JoeLeg

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote:s > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > Coward. > > > > Probably best to stick to facts rather than make > personal attacks? > > Difficult I know given SSW's general modus > operandi. I'd say that is a fact. They've got a history of being aggressive and rude, you know what Lewis did, and they refuse to answer straight questions. Like, point blank ignoring them. They long ago lost any pretence of being willing to negotiate or debate. It's the refuge of a coward to insult people when they disagree and refuse to listen to dissenting opinion. Why should we be nice to them? The motto of 'play the ball, not the person' ceases to matter when the other person is being so openly passive-aggressive and unwilling to recognise that other people should be respected.

So....you've lost, and are now resorting to using accusations of religious discrimination to get your own way. That was never part of your argument until you realised you were going to lose. I personally think it's despicable. You plainly don't care about religion, so this shows you up for the charlatans you are. And you're still refusing to answer straight questions. Coward.

Of course everyone has the right to take action. If you think you're not being paid a wage commensurate to the job you do them you should absolutely fight for more pay. And - though I don't know the details - if PH has reneged on a deal or threatened to sack staff in order to pay it (which is a nasty bit of blackmail if true) - them they definitely should continue to fight. I think the point is more that a) there are much worse examples of badly or non-paying employers out there, and maybe boycotts or action are better directed at them, and b) how do we morally justify taking a stand against one company while still using others who don't pay LLW? Is it hypocritical to criticise PH while still being willing to take the kids to see a 3D movie over at Surrey Quays, who also don't pay LLW? Personally I think it is, but then that doesn't mean we shouldn't still criticise Cineworld. We should use our wallets to influence company's if we can; that's our right as consumers to spend with whom we choose. But we shouldn't kid ourselves that we're making a massive difference if we boycott PH. Then again, everything starts somewhere, and this case has got people talk big about LLW, which is a good thing.

Well, yes, and as has been pointed out Aldi pay LWW, and it's pretty obvious they trim costs by trimming 'the frills'. Nothing wrong with that at all, it's a choice they've made. But Picturehouse is full of fringe benefits that other cinemas don't offer (and not everyone wants), all of which has to be paid for. You can increase profits by either charging more or spending less - it really is that simple - and as I don't think Cineworld will be able to cut costs that make the 'Picturehouse experience' what it is, then where else do they find them from? I'm not saying it can't be done, but I don't know a lot about that industry and I'm simply unsure how they would go about doing it.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > that is such a 'management' answer - > > 'We can't pay you more because we wouldn't be able > to make any money and then we won't be able to > expand and employ more staff - how selfish of you > to not consider the people we cannot afford to > employ if we give you a decent salary'. Well, yes and no. If you want to expand, and don't want to borrow money to do so, then presumably you do face a choice between expenditure on existing facilities and staff, and spending money to expand (thus providing more jobs). I'm not saying that's what Cineworld are doing, but the point isn't without merit.

Sounds like Burbage knows a thing or two about SSW? Intriguing...

Very happy to stand corrected on M+s - or anyone else - who pays that.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > I am not condoning them, simply pointing out > that > > 'the sums' often aren't as easy to work out as > it > > first seems. > > I freely admit I'm not the best with finance - > just ask my bank manager, or indeed Mrs.H - but > clearly Cineworld could afford to pay LLW, albeit > by accepting lower profits. I was merely > disputing the previous poster's point that cinemas > would be economically unviable if they paid the > LLW, which in the case of Cineworld/Picturehouse > is clearly not the case. Well, as Penguin points out, those profit figures are far from being a clear picture of what Cineworld can actually afford to pay in wages. However, I wonder if they have shareholders, because if they do there's your answer - I have a hard time imagining that any shareholders will tolerate lower dividends; they don't tend to!

If we want everyone in this town to earn the LLW, then we'll have to start paying more for our cinema tickets, burgers, pints of beer, packets of crisps, shoes, books and flat screen tv's. While I totally support the theory behind it, I laugh at the idea that it can be implemented without price raises. Certainly there are places which could afford to pay more in wages. There's also a lot that can't, but which are unable to raise prices on the products/services they provide because there's a limit to what people will pay for stuff. Antic Pub Co, owners of EDT, don't pay it. Why not boycott them? I'm pretty sure some of the staff in M+S aren't getting it. Boycott M+S? What about the various hair salons? Or Londis? Or even Sainsbury's? And I'd be surprised if Peckham Plex paid it. McDonalds certainly don't There's plenty of places out there paying the same as Picturehouse which no one is talking about. Why just these guys? Vote with your wallet by all means, it's one of few things the head office will listen too. But don't kid yourself that it makes a difference in the grand scheme of things. Then again, everything starts somewhere...Though I guarantee it'll lead to increased prices. If you're willing to pay them then good on you.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I haven't been to either option but I would go to > PeckhamPlex every day of the week over > Picturehouse. Cheaper, bigger capacity and you can > grab some food in McDonalds nearby which won't > break the bank! Who wants to spend the best part > of ?20 on a cinema ticket (not to mention the food > costs) per person. Craziness. > > Louisa. And when people start complaining about low wages in London, this attitude is why...

It's like that Nick Cohen article where he describes how the real danger is those who believe what he says no matter what, and decry anything which disagrees with their point of view as 'fake news', 'lies' or simply irrelevant. America is drawing itself some very dangerous lines in the sand.

Any ragu recipe that predates Columbus and his 'discovery' of the tomato will use milk. Admittedly that's long enough for most Italian families to move on and embrace the tomato, but some are determined to stick to the old, old, old way...

Blanche, I was considering send this by PM but decided to post it publically as its something I'd happily say to your face. You have been asked direct questions by myself and Penguin68. You have chosen not to answer them. Instead you have put up a long series of further questions that are so leading, biased and openly designed to force others to either agree with you or be portrayed as bigots ("do you support discrimination?" - pitiful, Blanche, pitiful!). I live opposite the cemetary. When I told Lewis that I supported some aspects of the council a plan he turned the air blue with his expletive-laden rant at me. You supported him then and seem to be engaged in the same kind of puerile behaviour now. Your questions are a masterclass in strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks. So I ask, again, will you answer the direct questions put to you by Penguin68 and myself?

So the answer, Blanche, is no, you can't answer a straight question. You really are a piece of work.

I agree with everything you say there - the quality of delivery should match the price asked. Of course this is the real world and people mess up. If a customer isn't happy then they should say so; there's often a potential friction point where things are subjective ("my steak is overcooked" vs "no it isn't", for example), and generally good places will simply suck it up and bring a new plate of food; it's the cost of doing business. I'm simply making the point that refusing to pay full price is a legal mine field fraught with danger, which both sides should endeavour to avoid. Once the threat of withholding most of the payment is made, it often shuts down most other lines of peaceful resolution and so should only be used if the establishment is being pig-headed and refusing to be reasonable. As I say, anywhere with half a brain is going to express gratitude for the feedback and either remove offending items from the bill (regardless of the validity or otherwise of a complaint) or offer free replacements. If they don't then they deserve to go out of business.

"When the waiter comes over (as they do, with the implicit expectation that you'll say 'fine, thanks') and asks how things are, tell them you're underwhelmed and will not be paying full price for a meal that's not full quality. If that'll cause a free cabaret in the restaurant so what, the restaurant need to know - there's a transaction here." Very, very legally dodgy territory there. It's true that the 'contract' between a customer and an establishment is of a civil nature. If you find there is fault with your meal, and you genuinely believe that the price charged should not be paid, then you have to leave what you reasonably believe to be the price of the raw ingredients on the table, a legitimate address at which you may be legally served a summons, and invite them to see you on small claims court for the balance. It is not a matter for the police, unless... Unless you do anything which can give rise to the suggestion that you had any intention to avoid paying full price from the beginning, or you leave a sum which clearly is not the cost of ingredients, or the address is suspect, as any of that is fraud and then the police can be involved and you can be charged. I would always encourage people to tell the restaurant if they had a bad experience. It may be painful to hear but we need to know. Anywhere that does not respond with at least politeness and a 'thank you for your feedback' should not be revisited. And anywhere decent should at the least be willing to remove offending items from the bill - we generally do it even if we disagree with the customer, unless it's plainly just an issue of personal taste, and even then we're usually happy to cook something else without charging for it. But be cautious with threats to not pay full price, it's very dodgy ground.

Allow me to add one more point: 5. SSW is run by some very unpleasant people who have no problem belittling those who disagree with them in extreme terms and engaging in aggressive and threatening behaviour - to be clear here I'm talking about face to face, not just online. In one sense that's admirable (they at least aren't pure keyboard warriors), but it also makes it impossible to engage with them in debate. A visit to one of their regular echo chambers at the Herne is, I'm told, "Kafka-esque in its ability to twist facts through their own M?bius-like logic." They represent the worst of what this area has become.

Hey Blanche! I'd like to congratulate you on a fantastically evasive answer; well done! Have you considered going into local politics, because I think you've got what it takes to avoid answering direct questions and be really insulting while trying to accuse people of holding opinions that they plainly don't hold in an effort to discredit them. Seriously, that last post from you is a masterclass in passive-aggressive shiftiness. You should be proud! I asked you a straight question and you've just completely ignored it; how clever of you! That'll show us, eh? Let me repeat it though - have you taken legal advice which leads to your position that Southwark council is acting illegally, or is this your own personal conjecture? I can see that Lewis must get along really well with you. What a pair of nasty little Nimby's you are...

Blanche Cameron stated "We believe Southwark's burial provision to be illegal and is just one reason why burial in Southwark cannot continue." Blanche, here's a straight question - have you taken legal advice on this position, or is anyone involved with your group a solicitor or barrister who feels confident on that point? If so then fair enough. If not then it's nothing but conjecture.

Religious discrimination is a reason you've grasped on to in order to try and achieve your aims because nothing else has worked. You're a bunch of over-zealous, unpleasant people who ridicule those that disagree with you and get openly aggressive to their face when they question you - how is Lewis these days? Sill shouting at people who challenge his moral high horse? Your only going down the anti-discrimination route because you've had no success anywhere else, it's grasping at straws and showing that you think you're total anti-burial stance in Southwark should override anyone else's wishes. You dodge questions, are evasive when challenged and openly hostile in person. Makes me think you have no interest in a dissenting view, and frankly I think it's a waste of time when there's far better things to be fighting Southwark council over. But then what was it Lewis said to me? Oh yes, that I'm a "waste of space because I haven't lifted a finger to help the cemeteries". Actually he said worse as well, but I'm not going to repeat it here.

Angelina sums it up very well. If you as a consumer want to influence animal welfare on farms, vote with your wallet.

Look rendel, we must stop meeting like this, people will talk...

Look, it comes across as a bit of a 'strawman' because what it looked like was that you're setting up your argument so that we can only agree what you say or contradict ourselves. I accept that isn't what you meant to do, but it just looked like that. The stories aren't inherently evil, and no one has said that, nor that they are somehow eager to remove rights (again, that's a bit 'strawman'), but it's hard not to be worried that protections which we gained as a direct result of Europe may now be at risk because of corporate interests in this country. And those concerns are genuine.

Seems rendel was saying pretty much the same as me at the same time. Sorry...

TheCat - I feel you're putting up a little bit of a strawman argument there, but then again maybe I wasn't clear, so let me clarify my view. On certain things - and I believe egg production is one of these - I doubt very much that the law would change overly. I suspect the government would simply translate existing, EU standards into British law. Indeed there are many areas where I hope they'll do that. Concerning food production, given that mis-management can result in disease and poisoning on a potentially wide scale, I'd be surprised if they didn't follow existing legislation closely. But there are other areas - notably where there are profits to be made by businesses, such as workers rights and other things you mention - where I'm less optimistic. So when I say 'would British law be any different' what I'm really asking is if Stringvest really believes that post-EU these issues will cease to occur? I doubt it, personally.