JoeLeg

You mean, back to the bit where people use facts and evidence to disagree with you and you get angry about it?

MissDumpling Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd definitely go for tapas for grazing for a > group that size. Salt Yard in Goodge Street is > great, and Central.. > http://www.saltyard.co.uk/about-us Though I love Salt Yard (full disclosure, I used to work there), I'd say Opera Tavern (sister restaurant) has the edge over it in location, as its Convent Garden. Either are fantastic though. Yes I'm biased, but I'm also right ;-)!

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can only think of the Territorial Army Barracks at > High Wood at the beginning of Lordship Lane. I'd > say that perhaps security has been stepped up > after the events in Brussels today. That's been gone for years now though? Turned into flats? Just the cadet centre now. (I did love the fact that back in the day it was pretended to be a TA logistics unit, whereas it actually had part of 23 SAS hiding in the back. Why they thought anyone was fooled is beyond me...) On a serious note it honestly could be anything. Exercise, response to today, something unrelated? Not like they're going to tell us.

yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i should hope so as we live moments away from > these woods. :) and if you can't see their point > nor my point then that's your problem! Yup, you've got their PR skills down pat too. Good luck with that.

That's awful! Those guys are really good people who have turned an average local shop into a well stocked and run place that serves locals with what we need. Add to that, the guys who work there are friendly and helpful. Theu didn't deserve it (though of course no one does).

I can only speak from personal experience, but while I've found the reception staff quite reasonable in person, on the phone they are pretty unpleasant. When I spoke to them last week regarding an appointment for my youngest kid, they made it plain that if she wasn't in pain them they wouldn't even think about seeing her for several weeks. Now I don't mind being told that, but the way the receptionist spoke was frankly rude.

Oh great, Tarot's gone off his meds again...

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MissDumpling Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Brand new j-cloth lining your sieve will work > fine > > with blackcurrants. > > > That's a good idea, as long as the blue dye > doesn't come out :)) It is a good idea, and no, it won't run. Wet them a bit first, they'll 'stick' to the sieve better; otherwise I've known those cloths kind of 'collapse' when sauces are passed through them. Should be much easier to find than muslin, which I usually slog over to Lewisham for; there's a cloth shop there which sells good stuff but the staff are possibly ruder than Le Chardon.

Well, the sieve will presumably be clean, but yes, drop it into boiling water for a 30 seconds (2 minutes at 75 Celsius or 30 seconds at 78 Celsius is required to kill bacteria - though spore forming bacteria present in things like rice are a different matter) to be safe. Do not use an old t shirt. Please no! Though I imagine that's the equivalent of using muslin to pass liquids. Even so, the muslin would still need boiling first. At least I boil it first.

It's worth doing. If any bacteria gets into your cassis - and remember you can't see it, it could get in there without you realising - it will multiply over time and could reach very dangerous quantities. Despite the huge amount of sugar and alcohol, there is no guarantee that you wouldn't poison yourself and others. Yes it's a faff, but it is important; better safe than sorry. And if you need someone to, you know, check it...hey, just offering :-)!

rabbitears Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Surely if the public was actually that worried > they could pull their finger out and read the > reports from the website? I've not dug around deeply on the website but I've never seen links to the full reports? There's a basic overview, it's nothing detailed. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong bit? I'm not sure that they're currently allowed to release the whole report - that is to say, I honestly don't know if it's considered confidential; gong to find out though. But I think the whole system needs changing. It isn't clear enough for the public.

Ok, I've said it before and I'll say it again - the 'Scores On The Doors' system is ridiculous and frankly misleading to the public. I've got a 5-star rating, which got re-confirmed last autumn by the local EHO's. They said it will be at least 18 months before they visit again unless they receive complaints. A lot can happen in 18 months. Things can go downhill in 18 days! Why aren't the scores required to be displayed? Likewise you can get drop a star or two because of cracks in the ceiling, as happened to a place I worked in a few years ago, even though the inspector agreed they weren't a food hazard. You can lose them for lack of paperwork, even if everything is fresh and clean. The system is ridiculous. It needs changing - customers should be told WHY a rating is low; and they should be told WHEN the last inspection was and the next one is due. For example, The Dorchester had just one star for a long time, and didn't care. They were cleared to serve food so they ignored it. The public is entitled to as much information as possible about where they might choose to buy their food. The current system is not fit for purpose.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This issue isn't about SSW's folly is it though: > it's about the future of COC. And that is the > purpose of this thread, not a turkey-shoot with > Blanche. > I'm sorry, but SSW set themselves up as an authority on what is really happening on COC, making a lot of allegations about council behaviour and assumptions about how local residents must think and feel of they don't agree with SSW's position. Add to that the other actions online and they put themselves right on the firing line of that turkey shoot. People don't like being spoken too as if they're idiots. > COC has become more than a cemetery. I would say > the majority of people who use it, use it as a > place of recreation or a cut through. This > presumably is why it's part of the Green Chain. So > arguments from original use really don't hold > because it is now used for more than burial and > remembrance. This is a good point. The issue then is how can its use as > a graveyard be balanced with its use as a rather > beautiful place of recreation. The interests of > people who use it for the latter must be in the > equation. Without wishing to detract from your central point, which as I say is a good one, in reality how many people are using graveyards for solid recreational purposes that might make it worth examining in detail? We live in a pretty 'green' part of the city (in comparison to other bits), and the local parks are used vastly more than graveyards in that manner. One could argue that money and time is better spent on making sure those parks are maintained. The issue of wildlife is of course very different; I'm personally still not sure how best to balance that. My worry is what they're doing with area > z gives us an insight into what might happen to > the densely wooded area. And I've not yet seen > anything that goes me confidence this won't > happen. Again I agree with this point. However, the issue of burials isn't going to go away, and I'm starting to wonder if we aren't having the wrong conversation. The debate between residents and indeed with the council should maybe be more about what happens to us when we die. Space is limited - others have pointed out that leases on graves on other cemeteries are still sometimes only 25 years, and this problem will only get worse. Perhaps we need to be discussing how we intend to dispose of our sadly departed on the future, otherwise this issue will continue.

" When we started on this process we didn't realise there were some people who didn?t value the heritage and wild beauty of the cemeteries, including Nunhead Cemetery" This, right here, is why I've lost any vestige of respect for SSW. Nasty, passive-aggressiveness comments designed to make it seem like people are either with them or against them. Absolutely not the way to engage with people. On a personal note however, I wish you all the best for a speedy recovery. Pneumonia is not to be taken lightly.

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cllr Renata Hamvas/Helen Hayes, > > Perhaps you would answer andrewc's and others' > questions regarding actions to be taken on > religious discrimination in the existing burial > service by Southwark? > > Blanche Blanche, I'm sorry but I can't see where AndrewC asked a question regarding actions to be taken on religious discrimination? Can you show me where he did that?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dick Just out of interest, who are you saying is a dick?

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are plenty of us who have nothing to do with > SSW who are very uneasy about what is happening in > COC. It is easy to point out the folly of SSW's > arguments. But leaving it up to Southwark risks > giving them free reign to damage elements of the > cemetery that should be preserved and managed. > > This thread was set up to take the discussion away > from SSW. SSW are a local pressure group involved in what's happening in COC; they should be free to come on here and debate the issues. I support their right to do that. However, one individual in that group in using their own Twitter account to troll this debate, and is therefore the one pulling it away from its purpose. I think it's interesting that Lewis only ever mentions by name individuals off this forum. For someone supposedly in opposition to action by the local COUNCIL, he focuses on attacking local residents a lot; could this be because if he starts naming council members they might sue? I suspect so. I'm in the undecided camp where COC is concerned; I want to hear more arguments on both sides, and I wish Panda Boy would come back, but I also loath bully's, and right now SSW just look like bully's. For all of Blanche Cameron's professed desire to have a sensible and mature debate, their campaign is being undermined by the actions of Lewis Schaffer, as many posts on here show. SSW have a message and a right to be heard, but not to troll people.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In 5 years time we may very well have a useless, > bunch of squander bugs called the Labour Party in > charge and then the future will be very gloomy > indeed as they try yet again to secure a permanent > place in Parliament by lifting all restrictions on > any kind of immigration like Blair did last time. > > We will be well and truly fubar if that happens I really don't think the going to happen. A) Labour are unelectable under Corbyn, IMO. B) No political party will commit the political suicide that such a move would bring. Controlled immigration is what's going to happen, I reckon (I could be wrong of course), the question of course will be how controlled it is? Have you had a chance to think about the questions I asked you earlier? Genuinely interested in your thoughts.

Edit - deleted because I'm going to say something that doesn't help the debate. Good luck to you Blanche, but a lot of people don't trust what SSW says and now I can see why. Panda Boy was better at this than you; he was even persuading me of some aspects.

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > joe-leg~you should listen more carefully to Slimy > Dave. Benefit restrictions are only marginal I would dispute that they're marginal. Given how we've been vastly too generous with them so far any kind of reduction not only helps financially but also sends a message that only serious migrants are welcome. and > last for a mere seven years anyway even in the > unlikely event that they are not thrown out by > Bulgarian judges in the ECJ. If you want to practise your bigotry kindly head back to the comments section of the Daily Mail website. I'm far from being a socialist but that kind of attitude is both unhelpful and deeply unpleasant. > Just heard that my meagre credit card perks have > effectively been abolished by decree from Brussels > dictatorship. Can they never stop interfering? Others have already pointed out how you have not understood this correctly. > Let us just hope that the whole corrupt edifice > collapses before June!! While I share your desire for some fresh air in politics I doubt we will get it so maybe you should focus on actual research and listen less to crazed headlines and conspiracy websites. > Incidentally all the arguments put forward by the > crazed Europhiles here are just those we heard > when we were being urged to join the wretched > euro~~~economic collapse, mass unemployment,pound > worthless and the world isolating us.Pathetic. I'll agree that there is scare-mongering and nonsense talked by both sides so far, and precious little else. However, you're swallowing the 'hate Brussels' line a little too easily. There are arguments to be made for leaving, but I'd invite you to consider this; human history is littered with examples of success by those who banded together and found compromise, and failure by those who walked alone and eschewed any help. In such an inter-connected, inter-dependant world I feel strongly that united we stand, divided we fall. I advise you to consider carefully how nations like the USA, Russian Federation and above all China will see us if we split apart. I would say that we will be seen as prey. And as for pathetic? Maybe look to your own arguments in that respect, and calm it down. Debate is healthy and we should be having a lot of it right now. Bigotry will only get you ignored.

Blanche Cameron Wrote: -------------------------------------------------------. > > So, a solution, a genuine compromise exists that > makes sense for ALL residents, for those who want > to be buried and for those who love trees and > nature and want to keep the wild places and the > history and for families who want to preserve > their relatives graves. > > > Blanche > > Blanche Cameron > for Save Southwark Woods > 07731 304 966 > [email protected] > www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk > @southwarkwoods > Facebook Page Save Southwark Woods I'm sure you're trying to be clear, but maybe I'm stupid. Can you clarify that it is SSW's position that the way forward is a moratorium on burials in COC, and the use of alternate sites in the future?

Yup, Foxy put it much better than me. Nicely done.

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Turkey in within 5 years~80 million paupers can > come and live here on benefits. Madness. Have you actually paid attention to what Call-Me-Dave has decided to change regarding immigrants and benefits? Or is the reality shouted down by the voices in your head? In short, they're cutting off those benefits.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a pity really that there is such a plethora > of cheap building labour because some of the > eyesores around East Dulwich and elsewhere would > never have been built if there hadn't have been. You might well be right about that - construction is something I know nothing about - but I'm intrigued; Do you believe that cheap foreign labour (which let's be honest has been around for a long time - think about the Irish labourers who were common here in the mid 20th century for example) undermined existing British employees who then lost work, or did it fill a skills gap that came to exist because successive governments (and Blair was the worst for this I agree) undermined the vocational and apprenticeship schemes upon which solid training was built? It's my belief that in the UK we are reaping what we sowed; I had a boss years back who in his youth had worked at Vauxhall (I think) in the Midlands during (again, I think) the seventies. He told stories of drinking and smoking weed at work which made my hair stand on end, and said that on top of it all the unions ran rings round the owners, totally without cause. He wasn't surprised when the contracts went overseas and the plants suffered. Let me be clear - I am a full supporter of the existence of properly run unions which work for the benefit of their members, and we can agree I'm sure that a lot of what happened in the seventies was unions biting off their nose to spite their face. I think however that it started there - this culture of entitlement and expectation amongst (some, not all) young workers. Compound that with a loss of those training programmes which would've shown them how to do a good job and be employable, and you have perfect conditions for outsiders to come in and take the jobs. It's too easy to blame immigrants; I think we have to face facts and realise that we did a lot of this to ourselves, despite some people along the way saying "this is a bad idea".

precious star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To all those haters of nature "Buzzzz off" !! > .... from miss bumblebee. Xxx Ah, superb debating skills... So, from you we've had ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, accusations you refuse to support with evidence you claim to possess and juvenile trolling. It's like you've been researching 90's era BBS flame war techniques. Anyway, I'm backing away from this one now. I look forward to any more posts from Panda Boy (or even Blanche Cameron, who turned up once then vanished), he made points that have changed some of my thinking, but thus far I find the rest of the protesters to be unconvincing in their arguments, which mostly consist of attacking those who disagree with them. I certainly don't buy the line that they're all nothing to do with SSW.