JoeLeg

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark has just said it wants to start cutting > down trees on consecrated ground without Church > permission, Council planning permission or a > Woodland Conservation Management Plan. (In > Camberwell Old Ceemetery, by Ryedale & Underhill > Roads). > http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/council-tries > -dodging-planning/4593805274 > > Contrary to what has been posted here on the > forum, the Church DOES have to grant permission > (faculty) to cut trees over 75mm diameter - or do > any works which involve graves - on consecrated > ground in municipal cemeteries. > > Should we ask for injuction? > > Blanche Cameron > Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries > 07731 304 966 > [email protected] Well, yes, of course. I'm amazed it's taken you this long to think of that! I, and others, have asked you repeatedly if your views on the legality of Southwarks actions are based on legal advice or just your own opinion. Answer has come there none. If you believe you can prove the council is in breach of something that they can be blocked over then absolutely go for an injunction. Otherwise Southwark can and will happily ignore you. In other words? Put up or shut up.

Great to hear you're pulling through, well done.

Blow in, I suspect...I think Lousia caused admin to class it as an insult.

"Here again you make an incorrect presumption. The consistent theme of my argument has been that people come to this country and do not whinge about the low wages like the EDPH Staff poster person." Anyone who bothers to waste their time reading my old posts will know that I personally value immigrants as workers, because in my field they tend to be far more efficient and committed than young British people who tend to buckle as soon as the realities of the industry are clear to them. I appreciate it is a view from my own personal point and not a reflection of wider society (though anecdotal evidence leads me to think it's more widespread than it should be). However, even conceding that I'm biased in favour of immigrants and have a low opinion of 'locally grown' candidates (born of many years of experience), and agreeing that PH staff aren't exactly working an horrendous job like digging stone of cleaning asbestos, why does this mean that they shouldn't be allowed to campaign for LLW? I'm still mystified as to way people think that either we shouldn't listen to them because of the job they do, or that we shouldn't countenance the idea of LLW? I don't want to end up finding it difficult to recruit because cost of living has outstripped wages on London and people have gone elsewhere. And I think that's a real danger. We have no idea what the future holds, so why not start talking about ways we can keep ourselves competitive? I've been hilariously accused of being some kind of socialist, but actually I see money as the key to this. People work for money, and work hard for good money (or they get fired). Money is the prime motivator. Pay them well and you have a better workforce, generally. I think we need the debate in this town, and I'm glad PH have started it. What happens to them is up to them and Cineworld, but I'm glad it's happening.

When you remember being excited about 7-11 opening up...

Please don't feed the troll. UG is convinced that immigrants are the reason for all this countries ills; that and the bleeding heart liberals that tolerate them. He's unable to understand the fact that many industries would collapse without them. Immigration is an issue that certainly hasn't been addressed properly by many (especially on the 'left'), but the current knee jerk reactionism espoused by people like him will throw the baby out with the bathwater. They have no coherent plan to fill the positions that would be left vacant. Hatred of foreigners is far more at the core of what UG feels. I'm very happy to debate to merits and ills of immigration (and there certainly are problems, not least of which is this countries continuous, decades-old reliance on foreign workers especially for low-skilled jobs). It's not racists to ask if we've over-reached. But the blanket dismissal of any idea of immigration being useful is not helpful.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Quite obviously LoeLeg, you really havn't grasped > the basic realities of a free market in employment > situation. > > This and your earlier posts confirm that. You must > live in a Socialist dream land. Enjoy. > > GG You can dish it out but you just can't take it, can you? Hilarious!

GG - you've just argued yourself into a corner. Can you work out how?

The problem is attempted murder means they'd have to prove he intended to kill the victim, which is tricky. No good charging them with something they'll likely evade. The case for GBH is much more likely to result in a conviction. I'm not saying he shouldn't be chargers with attempted murder, just that I can understand why it's happened that way.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jim1234 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The only conclusion I can draw from green > goose's > > post is that they must have never have > experienced > > the hardship of living on a low wage. > > Incorrect assumption. > > I have been skint and had to take up low wage > employment and it was then that I realised that > the system we live with does not owe anyone a well > paid job. As everyone's parents told them, the world doesn't owe you a living so to that extent I agree. Market forces dictate that a job only > pays for the worth of the work one does. Market > realities dictate pay rates. > GG No, here I vehemently disagree. There are many jobs where market forces dictate wages, but many more where wages are determined by what people will agree to work for, also known as people having to take what jobs are available because that's all there is. As a result there becomes greater acceptance of jobs that just don't pay much. There will always be entry level positions or really low skilled jobs that just aren't worth more than minimum wage, but the question is what that minimum wage should be. If it isn't enough to live in the location of the job then what's the point? We don't have to pay people in excess of what the job is worth, but we do have to of them enough to make it worth taking the job in the first place. As I'm always saying, this town is expensive to live in, but a lot of us live here and want services that need to be staffed by people. If we want to spend money on decent experiences then those people need to be motivated, and money is the prime way of doing that.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gotcha again Rendell. You just can't resist can > you. > GG :) And neither can you, it seems. Arguing that somehow PH staff aren't entitled to lobby for more employment rights and wages seems strange to me, I'm not sure why a job has to decline to a particular standard of awfulness before it's generally agreed that 'something should be done'. I'm still none the wiser from your post as to why PH staff should somehow simply take it. I agree that it's not a terrible job, but the fact is that zero-hours contracts are being widely abused by employers and wages in London are decreasing in real terms. In a post-Brexit landscape where need to be able to attract decent workers to London jobs; how will we do that if the jobs don't pay enough to live on this city? The debate needs to happen; why can't PH be the ones to do it?

" FFS when I was a young man, I never got stopped for being of an ethnic group. I got stopped and searched all the time, not for knives but for Drugs because I had LONG HAIR. Stop and Search is now a sensitive issue. All to do with Human Rights." Look, let's be realistic. The SUS laws of yesteryear were plainly abused in racial terms. I have no doubt of the veracity of your experience but far too many people stopped were stopped because they weren't white. It's sensitive because it's still recent memory for large parts of the community. Quite what to do about that I don't know - it's hard to know how long current police officers should be held retrospectively accountable for the racist actions of officers from 30 years ago. Of course they shouldn't be at all, but those cops from that time did things that have cast a long shadow.

While I agree with the general thrust of your post Foxy, and fully support harsher penalties for carrying/using knives, I feel it's overly simplistic to ignore the social/environmental issues. It's not enough to say that we will be hard on offenders - with the stick must come the carrot. If young people are to be persuaded away from the path of violence as a method of resolving disagreements, and weapons as their tool, then he have to be shown that there is a better way to live their lives. Social programs that educate and mentor are vital, otherwise only the gangs voice is heard. Not everyone will listen, but hopefully some will, and over time the knife culture can be eradicated. But simply threatening the full weight of the law isn't going to deter most of them, they already aren't afraid. We need to make them understand there's a better way. If they won't listen, well, they can't say they weren't warned and offered alternatives.

Nice try, not biting. Enjoy your bigotry, that and your anger (to judge from your post history) plainly sustain you in life. Feel free to trawl my own desultory post history for my opinion on LLW and PH.

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pathetic. Are we supposed to go into every > business in lordship Lane and ask them what they > are paying their staff?? Get a Life. None of our > business. Don't even know where to begin with how ignorant and misinformed this statement is. Talk about completely miss the point.

Blanche - is SSW the group the Ian Wingfield is referring to, when he says "Despite repeated attempts over the last 12 months to engage with this group they have consistently blocked any attempts at constructive discussion and drowned out other local groups who do want to have a genuine conversation with us. ?The campaigners have also made increasingly outrageous claims to try and discredit the work the council is doing, most of which are inaccurate or outright fantasy." I usually assume I know when a local councillor is lying, because their lips are moving, but his description is pretty close to my experience of SSW. Care to comment?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Quite - you don't like him personally. I'm not sure I buy the idea that just because a person has done certain things, then it's disliking them personally if you disagree with their actions. Corbyn is his actions, his words and deeds, like any of us are. To dismiss opposition on that basis seems a false premise to me; indeed it allows us to excuse people like George Galloway and Nigel Farage, because the things they said and did are things they personally did. I may be misunderstanding you (feel free to correct me if I am), but surely we should be judging Corby on the basis of what he's done? We do the same for any other politician? Why are people saying Corbyn gets a pass?

Parkdrive Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can see I've touched a nerve Edited because I couldn't care less what you think.

So you're saying none of this really matters? Sorry, but I don't agree.

Parkdrive Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was responding to joeleg remarks Fair enough. I can see I'm hardly at the heady heights of your expertise.

Thanks for posting Jen. Keep your head up. There's too many people who feel able to just jump on Twitter and make threats that they would never have the stones to carry through on the basis of no proof whatsoever. The OP of this thread is a perfect example. I'd like to think Brulysses has learnt something here, though I doubt it. Anyway, you'll bounce back. The kind of people who do stuff like post fake reviews or threaten you are generally the worst kind of cowardly scum who will never actually dare show their face. Your reputation is strong enough to survive this storm.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > "appalling waste and their paranoid fear of being > sued that leads to arse covering, over > prescribing, doling out unnecessary antibiotics > etc, and about undeserving, demanding, insulting, > violent 'patients'" > > None of that gets better with privatisation - it > gets worse. Essentially this. Privatisation is not the answer to a lot of the NHS problems. Some, maybe. But it suffers mostly from cultural issues that can only be addressed by people being willing to pay more for the service, and the service then being run properly. I'm open to any arguments about how that can be, but I'm a long way from being convinced that profit and acute care/A+E/pre and post natal/paediatric etc services are compatible. However, others are free to disagree and I guess time will tell. I agree fulsomely with some of the vitriol being hurled at some parts of the Labour vote, and I'd even agree that there's a lot of 'Tory scum' as a default argument against them. Personally I just don't know what Labour stands for any more, which is why I'm very keen to see who arrives as my new MP before I decide whether to vote for them. The left is spelt destroying itself as it fails to recognise the shifting political landscape. Labour was born in a world of very different politics and classes. I'm not sure it's relevant any more, and I certainly don't buy a lot of the arguments I see on FB and other parts of social media from grass-roots supporters that Labour is being undone by a media that won't cover it properly and people who don't want to listen just because they don't like Corbyn. I think Labour has no idea what its core vote is, so maybe this election will be a good way for them to find out. I find most hardcore Labour supporters I know very unwilling to listen to criticism, and already making excuses for why they lost an election that hasn't happened yet. I can't shake the feeling that left and right just don't exist any more, and Labour hasn't worked it out. The whole thing really depresses me.

Alright, fair point. "Respected for what it is" was a poor choice of words on my part. I'm not blind to the failings of the NHS. However, I believe strongly that a 'free at the point of delivery' healthcare system is something a nation like ours should have. If you're in dire medical need you shouldn't be having to worry about paying for it, and no one should be forced to keep working into old age to keep healthcare benefits. I guess I feel that one of the most basic functions of government is the protection of its citizens, and that (to me) includes making sure healthcare is as effective and efficient as it can be. My personal experience of the NHS has been that it saved my wife's life once and my mothers twice, but I know it can make appalling errors too hat result in needless death. It needs reform, it needs more money, but we also owe it to ourselves to fight for healthcare as a basic right. I do not beieve privatisation has any place in critical or intensive healthcare (I accept, reluctantly, that in other areas there is more scope for argument). It runs anathema to the stated aims when profit becomes a motive. For the record I think the same about a number of other areas, including defence. Despite being something of a lefty I'm not a woolly thinker. Private enterprise can do great things for us in their right areas. Stuff that is focused on keeping people alive is not one of them. (This is not to say that I do not believe private healthcare should exist at all. Much like private education everyone has the right to spend their money how they see fit, but there must exist a basic level of care which everyone has access to and which is properly funded and run and will care for you in a serious emergency without turfing you out as soon as you meet a minimum criteria for survival.)

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whatever happens, it won't be 'gone' Joe (mate) So what do you think the NHS will look like in future years? Right now there's no requirement to buy insurance, and it's free at the point of delivery. It's also totally unsustainable in its current form, and I firmly believe this is part of a long term plan to bring in privatisation by other means, by the back door. When the Health Secretary is spending time with big US healthcare providers I get very worried. Do you honestly believe that the NHS is safe? It needs reform, it needs proper investment, it needs to be respected for what it is. It's being undermined by the very people supposed to protect it.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Conservative voters, of which there will be many > on this forum, rarely poke their heads above the > parapet here or elsewhere these days, despite the > fact their party will probably sweep all before it > this June. > > It's just not worth the lorry load of opprobrium > that would inevitably be tipped on their heads by > those who think that a vote for the Tories = the > end of the NHS and the imminent introduction of > conscription. > > There will also be UKIP'ers among us but they live > in the shadows Mate, Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt are busily planning the sneak privatisation of the NHS. Mr Hunt has been forming disturbingly close relations with Kaiser Permanante, which should concern us all. The NHS - you'll miss it when it's gone... Back on topic, I'm not sure. Jim Dowd was my MP, and he's retiring. If his replacement is a parachuted Momentum tosser then I may have to go LD.