JoeLeg

Another post with yet more ?whataboutery? and your hurt feelings because I told you what I think of people like you. You still can?t answer the point about child mortality, can you?

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > National Vaccine Information Centre have worked > closely with World Health Authoritys and CDC over > the years, they are concerned about being closed > down. Free speech,info yeah right. No doubt you'll > agree with closing down all these dangerous > nutters Joeleg, What, you mean people like you who spread lies and misinformation and hide behind secret groups because they don?t like being challenged? Yup, I want them shut down, and I want threats like you imprisoned. What you do to your own body is your own business, but when your behaviour is a danger the health of others you are a threat and must be treated as such. I have no moral qualms with that. a very very slippery slope and > also an insult to people suffering through vaccine > damage. > > https://www.nvic.org And those people who are still alive because of vaccines? Got anything to say about them? Or do you believe they should be dead? ETA - By the way, I had a good read of that website you linked to. As a result I am even more firmly convinced in the fallacy of your arguments. That is not a place of open-minded discussion, it is simply the polite face of a virulent movement that does not accept modern medicine has anything to offer; I would equate it to a 1970?s Sinn Fein. ETA 2 - For e ample, right there on the front page we have ?On Jan. 16, 2019 the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a report ranking ?vaccine hesitancy? as one of the top ?Ten Threats to Global Health in 2019? with no discussion of poverty, poor sanitation and poor nutrition as the greatest contributors to disease and early death in human populations?. A bigger straw man it would be harder to find. No one, anywhere, is denying those factors, but try removing vaccines from the equation and watch the death rate rocket. The one simple argument that you can?t handle is the decline in infant mortality since the introduction of vaccines. I don?t for one moment think that you like children dying young, or you want it to return, but the fact is vaccines are DIRECTLY responsible for less people dying young, just as antibiotics and better surgical understanding keep people alive longer, medical advances are the reason far fewer soldiers died pro rata in Iraq and Afghanistan than Vietnam, and we can enable people to live a full life with conditions from diabetes to HIV. No one claims medicine is perfect, but kindly point me to the most recent cholera outbreak in the U.K.?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/12/facebook-anti-vaxxer-vaccination-groups-pressure-misinformation You?re a dangerous fool.

Charles Martel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Charles Martel Wrote: > > --------------------------------------------- > The reality is there are people who > have created their own psychotic dystopia in which > going around armed and prepared to kill is normal. > There is absolutely nothing protecting the rest > of us from these people. That?s been true for millennia, and there?s never been anything to protect from such terrible, tragic, random acts of savagery that take an innocent life. What exactly is your point?

lavender27 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has anyone tried Dragon Castle at the Elephant and > castle? Really good. We mostly go for lunchtime dim sum, but the rest of the menu is worth it as well.

For an author you?ve got a really bad grip on written prose. ETA - Also a nasty little streak of misogyny.

georgecanning Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > when 'it' refers to the Malicious Communications > Act 1998, it really needs to define the word > malicious. There is truth, there is libel and > then there is RendelHarris. RendelHarris will go > down in history. A legend. A statue should be > built of Rendellharris at Goose Green roundabout. > Bronze of course, so we can all pay homage to this > great literary ambassador. A true legend, will go > down in history: all in the name of RendellHarris > xx Feel better now sweetie? Do you want to show us on this doll exactl where that nasty Rendell hurt your feelings so badly that you had to resort to abusive PM?s to make yourself feel better? ?Yeah, yeah I really told him! That?ll teach him, he won?t mess with me again!? said georgecanning to his bedroom wall at 3am...

snoopy17 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Andrew castle is right it is a rough area nothing > fancy, inbetween Peckham and Camberwell. only > rich people consider it a posh area, its nothing > special to everyone else. Someone got murdered last night. It?s a tragedy regardless of the surrounding circumstances. Using that as a springboard for your venom is despicable. Obvious troll is obvious. And stupid.

EDOldie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I think that Jamie and his pal (Freeholders) do > own the freehold but I'm guessing there is also a > long lease to Enterprise Inns (Leaseholders) and a > thirty year sub lease to the restaurant (Tenant). > The leaseholders could oppose the granting of a > new lease to the tenants on the basis that they > need the premises for their own use. There are a > pub company so it can't really be opposed by the > tenant. So it's goodbye much loved and valued > local restaurant and pub, albeit with not very > good beer in it but probably not the fault of the > pub as they may be tied in to buying beer from the > leaseholders, and hello to another pubco in > Lordship Lane. In France they have laws against > this sort of thing but I expect the authorities > are powerless to anything about it. I?m not doubting anything you say, as it sounds like you know far more about the issues concerned than I do, but I?m confused at to him someone can own a freehold but also somehow be leasing it back to Enterprise? Surely a freehold trumps everything? All ?layman?s terms? explanations welcome! Like I say, not doubting you, just clueless as to how that works legally.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "Apart from restaurants there are no real > shopping > > facilities in East Dulwich". > > > > Eh? There's M&S, the Co-op, Sainsbury's, > Lloyds, > > two other pharmacies, Organic Village, Moxons, > > William Rose, three DIY shops, Blackbird bakery, > a > > cobbler, a florist, at least two newsagents, > two > > bookshops, several clothes shops, a shoe shop, > at > > least two dry cleaners, at least two off > licences, > > at least two plant shops, a toy shop, You can > buy > > art materials now in Willows. Several gift > shops. > > Farmers, which sells just about everything .. > > Many more, that's just off the top of my head. > > > > What do you define as "real shopping > facilities", > > Dulwich Fox? > > > > My partner says you have to go to Camberwell for > a > record shop is that what you had in mind? > > There is no Electrical Shop, Phone Shop, Furniture > shop. > > Clothing shops are expensive and do not carry a > wide range of sizes. Try buying a pair of Jeans. > There is no longer a Tailors. > > Apart from Sainburys where can you buy cookware. > > Where can you buy a clock , a watch, towels, a > bedside lamp ,curtains, bedding , Sheets. > > Shall I go on ? In all seriousness, with the rise of Westfield et al most ?local? High Streets would struggle to provide such services. I?m not sure ED is unique in that respect.

Despite it being about a different style of conspiracy theory, I offer this as an example of how people will feel the need to insist - INSIST! - that despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary the small bits of anecdotal fodder they?ve located somehow add up to damning proof. As Gove (sort of) said, people are tired of experts, and apparently always have been. I?m always astounded by the way otherwise quite rational people will dismiss out of hand the opinion of educated, experienced specialist just because it doesn?t fit with their own world-view. What a sad place to find oneself in... https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/

If that?s the case then brace yourself Easy Dulwich, because whatever replaces the Palmerston will be sheeeeite! Enterprise are pants. Utterly pants and f?ing immoral.

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nando?s maybe? > > Louisa. Something like that is possible. I reckon it?s need deep pockets to redevelop. The more I think about it, the more I just can?t see it being turned residential or retail.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I cant see that site becoming flats. It is in the > best location, has space for plenty of covers, a > loyal local clientel and will habe no sitting > tenant. It must be worth an absolute fortune to > the right operator. This is what confuses me about what I?ve been told confidentialy; although I can well imagine Enterprise Inns decideong to take it back for themselves , I can?t really see a better use for that location than what it is right now. There?s obviously a lot more going on behind the scenes then we can tell, and I genuinely hope this location remains a quality local drinking/eating place. Unfortunately if Enterprise have taken back control they?ll probably maul it, they?re really awful operators.

DovertheRoad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Genuine question - what kind of business grosses > higher takings than a good, well loved restaurant > on LL? In hospitality - like all businesses - it?s not so much about turnover as profit margin. And profits in the restaurant world a pretty thin at the best of times. These are not the best of times in that industry.

Well this just gets weirder and weirder... All I?ll say is that Enterprise are one of the nastiest, scummiest group of bottom-feeding pieces of crap you could ever hope to avoid, and if they?re Jaime?s opposition I actually feel sorry for him (there?s a first!).

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Assuming that the tenant actually wanted a new > lease, surely it would be possible for to serve a > counter notice under the business tenancy > provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (or > whatever is the current legislation) requesting a > new tenancy. The landlord can't just evict a > business tenant willy nilly and would have to have > specific grounds to do so. The Palmerston Instagram post indicates that they ?have not been offered a new lease?, which suggests to me that the lease has expired and Jaime has been invited to leave. It sounds like this is not an eviction, simply one side of the negotiation declining to continue the arrangement. Not that it makes it any better for all the staff involved, Burt I suppose they have st least got time to look for new work.

Don?t bother Rendel. Although I know you won?t becable to resist...;-) TE44 is just trying to justify their frankly dangerous stance, and is reduced to using horses to do it. Trolling of the most pathetic variety.

Ok, first of all, caveat - this comes from just one source and could well have been misunderstood or misinterpreted. That said, the source is married to a long-term employee in Jaime?s organisation. Jaime apparently has three pub locations in London (I didn?t know that) all with the same landlord, and that company has allegedly pulled the rug out from under him on all three. Supposedly they?re saying they don?t want The Palmerston to be a pub any more, though I don?t know what their plans for that site is. All in all - IF this is accurate - it sounds like Jaime just got totally screwed over by his landlords, and I doubt he had any idea; he recently spent ?25,000 renovating the kitchen at The Palmerston. Now where he personally is concerned all I can say is karma is a bitch, though I?m sure he?ll land on his feet, but I do feel for his employees. To repeat, this is from just one source and English is not their first language, so it?s entirely possible I have incomplete or incorrect information. That said, what I?m hearing is that the landlord doesn?t want Palmerston to be a pub location any more. That in itself would be a shame because there?s obviously a lot of people who value it, so possibly if they?re concerned they might want to make enquiries. Hopefully this isn?t a rapacious landlord looking to bring something unwanted to LL, but these days I?m not optimistic.

Whatever...

Easy Sue. Louisa is back declaring a new start. Everyone is entitled to try and start over.

I?m afraid I?m going to go against the flow and say I?m not sorry to see Jaime go. I have my reasons for that. I hope the rest of the staff find new employment quickly, and let?s just say I hope they receive all wages that are owed.

Apologies, I missed that reply earlier. However I object to being told I?m being insulting. People ARE trying to use Ireland as a tool, on both sides. Honestly, having read over your links, I wouldn?t call them high-profile, personally. Boris is doing what he always does - dismissing out of hand any potential problem. In that link he doesn?t address the issue, doesn?t offer any support or evidence for. His view, simply says ?it won?t be a problem?. The other link involving Major and Blair, I?m not surprised it didn?t get more coverage, very few people are willing to listen to anything Blair says, he doesn?t have a lot of credibility. John Major honourably tried to point out the flaws in the Leave argument on many occasions, but a lot of people simply dismissed him as irrelevant or tainted due to Maastricht. I say all this because I think it points to why the Irish border issue didn?t come up anywhere near as much as it should have. Leave simply glossed over it, assuming that they would get their own way easily, and Remain weren?t listened to because, well, for the same reason a lot of their arguments fell on deaf ears - they handled their campaign badly, and were outmanoeuvred.

Fair enough if it was discussed. I certainly never came across it myself, and I would still argue that the vast majority of voters on both sides were unaware of the depth of potential trouble the issue presented. I would include myself in that.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > There is a paradox with the EU position at the > moment. If there is a no-deal the EU requires the > Irish Republic to erect a border. > > Up to now it?s been presented by the EU as > Britain?s problem. If there?s a no-deal EU rules > require a border to protect its (customs) > integrity. It becomes the EU?s (particularly the > Irish Republic?s) problem. > I think it?s pretty blas? to present this as purely an EU problem. We knew full well that this would be a requirement and yet surprisingly few (none that I heard, and I paid pretty close attention to the campaign on both sides) ever mentioned this before the vote. It?s almost as if Leave just assumed the EU would do whatever we wanted... It?s also our border, not just the EU?s, and citizens of Northern Ireland are looking to the UK govt to prevent a hard border. To simply claim that we don?t have to do anything smacks to me of buck-passing o a criminally negligent scale. I?m not sure I buy the idea that the GFA is at risk, and I?d be astonished to see troops back over there, but I can?t help feeling that we - the English - are still trying to tell the Irish that we know better than them...