JoeLeg

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's been patently obvious from day 1 that all you > people in your ED bubble have NO Idea what is > going on in the poorer areas of the UK .....so I > give up- you'll have to just suck it up when it > comes. Actually we do; certainly I do. And they been made plain to your bigoted, immigrant-hating backside for a long time. But here's the thing - you think this is going to be some kind of magic spell which cures all your ills. Now, in the case of someone like Keano77, who I find to be a rational individ with an open mind (if something of a troll occasionally), it's possible that Brexit may deliver a good outcome. But that isn't you. You're so filled with hatred and anger at what the world has become that you cannot find room in your heart for anything else. You rail against the immigrant and find comfort in the lies told by those on the fringes of reality, and nothing but the hardest of Brexits will satisfy you. Because ultimately, really, what you want is to make someone pay, to hurt someone for damaging the country you grew up in which was never really there to begin with. I actually like debating with Brexiters. I believe on talking with the opposing view; I might learn something. But you espouse the worst of the Leave vote, the ones who "want their country back", but not because of what it might become. But in order to somehow take it back to a time and place that was more comforting to them, which strangely seems to coincide with there being less foreigners, but then whose going to do all those pesky 'immigrant jobs'? I'm still waiting, by the way, on your suggestions for dealing with that. You too need to wake up. You think Brexit is a blank cheque to fund some kind of time machine. But you have no idea what we will end up with and will be angry at anything that doesn't expressly fit your view of how Britain should be. Send Keano77 back in, he at least understand the dangers. You just keep descending further into hatred.

UG said - "and they made up that little disclaimer- that EU workers would do the work that UK citizens wouldn't- what a load of tosh- they forgot to add 'at a fraction of the wages' because of course young East Europeans have no kids, no mortgages, and are happy to live in overcrowded con" This I'm afraid is rubbish. Go and ask rose firms - such as the soft fruit industry, and they aren't the only ones - about the trouble they are already having trying to recruit British people for jobs that have recently been done by immigrants. Minimum wage is minimum wage, same for everyone. There is no 'fraction of the cost'. You want to argue that the wage itself should be higher? I agree with you but my views on this are a matter of record. Go and ask hospitals (the NHS is staffed by 80% non-UK people, according to the head of a major London hospital I met recently) why they can't get UK people to be cleaners or porters. Then tell me what you plan to do about it.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're not seriously citing YouTube as an > authoritative source? > > This sewing circle is getting worse Why not? Plenty of people of all hues and stripes seem to have taken unverifiable videos produced in someone's back room as gospel and based their political opinions on them. Some of its much worse than YouTube but somehow because it's not 'MSM' it's automatically truth.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > malumbu Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > We will be able to go to the butchers counter > and > > ask for chlorine washed chicken though... But > > perhaps not red smarties. > > > Make a change from Salmonella and campylobacter > and will save the NHS a fortune treating I don't think you know what you're talking about here.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Precisely. Can you imagine a situation where you > were told you can only buy your cakes from > particular cakeshops? > > Perish the thought Well of course it'll be wonderful to be told that the free trade deal with America which Trump says will be 'great' (yeah, for America) will allow us to buy all that sub-standard American meat (and other foodstuffs) which doesn't meet current EU standards. Still, nice to know we can pay them for chlorinated chicken while they buy the NHS.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shakes head. You can lead a horse to water but you > can't make it drink ... Right back at you. I thought you were keen on reasonable debate; I do not believe that telling "Remainers" that they are always talking Britain down is helpful to that. You are free to disagree. ETA - also, telling others "the British people" have said this or that, sounds a lot like you forget that we too are part of the British people. I'd be grateful if you'd stop pretending otherwise.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Shame so many remainers seem to enjoy > putting Britain down. Don't do that mate - just don't do that. I thought we were past that...

All very reasonable, but you're assuming that the technology is keeping him alive can be moved to the home, as well as - as pointed out above - they allow the support to be turned off. Once he's in their home it can get very legally dodgy in that respect. Without the equipment, he won't make it to the front door.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > ??? How did they over diversify? I suspect they moved away from the core business that had been a success. It's amazing how often something in this industry seems like a good idea, only to reveal itself as their own personal Stalingrad. > > ??? Why did they keep this person on if things > were going so badly wrong? I'd be willing to bet that the person concerned kept it covered up until too late. That's the risk in paying someone else to run your business.

What Blah Blah said, 100%.

jacks09 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > In that example it is clear that harm will be > caused to the child, that doesn't appear to be the > case in the CG example, if i am mistaken please do > say. I guess there are no right answers in this > horrible case. That's why it isn't ethically clear cut in this case. Some argue that quality of life is so low that it equates to harm to preserve life, others disagree. That's why, as you say, there are no right answers.

jacks09 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am coming from quite an uninformed position > here, and have been lucky enough to recently > become a father to a healthy boy. > > What sits uncomfortably for me is that anyone > apart from the parents can have the final say on > issues relating to the child. It just doesn't sit > right with me that a hospital/judge/state can > determine a course of action that the parents > don't agree with. > > Really interested to hear others thoughts on this. While I can see what you mean, if you think about it there are many points in law where doctors (and others) are allowed to make decisions for the child which the parent does not agree with. They generally revolve around cases of abuse or neglect, and of course that's not what's happening here, but we certainly have a system where doctors can make the case that parents are not choosing the best interests of their child. In this situation it's a terrible grey area. On the one hand their are experienced medical professionals who know that this is not a life worth living. And on the other the poor child's parents who will try anything. I'm a parent too, and I understand. But parents aren't always allowed to have the final say regardless, and that's why it sometimes ends p in court. Just because I'm a parent, it doesn't automatic mean any decision I make is right.

I know someone currently working on PICU at GOSH; she says the staff there find it really tough. There's a recognition of the rights of the parents and a deep empathy with their need to do everything they can to help the child, balanced with the medical knowledge of how little can be for him. Personally I'm just so glad it's not me in that position, and I pray it never is. I have no idea how they get through the day.

How did they mess up? I get that they must have somehow, but what exactly?

Well now you can just fuck off...

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just my imagination. Your point being?

DulwichFox Wrote > > May I just say something about comments aimed at > Louisa. > > Louisa never sets out to insult and belittle > other posters. Unlike some on here. You know who > you are. > > Foxy. Louisa also isn't shy about voicing controversial opinions either, not all of which are easy to back up.

Ok, fair enough, but to put it into context I got pulled up quite reasonably a couple of days ago for posting something which I am sure is true, but to others it was hearsay. Your assertions that people go places in ED just to be seen there seems to me not to be very different. You believe that it happens, which is your right, but there's precious little evidence.

There's a world of difference between "to be seen doing it" and trying out somewhere new that you might never visit again for whatever reason. I personally doubt that many people go somewhere just to be seen doing it, especially at Christmas when we all have more important things than being seen by people who don't know us buyimg cheese. I'd be interesting to know if there's any proof that folk do that?

I agree with all that Louisa, but sometimes - just occasionally - some might say that you've not always been so enamoured of new arrivals, and that sometimes you don't hold back from voicing your opinion that they don't offer anything you want. It's great that you are supportive of local trades over many years - I know both you and I are enthusiastic fans of Sopers, for example, but you haven't alwYs seemed so keen on the new arrivals. I could be misinterpreting you of course.

Oh my days... I voiced an opinion, based on something I believe to be true. You reasonably point out that it was a long time ago, and insist on absolute proof. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa... Now, that's two separate posts about Ayres that you have demanded 100% proof for. Seems to me like your quite defensive of them. Any particular reason for that?

Well, if you're going to insist on anything posted on the EDF as being 100% backed up by provable facts then this will become a dull place. I once posted a bunch of stuff told to me even earlier than that by soldiers who had served in N Ireland. Should that not have been posted? While I'm happy to concede it was a long time ago, and that things have apparently changed, I stand by what I said. You are of course free to decry me and I can handle that, by I think it's a slippery slope to insist that anything posted be completely verifiable.

Ok, fine. It's hearsay to you. Fine. Enjoy your day.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've seen several non-white staff working in the > place over the last few years, so this story > sounds dubious at best. Certainly wasn't dubious back then, I assure you. I'm obviously very happy if this is no longer the case, but my friend was left in no doubt as to the owners feelings at the time. Times, and people, do change, hsppily.

The difference between 'real' butter and the industrial stuff Seabag speaks of is noticeable. Real butter is, however, noticeably more expensive (and getting more so as we speak). I kind of understand why someone like Ayres isn't using mountains of Lescure; it would certainly put the price of the flan up!