JoeLeg

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Teresa May as a woman, doing a Margaret Thatcher > and getting tough with Russia at a time > when Russia's unstable leader Vladimir Putin is > boasting about his development of nuclear weapons > > 'invulnerable' to US missile defence, is > Madness. > I agree that the rhetoric is unpleasantly familiar to the 1980?s, and no less scary. However, some kind of response has to be made; if this was indeed the use of a chemical weapon on our streets by a foreign power then it cannot go unchallenged. Putin thrives on finding out how far he can push it, and keeping others ?off balance? through action. Personally I don?t think he?s unstable, I think he?s actively unsettling his geopolitics opponents. > The assignation of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in > June 1914 is attributed to the cause of World War > One. > If we had seen someone of similar standing assisinated in Salisbury then yes, we would be calling up the reserves by now. Let us hope we never witness such an incident. > Russia is in a current Financial Crisis. World > leaders can result to War in such situations. Again, yes, I agree. Part of why this is happening is so he can deflect attention back home. I can only hope diplomacy behind the scenes is progressing. > Could the recent incident with the chemical > attack in Salisbury spark a situation which could > escalate to War with Russia.? God I really hope not. Somehow I doubt it - everyone knows where it would lead...remember that Putin utilises misdirection, internet activity, confusion and deception very effectively. It?s hard for folk like us to know what he?s really up to.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is more complicated than that though. Glasmost > failed because capitalism does not work like that. > You can not just switch economic system overnight > and expect it to function properly from the off. > What were the people really liberated from and > into? Putin is a KGB man through and through. He > was selected from an establishemnt that never > wanted Glasnost in the first place. He is simply > the product of an old order re-establishing > control in reaction to it. I could?ve been clearer. What I meant was that America ultimately forced the USSR into an arms race it could not afford, which is what bought about its demise as a political entity. What happened after was just as you say. And yes, he?s reestablished the old order. But a lot of Russians like that, it makes them feel safe and that?s really important to them. > > On the NATO thing, well again, Russia is not > faultless is shaping these thngs. It starts with > the blockade of the Western occupied half of > Berlin, followed by a hard border that seperates > families for decades. Russia did not have to do > any of that. So where do the seeds of aggression > really lie? That?s a Gordian knot if ever there was one; most of Cold War history is a series of reactions to moves made by the other side, continuing until 1990. The fact is assurances were made and broken. Again, this is just my opinion, but I think NATO made a grevious mistake in promising no eastward expansion, and the west in general made a mistake in thinking that Russia would not ?rise again? in the manner it has post-Yeltsin. The result has been an unsurprising flexing of Russian muscle as they reassertvthemselves.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Because there?s about to be a Russian election, > > and as ?assured? as Putin?s victory may be, it > > doesn?t hurt to remind everyone of how he > handles > > things. > > Like you say he is pretty much assured of victory. > I don't think that explains the timing of it and > I'm not sure who exactly he is reminding of how he > handles things. Why the UK? If anything it should > show the UK how much it needs to be part of the EU > in terms of not being isolated. And that I'm sure > is not part of Putin's agenda. I think he?s reminding people in Russia, plus exiles, who they?re answerable to. It was more for domestic consumption - he doesn?t give two figs what we think about it.

Personal opinion - in fairness to Springtime they have a point about eastward NATO expansion since 1990. Russia was given assurances that NATO would not expand past East Germany which were comprehensively broken. Now I can also see why Poland and the Baltic States would wish to join NATO (though frankly the idea of Latvia etc being able to trigger Article 5 fills me with dread), as Russia views large swathes if Eastern Europe as being their sphere of influence, and those nations remember what happened post-WW2. But Russia, as I said, also learns from history. They don?t want a NATO state sitting on their border. They don?t want missiles sitting that close to them. The fact is we would respond the same way. ETA - this is all part of the larger issue, which is Putin making sure no one treats Russia the way it was (in their eyes) treated in the 1990?s. He has economic problems domestically and he rememebers that it was economics that ultimately sank the USSR.

Because there?s about to be a Russian election, and as ?assured? as Putin?s victory may be, it doesn?t hurt to remind everyone of how he handles things.

@Fightingfit 2/10, poor effort, must try harder.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But this is also true of the government who have > no majority. Labour are not in power so don't have > to actually do anything or settle on any one > direction right now. I see your point, which I way I say that voters such as Springtime may find themselves with a dilemma at the next GE, as by then they will have to present a coherent policy, and to judge from what they have said thus far I believe they are still out of step with many Leave voters within their base; personally I would rather they had something now, but there we have it. I completely agree though > that Corbyn has fudged the issue from day one of > his leadership. He has always been a eurosceptic > in a party that is not. But even the governments > own findings say there is no economic benefit to > leaving the EU. The only question is how long it > takes leave voters to understand this. We should remember that many Leave voters have been clear that they understood the likelihood of economic hardship and that they believe it a price worth paying in the short to medium term, for what they believe will be a better UK in the long term (I sincerely hope they are right, now that we have been set on this course). A significant portion of Leave votes were from the older generation, who have seen many cycles of boom and bust (including the disastrous 70's) and are aware that we generally come through these things. Personally (and this is just my personal view, I'm not an economist), I don't think anyone can predict how the future will unfurl. The same people (on both sides) who confidently predict one outcome or another are also the ones who reject outright any reasoned discussion or well-researched point of view which runs contrary to their own, and a lot of people, again on both sides, are unwilling to be swayed by any survey, study or report, no matter it's provenance or reliability. This was badly handled from the outset, and the recriminations on both sides will run deep for some time.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > paulu1973 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What is wrong with paying ?47 for an afternoon > > tea? If it's within your means then do it and > > don't feel bad for doing so > > Its obscene. Some Families don't have ?47.00 a > Week to pay for food for themselves and their > children. > > > Fox I genuinely want to understand your logic here. As I understand it, you're saying that it is 'obscene' to spend a certain amount of money on indulging oneself, when others in our society live in poverty. Two questions - firstly, how do we define the point at which people are behaving in an 'obscene' manner? You say ?47 for afternoon tea is too much. What about, say, a season ticket to a major Premiership football team? Or a holiday in the Maldives? Or a expensive bespoke suit from Saville Row? All these could be seen as indulgences, unnecessary for survival and solely used for personal satisfaction. Should they also be considered morally reprehensible? Secondly, who are you to deride others for how they choose to spend their personal money? I mean, it's a pretty effective straw man argument to bring up child poverty in a supposedly first-world country and use it to deride the desires of people who do have disposable income. Are you saying that you - or anyone - should somehow be an arbiter of what people are allowed to do? That while some don't have enough everyone should be held back until we are all on a reasonable basic level? Bluntly Soviet Russia tried that and it didn't work out too well for them. Two of your curry house meals equates to one trip to afternoon tea at that price. I submit that your logic is fallible, and what we have here is you simply feeling that what you choose to spend your income on is acceptable whereas others is not. That isn't fact, it's opinion. I would direct you to the book "A Greedy Man In A Hungry World" by Jay Rayner for a far more effective demolition of your argument than I can muster.

What can we do? Sweet FA... What many people forget is that Russia has long been a master of misdirection, subterfuge, confusion and deception. Good old 'maskirovka', and they are very, very good at it. Putin is clever, he doesn't act impulsively (we hope). If this was Russia, then they've already thought about our reaction when we find out (I mean come on, this happened just down the road from Porton Down - if it was an act by others we were definitely going to work out what was done), and they're making moves now that they already planned. Someone once said that the Russian people are 'a rabble looking for a whip'. There's a grain of truth in that, but Russians like Putin because he's strong leader who promises to keep them safe. They've had extensive experience of paying for safety with blood, and they refuse to sit back and wait for trouble to come to them - they reach out and nip it in the bud, sometimes quite violently. All the time they're sending out the message "Do not mess with us, we will bite back". I'm amazed when people are surprised at Putin's intervention in Ukraine, or the idea that they will threaten to turn off gas supplies - they play for keeps over there. But again, we have no idea of what Putin is really playing at; people talk these days of hybrid warfare, the Russian bot factories, economic action at so on, all of which goes back to the Russian way of doing things - they're taking action and making moves before anyone else realises the game has started. That may sound a bit "Hollywood dramatic", but it's basically how they work - they learnt in WW2 that ultimately you take less casualties attacking than you do defending, and they simply extended that logic to everything else. There's nothing we can do. Putin is not going to be pushed around, and despite the flaws in their system he genuinely enjoys popular support - he'd probably get reelected no matter what. The relations between the UK and Russia are not very good now, and i have no idea how anyone can make them better; just as he won't be pushed around, neither can we let ourselves be, especially with Brexit looming. I remember the Cold War, and I have no desire to return to it.

Yeah, well, Labour have no idea what their Brexit position is, so at the next GE you may have a conundrum to solve - it is frankly impossible to know how Corbyn et al would handle all this - a lot of their stated aims are at variance with the undeniable sentiment that drove large swathes of the Leave vote. I would respect Corbyn far more if he simply admitted that he supports Leave; he's fudged the issue from day one and it's left much of the Labour party without coherent leadership right when it needs it, thus rendering them null as an effective opposition. Starmer, McDonnell and others all hold varying views - and while I accept the same is true of the Tories, they at least are closer to having a workable policy. Labour is not squarely behind Brexit; I would trust the local scout troop to handle negotiations more than I would trust them. Yes, I'm being sarcastic and hyperbolic, but frankly I don't look at Labour these days and see a party capable of bringing the country together. They woke up on the 24th June and realised how out of touch they were with their base, and have bee frantically trying to figure it out ever since. So far they have not succeeded.

Labour is screwed on Brexit, as so many of its MP?s are heftily pro-Remain, amd so much of its heartland voted Leave, and they didn?t see it coming. Since then they?ve basically been floundering, though in fairness so have a lot of their voters, who also can?t square the circle of being a Labour supporter in a Brexit Britain.

Whatever, you?ve both totally missed the point, but whatever...

poch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Very aware of the London bubble etc but I wonder > whether 'anti EU feeling outside of London runs > deep and sincere'. Were people in Cornwall and > Darlington etc really sitting around in the pub in > the years leading up to the vote complaining about > the EU and British loss of sovereignty? Yes, yes they were, and you didn?t have to go that far to encounter such feeling. I ran into some fairly vitriolic UKIP style opinions not far south of Sevenoaks, for example, about fifteen years ago. There?s a definite irony in the EU money which is enriched the very regions which then told it to sod off, but for a lot of rural UK the EU has long been the reason for all the worlds ills. I'm not > so sure. Immigration is obviously a real issue > for some, and Remainers need either to make the > case for a) the benefits of immigration or b) - > with a heavy heart - the Belgium model ie an > example of an EU country which has much tougher > immigration policies and has the remit to enact > these within the bounds of EU law. A perfect example of how most of our problems are of our own making.

I think around here we all have to remember that the anti-EU feeling outside of London runs deep and sincere. There?s a lot of people who loath the EU, and to be fair while some of them are an excellent example of Churchill?s maxim that the average voter is the best argument against democracy, some of them do have good reasons. Everyone here knows that I believe most of the problems we blame on the EU were actually of our own making, but I?m not so hubristic as to assume the EU is a flawless institution; far from it. The depth of discontent that would be stirred if we U-turned on Brexit might lead to some unrest, but more than that it would lead to the direct rise of parties which would make UKIP look like the Greens. That is the main reason neither Con nor Lab are willing to upset the apple cart now; they?ve had a taste of what happens when they relinquish power and are not about to do anything so foolish again! All of that also speaks volumes about entrenched politics in the UK, but that?s another discussion. There will be no second In/Out referendum, because it would bring nothing but trouble. A referendum on the final deal is theoretically possible but I think the major politicians have had enough of referenda. Even Boris and Jacob know that though they won the last one there?s no guarantee they?d win any others.

That?s some grade A cognitive dissonance you?ve got there Louisa, keep it up!

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think this forum is quite tame, overall. If > anything, the loss of former regulars, often > unfairly blamed on myself and fox amongst others, > has dampened down the confrontation. The forum has > become quite boring IMO. It seems to me, the forum > should have been careful what it wished for. > Because here are the consequences, loss of > regulars, dumbing down of interesting characters, > and a forum which has lost its bite. > > Louisa Nothing?s ever as good as it used to be, eh?

That's just vile. I only hope that the attendant bad publicity will be enough to make them realise they've f'ed up.

Rosetta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > east-of-the-Rye Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Some shops, i believe one in Brockley, and the > > Beer Shop in Nunhead have gone cash-less. I > guess > > this works if you completely cut out the cost > of > > banking the cash, and accept the cost of taking > > card payments: > > from the Beer Shop website: > > WE'VE GONE CASHLESS > > After trialling a cashless period throughout > > February we have decided to go cashless. Thanks > to > > everyone who gave their feedback. > > > > On average only 21% of our take is cash and if > > these takings were on card it would save us 60% > in > > costs to accept, count and bank the cash. (Over > > ?1300 a year!) Card payments are also more > secure, > > avoid human error and make transactions > quicker. > > > > So from now on we'll only be accepting card and > > contactless payments. As always there is and > never > > will be a minimum spend or any charges. > > > Think it?s Brown?s in Brockley. It is Brown's. Had an excellent coffee from there today. The hot chocolate is banging too.

B&G Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree. I don't mind being asked to pay 25-50p, > but I resent the minimum spend. My two closest > shops are a fab independent Turkish supermarket > and a crappy co-op. The Turkish supermarket has > a ?10 minimum spend which I think is unreasonably > high. The cash point is outside the co-op. If > I'm popping out for milk or bin bags or whatever, > there's no point walking down the hill to get cash > just to walk back up again. > > Wish they'd see the light and just charge the fee! Completely agree, that shop is excellent but the ?10 minimum is weird. Though in my case it just makes me spend more in there if I don't have cash, which I guess is their aim!

Napoleonic military historians. Seriously, they argue over the tiniest details with the fury of teenagers.

Nor by me either ED! But I?m perpetually confused by (mostly Leave)voters who are now vociferously arguing their version of what we should do next, and seem unable to listen to any informed opinion that does not precisely dovetail with their view, regardless of who is speaking. Now surely is the time for as much debate as possible, but it?s going to be impossible to find an unbiased view.

I don?t really understand why anyone who is seen to be challenging Brexit (in any way) is automatically viewed with suspicion. Lady Clegg, or John Major for that matter, may indeed be biased. Does that make them automatically wrong? And, to be fair, does it make Gove or Davis automatically wrong when they write their vision for the future of the UL? Surely by this point we need - sorry Gove - as many experts as we can get, to give us as much information as we can? Why are we dismissing people purely because of how the voted? Are we saying only people who don?t care either way are allowed to inform the debate, that everyone else is tainted?

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I read Sue's Original Post and thought how > condescending it sounded. > Takes one to know one... > > Very insensitive post. > > DulwichFox What, yours? Yes, very much so. If Louisa feels there?s some kind of anti-Foxy mentality on here, it may be because you insist on holding yourself up as the absolute barometer of morality and decency. Louisa at least has the ability to admit when she feels she was wrong.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why don't you put a poster up on Lordship Lane > > so all those who are on the streets and will not > see this post > > will know that someone is thinking about them. You really are a prick.

> From what I understand JoeLeg, the Londis store > has not been profitable for some years, long > before M&S arrived. Bare in mind the Iceland store > had similar opening hours to M&S. Yes, but M+S is pulling in more people than Iceland was, and I suspect they are picking up stuff while they are there that they might have used Londis for previously. > > If Londis no longer wish to remain at this > location, a viable alternative which keeps alive > the useable community aspect must be found. Yet > another restaurant is just not acceptable, nor is > a coffee shop. While I heartily agree with you, I fear that the council will be unlikely to take that into consideration unless some kind of fervent representations are made. And remember this is Southwark we?re talking about... > > This site is handy for people who use gas and > electric keys, and also I know a lot of elderly > people who come here to buy lottery tickets and > newspapers. I expect local councillors to fight > tooth and nail to keep Londis or something similar > at this site. But if the site has dropped further into the red, what can local politicians do? The owners will eventually decide on its future, and unless a decrease in rent can somehow be agreed I don?t see what can be done, unfortunately.