It is just > showing that the US will not 'tolerate' war crimes > of killing civilians with gas/chemical weapons. > Apparently its ok to do that for years with barrel > bombs and more sophisticated weaponry on a way > bigger scale every day though - that's why its > virtue signalling. Quite why its ok to blow a > kid's arms and legs off leaving them to bleed to > death in agony is ok, but to gas them to death is > not, I don't quite understand. Both actions seem > equally vile to me. > > The daily Syrian (supported by Russia) bombing and > artillery must have killed thousands of times as > many as died in the chemical attacks - just this > year alone. Again, yes, that?s all correct. Nothing about this is good, or even morally acceptable. At this point the concern is that the conflict could - through misunderstanding or bad communication - become something far worse. I?m reminded of the scene in ?13 Days?, when McNamara berates the Joint Chiefs for their careless handling of the ships, exclaiming ?This is LANGUAGE, this is President Kennedy talking to Premier Krushchev!?. Things haven?t changed that much. We have hotlines now, communication between militaries at all levels, but the movement of troops, the positions of ships, this is all still diplomatic chatter. I fervently hope they?re all speaking the same language.

In other words Mattis has told him to calm down, while the Russians have dispersed their air units to a variety of locations so that America can?t target them, leaving Trump with the thorny problem of being unable to fire any missiles lest the Russians get annoyed and start shooting back. In other news Russian tv has been telling people what they should stock in their fallout shelters, so that?s cheery!

This is where I find myself really morally conflicted. I understand the police have to be very delicate on this matter, but frankly I have no trouble believing that Mr Osman is now very worried about retribution. I also think Mr Vincent?s family should be realistic about what their late relative was doing, the kind of man he was and the kind of life he lived. They make themselves look extremely unpleasant when they call for Mr Osman to be tried for murder and imply that Mr Vincent is the victim in this. Let?s be honest, we?re talking about a career criminal here, who ended up dying in the course of committing a burgalry. I have no support for capital punishment, but this kind of thing is different - if you break into someone?s house and they defend themselves, then I think you bought it on yourself. Vincent had the option to flee, he didn?t need to engage Osman in a fight. The family of Vincent should have enough sense to know when local community feelings outweigh their personal - and frankly misplaced - sense of injustice. Also, I?m aware that the traveller community comes in for an unfair share of prejudice and hatred, but at this time they should be making it plain that they do not support the threats that have been levelled at Mr Osman. In the end, this is a case where a hardened criminal died in the process of committing crime, and his family need to recognise that. Of course they should mourn for the dead and regret the passing of someone who made wrong choices, but was also a father, brother, son and friend, but none of that excuses the subsequent, intimidating behaviour by those who wish for some kind of vengeance, and who show rank insensitivity to Mr Osman and his neighbours.

Well I was wrong. There it is, Trump doing what Trump does. Somehow I?m not reassured.

They aren?t hinting, they?re outright declaring that what they?ll do. Russian SAM?s are very good too. I?m now starting to get worried by all this. Normally Trump is all over Twitter, but there doesn?t seem to be much from him on this. For some reason that seems worse.

Well that?s all the Fail journalists know how to do! Paul Dacre has spent so long pandering to his base that they?ve forgotten what real journalism is (to be fair many newspapers could have same charge levelled at them);the Fail has for many years been nothing but a massive echo chamber for those who believe things ?used to be better?.

Bloody hell, I?ve been quoted by the Fail! Shit, I?m gonna need a shower... There?s something really weird about being quoted attacking right-wing extremists by a paper that once supported right wing extremists and has never quite been willing to entirely renounce that moment in its history.

RPC - you haven?t really answered my question, to be honest, but I understand this is something you feel strongly on. Fair enough. Agree and disagree I guess.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Robert Poste's Child Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It is a lot easier to 'talk the talk' when you > have a set view that conforms to the current PC > brigade (deliberate choice of word) because then > you don't have to think about it- Much like yourself and your solid aversion to anything that doesn?t fit your narrow worldview. unless Rendel is > playing devil's advocate just to stir stuff up. Coming from one of the biggest keyboard warriors around (deliberate choice of words), that?s pretty funny - in a laughing at you, not with you, kind of way.

Peckhamguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sean of Duelich you are a top man lol > Well said Talking to yourself? Will none of the other kids play with you? Ah, shame...