Jump to content

JoeLeg

Member
  • Posts

    1,334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JoeLeg

  1. Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A man who spoke out against the abuses of a > minority, who took up arms when talking failed, > who killed horribly for a purpose he believed to > be justified by abhorrent abuses by the state, who > risked his life for a fair society and then risked > his reputation for peace. > > Perhaps it's a day to reflect upon why this man of > Derry became what he was, the situation that > existed at the time, and how a UK government > abused it's own people arguably to the point of > genocide. Why the UK government apologised for one > of the terrible abuses and why, in peace Martin > McGuinness was allowed, and wanted to shake hands > with the Queen. (Can't believe I'm actually responding again, but passive-aggressive fucktard behaviour drives me nuts, and no I don't care that I just called you a nasty name) This is your OP. It quite clearly frames a debate designed to show the British in the worst possible light and paint McGuinness as someone forced into his behaviour. I do not see in your post anything other than a desire to talk about how the British screwed over N Ireland and how the Republicans were just doing what they had to do. It smacks of calculated trolling and I'm now thinking Otta's had you pegged all along. Yes, the British have a long and terrible history, both in Ireland and around the globe. No, that doesn't justify some of the crap McGuinness and all the rest pulled. Blood on all sides, it wasn't a fight I started and I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone tell me that because I'm not Irish I'm not allowed to criticise a callous murdering bastard. You didn't want a debate, you wanted a rant, and for everyone to agree with you.
  2. Oh now you can just do one Mick, you know full well what you were insinuating. Your OP is essentially a justification for his actions, and a declaration that the British are responsible for everything. If you want to have a wider debate on Ireland then start a separate thread, but any discussion about McGuinness in this respect is going to include the fact that he was a morally dubious individual, to say the least. You're not worth any more of my time.
  3. The air must be really fresh all the way up there on your moral high ground Mick? From someone who claims to decry insulting other people online you've just done a pretty good job of insulting anyone who won't entirely subscribe to your dogmatic revisionist view of McGuinness. I don't see anyone on here defending or justifying British actions in N Ireland, or anywhere else for that matter. I do see a lot of reasonable commentary on the two sides of McGuinness, and how he will be viewed by history. I'm sure there's many more books to be written on the subject; certainly I already made my view clear and I stand by it. But to tell us that because we're English (actually I'm Scottish but I guess that doesn't fit your narrative), we automatically subscribe to some Cromwellian level of anti-Irish sentiment is pretty insulting. Seems the tit for at continues...
  4. Hey Uncleglen, I assume you've reported all these people to the proper authorities? I mean, you've got evidence of criminal activity there, which is what benefit fraud is; it's a crime. So you've presumably told the police and benefits office what you know?
  5. And this thread was going so well... My opinion, which is worth about as much as spit on a hotplate, is that the two people are not comparable. Yes, they were both terrorists, yes, they both turned their back on the gun and bomb, but there I believe the similarity ends. For Mandela the stakes were much, much higher. A failure to ensure a smooth and above all peaceful transition for South Africs had real potential to result in appalling violence. Mandela - and President de Klerk - knew the risks, and the likely result of the apartheid regime trying to hold on to power. Both of them sensed the opportunity, knew the timing was crucial, and handled it deftly. N Ireland, for all the tragedy, was not at the same risk of collapse. I fully recognise the sectarian divides that existed, and the intensity with which some felt - and still feel - them. But I submit that these were not the same as the prejudices running deep within both sides in South Africa. Mandela was possibly the only person who could guide an entire nation out of the terrible legacy it had created. McGuinness, for all that he was at the centre of the peace process, was not playing for such high stakes. No one outside of the Middle East has in recent history. I don't mean to denigrate what McGuinness achieved, but simply to say that they were operating on different levels. Just my opinion, feel free to tell me I'm wrong.
  6. There's no doubt the IRA was already going full throttle, that's one of the reasons the Para's were a terrible choice for deployment. They were fed up of being attacked and unable to fight back and were a unit with shockingly low levels of restraint. Of course at the time it was thought that the locals needed that kind of treatment to whip them into line! My point is that once you've murdered a load of civilians you've somewhat crossed the Rubicon where negotiation is concerned. The IRA were handed a PR dream, gift-wrapped and dropped into their lap. It justified their actions to date and made the local population believe that the British really were the enemy. I personally believe that Bloody Sunday was a tipping point because of its effect on the public perception of what was happening.
  7. Yes, but Bloody Sunday was the most fantastic recruiting sergeant for the IRA. It could be argued that before that day there was a chance of cooler heads coming to the negotiating table. But afterwards there was no path that lead to talks. It stands as a prime example of what happens when those in command lose perspective and employ entirely the wrong tools for the job; the Para's in the early 70's were incredibly violent in their outlook, and should never have been anywhere near such a conflict. I suppose from that point of view it was inevitable that such a tragedy should occur. Bloody Sunday gave MM and others like him the free hand to pursue whatever course they chose.
  8. Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The truth of the matter is that after Bloody > Sunday there could be no way back. Not for a very > long time. > Its the most extreme act by any advanced western > government on it's own people in the last 50 > years. > > > Lest we forget: 14 men and boys > https://youtu.be/vkOpgr1ElXg While - obviously - agreeing with the horrendousness of Bloody Sunday, the act itself wasn't the government; that was a total failure of command and control within the British Army. I'd agree that politicians became accomplices after the fact with the vile cover-up. But on the day there's no one to blame but the Para's, who were out for blood. I'm acquainted with someone whose father was a battalion commander in N Ireland, and was there on Bloody Sunday (he wasn't a Para). He recalls with frightening clarity how he knew, from the start, that the Para's were out of control. He said you could smell it in he air, he knew people were going to die.
  9. ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The question we can't really answer though AM is > if things would have changed faster and without as > many deaths and lives ruined without people like > McGuinness, the IRA, the UDA and Paisley. My > suspicion is they would have... If it wasn't them it would've been someone else; there were enough extremists on both sides to fill all the vacant slots for both sides of the conflict. And I doubt they would've been any more pleasant.
  10. Interesting points on the Andrew Neil show last night, with Portillo offering the view that no Conservative govt could've finalised the peace process, as so many Tories had been personally targeted by the IRA, and Alan Davies suggesting that there was no way it would've succeeded without McGuinness and Adams at the centre, as they were basically the only ones who could sell it to the rest of the Republicans. I'm not sure I totally buy Tebbits view that they did it out of fear of prosecution, but certainly I think they knew the game was up as far as violence went. As others on here have commented, they weren't feared like before, and MI6 was deep into them. For both sides it became, I think, a chance to end it and salvage what could be salvaged, and I still think it stands as an example of moving on from conflict, however distasteful some of the compromises may be.
  11. That's probably good; if you make a habit of comments like that you'll need to develop a thick skin. I mean really, Mick has a sympathetic viewpoint for an IRA terrorist so you assume he will eulogise that (thankfully no longer) waste of oxygen from yesterday? Cheap shot, badly done. Personally I think there's plenty of fault to be found with his view of McGuinness, and none of it means he has sympathy for any other cause.
  12. Louisa, at this point I'm happy to walk away from this knowing that not only do you have no idea what you're talking about, but you've talked yourself even further into a corner. I will say this - in order for a restaurant to remain in business, it must charge a mark-up of AT LEAST three times the value of raw materials, and if it is able to then four times the value. That is to say, if you buy it for ?1 you need to charge at least ?3 when selling, and preferably more like ?4. Only that level of mark-up will allow you to pay all the bills and wages plus keep money in the bank not only to pay yourself some level of income but to have cash reserves available for unforeseen occurrences. If you think these mark-ups are unreasonable then you are welcome to open your own place and try trading for less. Snails cost ?9 for 6. ?1:50 each, which means they cost the kitchen at least 37p each. If they're imported from Europe then that price is entirely believable, given what the euro is doing. Ironically I suspect they're still cheaper than native products. So there's a small bit of it. Feel free to keep thinking you know better, feel free to disparage a local business trying to offer something new, and please, please feel free to have the last word!
  13. Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Louisa, I could dismantle your post in detail > and > > show how you have no idea why you're talking > > about, but it'd be like shooting fish in a > > barrel. > > Patronising and unduly condescending. And also accurate. Plus I'm mainly just following your lead in being condescending towards a local business that has chosen to use authentic nomenclature. > > > But answer me this: > > > > 1) What is the wholesale cost of a portion of > > snails? > > Depends whether they're sleeping, prepared, or > frozen. Also depends on 'type' of snail used. And > what you consider to be a portion? Someone has > already mentioned the ?2 mark for one snail at > restaurant price. So you don't know the answer. > > > 2) What is the wholesale cost of a duck leg? > > ?4.90 is one price example I found, but again are > we talking organic, free range etc are we buying > just the one leg or buying in bulk? So again, you don't know the answer. I will tell you that your quote of ?4:90 is way, way in excess of current costs. > > > 3) What is the difference between Bonne's GP on > > the snails and their GP on the duck confit? > > At no point did I bring Bonne's into this debate, > you did. Well, firstly this whole thread is about Bonne's, so I'm not quite sure why that surprises you. You're making the assertion that they shouldn't be using the term escargot because of the cost issue, and I'm pointing out that to back up that assertion you'd have to prove that the snails are a moneyspinner over and above the confit. And secondly, you've avoided the question. You haven't shown that. You plainly don't have any idea of the costs involved. > > > 4) Why does that not justify calling snails > > escargot?m > > It justifies not calling them escargot because of > the price differential. Again, prove the price differential. > > > Your position basically seems to be that a > place > > can use authentic, linguistically-correct terms > > for dishes so long as they aren't expensive. > > That's correct. That's some rancid inverse snobbery right there. > > > Indian menu's show how that isn't a viable > point, > > but you use them as an example because you say > > they aren't overpriced. > > They usually aren't overpriced. Correct. So if a restaurant charges what you perceive to be reasonable prices, only then can they can use authentic nomenclature? Do you think there are no high-GP dishes in Indian restaurants? You reckon they all hit bang on 68% GP, say? Do you know what a 68% GP is? > > So you think snails are > > overpriced, but the duck isn't? > > Indeed. As I'm sure your teachers said to you, could you please show your working? > > But then you have > > to show that the GP on snails exceeds that of > the > > duck to support your point. > > > > I'm waiting... > > I think I just did, didn't I? Read above. No. No you haven't. Not even close. I asked you to show that the GP Bonne enjoy on escargot significantly exceeds that they they make on duck confit. You haven't done that. I find it hilarious that you think a local place should be pilloried for using authentic wording across it's menu when you think it's charging over the odds for something, yet when challenged you can provide no evidence whatsoever to back up your snobbish and outlandish claim other than what seems to be "because I believe it so".
  14. ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Still waiting for an eulogy for the terrorsist who > was shot outside the Houses of Parliament > yesterday..... You're a twat. That's a totally unneccesary comment designed purely to make you look good and put someone else on the wrong side of an argument. Transparent, and pathetic.
  15. You make your burgers from ribeye?! Bloody hell Foxy, I can imagine it tastes pretty good, but that's a pricey cut to use. Still, it's your money. Gilding the lily to my mind - I go for a mix of sirloin and rump with a decent percentage of fat in it - but yeah, that probably tastes damn fine.
  16. Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think I had a thread about the 'names' of food > in this 'new stupid phobic Brexit era' were in. > > Sainsbury's Potato Gratin is now (rather boringly) > potato with cheese sauce. > > It's the 'Gratin' bit that might offend, so the > twatty spineless marketing bods saw fit to making > it less European. > > And it looks as if a French restaurant of the > manor of E.D is being pilloried for using French > words to describe their French dish. Escargot is > too offensive and might encourage sales based on > the potential to eat a dish with some history. > > But no, people are driven to near insist that it's > to be called 'snails in garlic butter' just so we > don't upset the order of the pin headed people > that think we're being led astray. > > > YOU ARE FUCKTARDS OF SOME ORDER. GET A BLOODY > GRIP. > > Thank you. Seconded.
  17. Louisa, I could dismantle your post in detail and show how you have no idea why you're talking about, but it'd be like shooting fish in a barrel. But answer me this: 1) What is the wholesale cost of a portion of snails? 2) What is the wholesale cost of a duck leg? 3) What is the difference between Bonne's GP on the snails and their GP on the duck confit? 4) Why does that not justify calling snails escargot?m Your position basically seems to be that a place can use authentic, linguistically-correct terms for dishes so long as they aren't expensive. Indian menu's show how that isn't a viable point, but you use them as an example because you say they aren't overpriced. So you think snails are overpriced, but the duck isn't? But then you have to show that the GP on snails exceeds that of the duck to support your point. I'm waiting...
  18. Blanche, do you have any proof that he Muslim community feels discriminated against? Have you actually asked any Muslims? Or do you, as a white middle class individual, feel comfortable assuming you know what the Muslim community thinks?
  19. Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tbf JoeLeg the other French dishes you refer, > especially Duck Confit, are justifiably more > expensive because of the ingredients being used. > Can't compare them to snails. > > The Indian dishes are not overpriced for the most > part, so that isn't really a valid comparison in > this context. > > Louisa No, it's a completely valid comparison. You're saying that they use the French term for snails to increase sales. I'm pointing out that they use French terms all over the menu. And that other restaurants do the same with their own ethnic food. It's got nothing to do with price. It's how they write the menu. Plus can you quote me wholesale prices for snails? Do you know how much the dish costs before a 65-70% GP has been applied? If you think it's ok to use a French term for duck slow cooked in duck fat, because it's more expensive, can you tell me the wholesale cost and GP margin on confit de canard, and show me why that's justified to use the French name but snails should not?
  20. Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The use of the name 'escargot', French or not, > does make them sound more appetising/exotic to a > native English speaker. Possibly also justifies > the high end prices for them. If they just put > 'snails in garlic butter' on the menu, I would > argue that most folk wouldn't go near them. > > Louisa. By the same token then they're charging higher prices for confit de canard, or cassoulet, because they use the French names? And the various Indian places are doing the same by using korma, tikka and jalfrezi?
  21. Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are Blanche and Lewis definitely two separate > people? > > I'd ask Blanche directly, but she doesn't respond > to anyone, she just continues to past nonsense as > if the rest of the thread isn't happening. They definitely are. I know this because Lewis shouted at me and threatened me when I questioned SSW's vision for the cemetery, while Blanche stood behind him meekly and then justified his behaviour. It was pretty hilarious, looking back.
  22. Martin McGuinness was guilty of many murders - only he truly knows how many he killed - and without trying to get to religious about it, he will have to answer for the path his life took. He lived a lot longer than many whose lives he stood in judgement over and summarily ended, and that should never be forgotten. In the end he chose to talk and find some kind of peace. History will probably judge him kindly for that, as it does most people who end up choosing the ballot box over the gun, whatever rivers of blood they wade through to get there. I'm never entirely sure how I feel about that, but this morning Ian Paisley Jnr spoke of how "it's not how you start, it's how you finish". The cycle of revenge and violence destroys us in the end and maybe at some point all we can do is accept that there is blood on everyone's hands and move on. I believe - and I respect those who disagree - that it's the only thing that ever allowed conflicts like NI to be unraveled. I was in too late to go on any Banner tours, but from what some older soldiers told me the place was a mess of recrimination, resentment, blame and an over-riding tiredness of the whole thing by the end of the 80's. There were children growing up who had only ever known the Troubles. Most of that society wanted an end to it, and part of the price for that is asking oneself how long you want to refuse to compromise.
  23. And it's one moral standard for you and another for everyone else. Get a life.
  24. " The Council?s wilful destruction of nature in its cemeteries is just another reason why Southwark?s burial service is not fit for purpose." While this may very well be true, your lies, willingness to use intimidation and insults, denigration of people's religious beliefs and your own personal support of threats of physical violence against others render you unfit for purpose. I prefer reading Hopone's stuff. Seems to be based on truth and clarity, and is happy to engage and discuss. You're a bully who needs to be called out at every opportunity.
  25. Elphinstone's Army Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > edhistory Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Elphinstone's Army Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > East Dulwich has made itself what it is.. > years > > > ago it was a well dodgy area > > > > Ignorant. > > no it isn't ignorant it's honest and not rose > tinted and you are attempting to invalidate my > life here > > one word does not an erstwhile experience destroy > > besides which it is a lazy argument not worthy of > your usual robust and erudite offerings Sorry EA, but you're plain wrong. Born and raised here, still living here, have known this area since the 70's. East Dulwich wasn't always the veritable slip of gentility that it is now, but I've never felt in danger here. Some of the pubs could be a bit dodgy, but everyone knew which they were and even then there was only trouble if you went looking for it. To describe the area 'back in the day' the way you have is misguided at best.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...