JoeLeg

Half Moon reopening in February, according to the guy who will be running it.

Ah, cool. Well, not cool or good in any way, given what they were talking about doing. But I'm glad to know it wasn't the guy I'm thinking of. I've seen him there a couple of times, just hope he can turn himself around again.

The guy I'm thinking of would certainly join an 'organised' begging group, but I'd be surprised if he condoned the behaviour described by Monica. I guess I'm hoping it's not him - he's fallen far enough recently, but always had a fairly strong moral code. But then people do bad things under terrible conditions.

No, the guy I'm thinking of isn't a seller.

I know this sounds weird, but was either of the beggars a thin, wiry guy, late 30's (probably looks older), glasses, flat cap, moustache and thin beard?

Personally if they're going after cyclists (which I agree is probably not the best use of police resources) I'd rather they found a way to get guys like the one who went through two red lights at the crossroads of Peckham Rye and East Dulwich Rd while the green man was showing and I was crossing with my six year old kid and ripped past us at high speed. When I yelled at him that he'd gone through red lights he just yelled back that he didn't care. Classy. And yes, I know that cyclists are a lot less dangerous than cars in general, but at that moment it didn't seem so. I'm all for increasing cycling in London. I'm all for pragmatic and reasonable policing towards cyclists. But when I experience lunacy like jumping red lights it makes me less sympathetic to other 'indescretions'. But I admit I might be influenced by my kid nearly getting knocked down at what is already a dangerous junction.

Your many good points notwithstanding Loz, you can be an arrogant so-and-so at times. " your last few posts have been an improvement." Way to come off like a sanctimonious schoolteacher...

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also can't understand how the BLM people in the > UK do not understand, or consider, how Mark Duggan > and Jean Charles de Menezes etc got themselves in > a position where they were killed by the police. Are you actually an incompetent troll, or have you been drinking? Jean Charles de Menezes? By what measure? 1/10, must try harder.

I note with interest that Blanche and Lewis have made the pages of Private Eye! 'Scene and Heard', p.22. Congratulations! (Shame Lewis is still such a rude and aggressive individual and Blanche is still an apologist for his vicious behaviour towards those who disagree with him).

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > OK Fox you win. You are always right and everybody > else is always wrong. Have you only just worked out that's how Foxy rolls? Obfuscate, irritate and alienate, and if unable to answer an argument simply ignore the other persons view! Simple really...

Rosetta > > There was a mass walkout of the staff? Including > the bakers? Oh thereby hangs a tale! Yes, all gone. But it's not one I'm divulging over an open forum as there have already been lawyers involved. Does that mean no more Danish > delights? Loved the cinnamon rolls, the scones and > muffins. As I understand it they're still doing cinnamon rolls. > > Can't say I like the look of the new menu. Me either, but I reckon of lot of people will. Of course he question is whether they can maintain it, and how they go forward. Like I say, the owner has gotten a reputation for being difficult.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rosetta Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Noticed that new menu for Noak in Brockley says > > they will be adding a 'discretionary' service > > charge of 10% onto each bill. Why now? > > Can you link to their menu please- i can't find > it online! https://mobile.twitter.com/noak_bakehouse Scroll down to July 24th, the menu is there. And I can imagine many reasons why they would add service charge, some good and some bad, but so long as the tips go to the staff, does it really matter. You can always request not to pay it.

Rosetta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > So Noak closed for about a month, and has now just > reopened as a brunch place with Aussie influences. > Anyone tried the new version? Personal opinion, style over substance, trying too hard with the food. It tastes good, but it feels like someone really wants people to know how clever they are in the kitchen. Not for me. But then each to their own. Having initially been unsure, I came to like the previous incarnation. This new one is expensive and flashy, and will probably do very well in the gentrification of Brockley. The owner is completely bonkers, so I hope she's learned from the mass walk-out of her previous staff.

They've probably been able to stay for ages under TUPE law. Apologies for wiki but it's a fairly coherent overview of the legal issue. It's been around in one form or another since the early 80's. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Undertakings_(Protection_of_Employment)_Regulations_2006 While it's a good piece of legislation, it does mean that it's possible for bad staff to stay in place for many years even if the employers change, unless those employers are willing to challenge them. It appears Co Op don't feel the need, unfortunately.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > C'mon JoeLeg, I said Regan got ATC's "from > military and elsewhere" IRPT "elsewhere". Also I > didnt say Southern should/could use military. Then why mention it? > Driving a train is a far far stretch from being an > ATC. Well of course, but if not the military then where do you suggest they find them from, and under what legislation do they sack the existing staff? > > There are heaps of people who could drive a train > with very little training. How do you know how much training is involved? Have you done it? I myself have no idea. For example heavt truck > drivers could do it in a matter of hours. Again, how do you know? Driving > an HGV is much more demanding than driving a train > where everything is covered by safety measures. > Apart from opening the doors all the driver does > is hold the "dead nman's" handle. > All the signals are interlocked and the train > cannot pass a red unless the driver overrides it. Have you driven many trains? I haven't, but then I don't assume a minimally trained monkey could do the job. > > Next time you go to Gatwick and transfer betwen > terminals , you will get on a driverless train. > There are countless other mass transit system > around the world that are automated. It's not > rocket science. > That's true, so why haven't we switched to it? What is the difference between the DLR and Southern, for example? > The organ grinder's assistant could even do it. So why don't Southern do this? > GG If I seem shirty about your short-sighted suggestion, it's because I don't think it's helpful to suggest that wholesale termination of the workforce, coupled with an assumption that the job is easy, is going to solve this. I would have no problem with Southern adopting a total change of staff of it would solve the issues, but there's more to it than this, not least of which is the incompetence of Southern management. It isn't all on the drivers.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Will the Luddites never learn? > > Ronald Regan sacked all the air trafic controllers > (ATC's)when they started getting Bolshie. He was > able to get replacements from the military and > elsewhere and all was running smoothly within a > week! The original ATC's were never employed at > control centers ever again. Real Luddites. > > Train drivers and conductors are infinitately more > dispensible than ATCs. > > Problem solved. > > GG So you suggest that Southern Rail requisition military personnel (and others) to replace train drivers and conductors? Well, for starters Reagan was commander-in-chief and could do what he damn well pleased. Southern Rail don't appear able to get trains to run. Also, Southern don't have any right to requestition military personnel (can't believe you even need this pointed out to you), only the government can, and the military is somewhat...overstretched right now. Of course the government can, if the government wants to take it over. But that's tantamount to admitting that privatisation has failed so I doubt that's happening. Any more bright ideas?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who would have thought a small change of one > convenience store for another would cause such a > furor? Because it's about a lot more than that to many people, on both sides of the debate.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can't wait to get a nice bit of reasonably > priced fish either. While I'd love to as well, I'd point out two things. Firstly it all depends on what you class as 'reasonable', and of course that's related to quality. There's a lot of crap imported from outside the EU in supermarkets these days, with prices that frankly reflect the standard of product. Secondly, fish prices aren't going to stop noticeably. They just aren't. If you doubt that go and have a chat with Jason over at Sopers in Nunhead. Ask him about price vs quality, and what he thinks the fish market in the UK might look like after Brexit. I suspect (mainly because I've already had this conversation with him) that what you'll hear will be a prediction that it'll help employment in the fishing industry (I admit, a good thing), but don't be expecting to see meaningful price drops. Fish is expensive now, and Brexit has very little to do with the reasons why.

My day is not totally wasted then.

If that was directed at me, nxjen, then not really, no. I'm vehemently opposed to the M+S coming to East Dulwichc though I recognise it's a sign of the changing times and times have always been changing. It's pretty much the rubicon to me, and I know a lot of other people want it but I think they're glorying in what is really one of the final nails in what was once (not even too long ago) an interesting high street of use to both locals and visitors. As such I find comments like symptomatic of the changing local scene. But when all is said and done I know I don't own East Dulwich any more than anyone else does. I may rail against the new scene it, but my kids will probably love it. Plus ca change and all that. (If it wasn't directed at me then please ignore my bloviating rant. In fact I won't be offended if you ignore it regardless!)

sallyw1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yay, my campaign worked. I just got back from > my world trip and see that Iceland is gone and M&S > is soon to open. So much nicer than iceland. > This is also good for our property value :) > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32166019 YOU'RE campaign? Really? I think you're taking a lot of credit for something that had nothing to do with you. Glad you think that an M+S is better for the neighbourhood, though personally I think you need to educate yourself about how house prices work. Still, ignorance is bliss, eh?

Wish I could say I was surprised. Really hope that this gets resolved with widespread bloodshed (I think hoping for no bloodshed is unrealistic).

bodsier Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "This is kind of my point. We all know what you > think. But what makes you think that lots of other > people think the same as you think? If that's not > too much thinking?" > > > I don't assume they think the same as I do, But if they think differently you assume they are fools or have fallen for lies. A lot of these people would disagree with you. what I > would like is a true democracy that allows us to > see for ourselves. Now here we agree. But First Past The Post will never deliver or. Proportional Representation combined with mandatory voting. But I'm not holding my breath that we'll ever get it. Stopping new labour > supporters from voting for him, and charging ?25. > Hardly democratic is it.... That's an internal Labour party matter, not really relevant to a GE, but I agree it's a low blow.

bodsier Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What exactly is 'full on corbynmania?' What you > Want is in line with his policies. But that's not ALL of his policies, is it? He openly admitted he would never launch nuclear weapons; how do you rink that made him look amongst those who worry about foreign policy? I fear you > are being duped by the vile attacks that have been > made against him via the media. I'm not being duped by anyone and you insult me by claiming otherwise. I'm perfectly capable of making up my own mind - I'm not a naive 18 year old. Are we a nation > unable to think for ourselves anymore. Do we > really still believe the tripe that is presented > to us and push for the same 'because it is for the > best?' You still insist on thinking that people who disagree with you do it because they've fallen for some kind of brainwashing. By treating your opponents as such (as Momentum has) you alienate anyone who might be willing to see some of your point of view. Face reality, there are a lot of voters who oppose your positions and who do it out of sincere belief, not because they're stupid. Corbyn will be reelected, Labour will go nowhere and you'll still be wondering why. We need to start persuading the floating voters and the ones considering UKIP and the young that Lanour can be a force for good amongst the whole country. If we govern we have to govern the rich and the powerful as well, and that doesn't happen if they think you just want to get the boot into them. Thatcher did a lot of terrible things to us, but mostly she gave us the freedom to do them to ourselves, and so we did. And now if we want a progressive government that can help everyone we have to persuade a lot of people who actually saw there world get better in the 80's and have passed on their ethos to their kids. Extremism will get us nowhere, and as much as you tell yourself it's not so, Corbyn has a PR issue, because he's seen like that. And that's his responsibility to fix if he wants to be the big man. Edit - and this is an interesting counterpoint https://medium.com/@matatatatat/the-terrifying-hubris-of-corbynism-6590054a9b57#.ntzbdo6a3

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It begs the question of what would be a sensible > middle ground. It's possible to support commitment > to welfare, education and healthcare, more council > houses, moderate tax increases, and a reduced > military (spending and presence) without going for > full-on Corbynmania.. Momentum would beg to differ, it seems...