JoeLeg

precious star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You say you dont trust local council ? May i ask > why not?? And providing proof would not alter your > opinion as so many people have provided proof as i > mentioned before, via links, and youtube clips but > you like sue and a few others turn a blind eye and > dont respond? Why is this?? The truth is the fact > that the council are getting away with it and > people who have no power are left to fight for > what they believe to get their voices heard. > Councils have other land what others have > suggested on here. Fine, be like that. I made a valid point about backing up your evidence, which you still dodged. You made assumptions about my opinions which you have no basis for, which is frankly just rude. This is why people find the anti-lobby difficult to deal with. Go back and read the posts from Panda Boy - he's done much more to open my mind towards both sides of this issue than folk like you. Enjoy your opinions, I have no intention of engaging further with someone like you.

precious star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > these are just my own thoughts and feeelings. I > dont want gleaming white headstones and a lawn > withoout a blade of grass out of place. I like big > trees that have been here longer than me, and long > grass so i hear the grasshoppers and crickets, and > to see wild poppies and wild flowers blowing in > the wind and being able to re-seed without the > lawn mower coming along and cutting them off. This is a serious question - have you considered that the future you want for these spaces, which sounds wonderful to me if it can be done - might not actually be viable? That what worked 50 or even 10 years ago simply isn't going to work now? I trust local councils as far as I can throw them - but the one thing I'm not seeing from SSW or anyone else (actually Panda Boy seems pretty on the ball) is concrete suggestions over what should actually be done. There seems to be a lot of anger over the destruction of habitats and graves (valid points of view) but not a lot of suggestions over how that space actually needs to be managed, balancing burials and wildlife.

precious star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I dont need to post any photos of my evidence, Actually if you come on here claiming to have evidence and people ask to see it then...yes, I rather think you do. Otherwise I could say I have evidence of you doing the damage yourself and framing the council; you'd know it wasn't true, but I'd just say 'yes yes yes it is! I saw it!'. If you can prove the council are being negligent/criminal then why wouldn't you provide proof? Surely it only helps your case?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some interesting points. > > Quick question JoeLeg on hours. The Working Time > Directive says that no employee can be forced to > work more than 48 hours a week. Some jobs have opt > out clauses because they require more than that, > but they tend to be higher skilled, higher paid > jobs. In addition, every employee must have at > least 11 hours off between working shifts, and one > day off in every seven. > > I think there are a lot of employers that flout > these laws because their employees don't know > their rights. I am sure you abide by them Joe. My bosses - the owners - are absolute sticklers for the law (one of the reasons I like working for them), so nobody is pressured to sign the opt-out, and those that don't are respected. I have one guy who says he wants exactly 40 hours every week, for example, and generally he gets it. Most of us have signed it, generally because the staff like the option to work like nutters if they choose, as some are on hourly pay, and all of us have our cut of the service charge linked to how much we worked (it's the fairest way). But to answer your question, no, emphatically no one in my kitchen is forced to work more than 48 hours except in exceptional circumstances, eg chronic staff shortage due to illness, as we had during January for example. > > The only way for workers to protect themselves and > make sure that employment law is kept to, is by > informing themsleves of their rights and to join > unions who have the resources to legally prosecute > employers who flout the law. Agreed, and in the catering industry, which has long had too many who flout these laws, there are now grass roots movements afoot to change this. I believe we will see positive change in this area within five years. This is long overdue, but when so many workers are transient, foreign, apathetic or just too tired to care, it takes time to organise. The internet forums for the industry have been instrumental in allowing flow of ideas and opinions. > > On productivity. There's no doubt there are > problems there, and some of those problems are > cultural. To be fair there are many under 25's who > work very hard, but yes there are also some who > expect to walk into well paid work without doing > anything for it. Some of that is also the fallout > from the culture of 'cradle to grave'. An > expectation that the state can provide everything > and yes I think sucessive governments, both Labour > and Conservative have damaged both the state > education system, and failed to keep up > apprenticeships, esp in construction. Completely agree. > > Also, 50% of young people going to University is > also setting them up to fail. One of the worst things government ever did was to tell people that 50% of them were good enough for uni. In doing so they destroyed the idea that vocational-based training and apprenticeships were worth anything, as suddenly everyone thought that university was the only valid education. And it totally undermined mant degree courses. 50% of new jobs are > not at graduate levels, neither in skils nor pay. > So again a level of expectation not based on > reality. New Labour in their efforts to create a > level playing field of educational achievement, > created more problems than they solved. And there > is no doubt educational standards have fallen, > especially in numeracy and literacy. Some > universities have returned to entrance exams to > figure out just who can actually spell and add up! > But it still remains that the top universities are > the top universities. > > I think it's pretty obvious by the age of 14 who > is interested in an academic pathway, and who > would be better on a vocational one. This idea > that all yooung people can reach the same goals is > nonsense. We are failing children by filling them > with dreams they can never achieve. So I for one > would be for the return of apprenticeships at 14, > and that might just also save some kids from crime > down the line too. Waiting until they are 18 to > engage is just too late. Again, completely agree. And to bring it back on topic, if the country was able to install that cultural 'shift' in the mentality of young people, coupled with the realisation that you get nothing for free in this world, they might find immigrants have less desire to come here. But until then, as I said before, give me those immigrants. British youth isn't ready yet.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 8 hours a day is plenty. If you can't organise > workload to allow your staff at least a semblance > of home/leisure life, you are the one who is > failing, perhaps. You need to remember I'm talking about professional restaurant kitchens. 8 hour days are rare; if you don't like that then please allow us to charge more for the food so we can hire more staff (I accept that's a different conversation). Presenteeism is rife and > wasteful: just sticking around so the boss can see > you after your shift finishes is far from being > efficient. Not sure what your point here is, but it doesn't happen in my world. > How do you define "weakest"? Could it have > anything to do with "not willing to do > everything/anything the boss says" I define weak as being unable to do the job as required, while claiming that you are, which is a problem because the job has certain requirements; it is hard physical labour which requires you to have a brain and use it. It is mentally and physically draining. Look, my staff have been with me a long time, and I think I'm a pretty good boss; I try to accommodate all requests for time off and holidays and I'm considerate when writing the rota (my wife says I'm too considerate). But a job has requirements - all jobs do - and in my industry it means long unsocial hours and several years learning the trade from the bottom. In short, there are no short cuts to doing it right. I reckon if you think you could name several other industries with similar demands. To top it off these kids watch Jaime and Gordon and reckon that a year out of cooking school they're worth ?28,000 pa! And ask tnt to wash dishes or mop a floor, and they pout like my kids! So yes, give me the immigrants. When you go out, the likelihood of it being a Brit cooking your food is pretty low, because a lot of other chefs agree with me. > (I agree with you about the pernicious aspect of > "sleb culture" and hope for an end to it soon.) Yeah, but I'm not optimistic about this one - reality tv has a lot to answer for.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Labour are responsible for the dire state of the > 'working classes'. Failure to educate in useful > trades (preferring to lower educational standards > and get a massive increase in useless university > courses)- then, what a coincidence, the skills > gap was filled by immigrants...much cheaper option > for Labourjust throw the doors open 2 years before > France and Germany. Because the middle classes and > property developers demand cheap labour they use > the much cheaper options e.g. 'electricians' > working for ?20 a day then getting the qualified > English electrician in to check and issue the > certificate.... > Anyway all these 'benefits' are erased by the > increase in crime and demands on services. > There is nothing bigoted about this JoeLeg of the > fascist left -just practicalities, the fact that > you can't get a doctor's appointment, can't get > your kids into a local school, and your rent is > sky high... You see, you make some valid points, a lot of which I agree with, and none of which actually conflict with my argument... ...and then you call me a member of the 'facist left'?! I'm not quite sure what that is, but I can guarantee you that you've made assumptions about my politics and allowed that to colour the view of my opinion. Not that it's anyone's business on here, but I'm not exactly a left-winger. Moreover, my position on immigrants is informed by many years of personal experience; I don't care what politicians say, I prefer the evidence of my own eyes. You're right about Labour slashing the apprentice courses and skilled training. But it didn't start with them; and I personally believe that it is a poor person who sits back and allows someone else to 'take their job'. The world owes no one a living, no one is entitled to a job. We getcth through hard work and commitment, and the simple fact is that the laziest, most work-shy and unreliable group I've encountered in the last twenty years has been the British under-25's. So why is this? They say bad workmen blame their tools; is all of this to be blamed on a lack of training and staff willing to work for less? Well, in part of course it is. That hasn't helped, and I won't deny that. But couple it with the horrendous rise in 'celebrity culture' that tells people they can make money without doing any real work, and a frankly general sense of entitlement amount at young people (not all of them, but still far too many), and you have perfect conditions for us to need immigrants. I'm sorry, but the locals here have to accept some responsibility for what has happened. I'm sick and tired of British kids who buckle as soon as the work gets hard, who claim to be 'tired' when they've done an 8 hour shift, who make up excuses to leave early or not come in - and I know when they're doing it. So tell me uncleglen, what do I do about that? Should I cut them more slack? Do they get a pass because successive governments screwed them? Or should I tell them to knuckle down, and work hard like the rest of us? Seriously, what am I supposed to do when the British applicants are frequently the weakest? ('Facist left'? Really? Weak mate, weak...and very wrong!)

Been wondering for a while whether to get involved in this, but that nonsense from apbremer tipped it for me. You really think the immigrants are the problem? Like fuck they are. Since the 90's I've watched a succession of young Britishpeople enter my world - professional kitchens - only to run a mile, or show themselves as lazy sods, as soon as they realise what actual hard work is like. Of course the rise of celebrity chef culture is s specific factor in this case, but the general point will stands. I firmly believe that there are too many young British people looking to get by on minimum of effort while expecting the maximum of salary. Fruit pickers? Hospital cleaners? Carers? Security guards? Kitchen porters? All those crappy jobs some folk think themselves too good for? They go to inmigrants, and I for one welcome them. They work harder, complain less and are often an excellent example of the rewards of honest labour. There are of course exceptions - I've got two English people on my team that I rely heavily on. But I also have a Bangladeshi, three Hungarians, two Algerians and a Neopolitan, plus a part time Canadian. I'd be screwed without immigrants, as would the rest of the hotel and catering industry. And most of the country. So before you bitch and moan about something you don't have any proof of, maybe ask yourself how you ended up in what you think is a mess - and the rest of us think is laziness by the locals - and why you see so few British people willing to start at the bottom, doing menial or physically demanding work. Edited twice cos bigoted idiots make me mess up my spelling.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps my example of demanding a dessert on the > house is a little extravagant, but I'd only do > that in exceptional circumstances (eg where they > were damn rude about my request to use a hygienic > serving method). > > Louisa. Just a little...! All you're asking for is a different plate. At the same time, all you're asking for is a different plate. If the response is anything other than "of course, right away", then the management need their head examined. If they're rude about it, I'd say getting up and leaving followed by a severe email to their bosses is warranted. Unless you just really, really want the dessert. Then squeeze them till they squeak.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > DulwichFox Wrote: > There was an obvious bit of tougne in cheek in my > comment.. It was not aimed at any particular > restaurant.. > > .. but yes I do know a local E.D. place where one > member of staff thinks the obligitory dish cloth > tucked into his trousers > is part of the uniform.. No names.. Not sure > what he uses it for.. It's just there. ? > > Foxy.. I'd argue it wasn't that obvious, but then I'd also agree I can be accused of getting too...intense...where health and hygiene matters in a kitchen are concerned. However, that staff member you refer to needs to be gripped by his management, before the local health inspectors get hold of him and penalise the entire business for his dirty habit.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Next time you go in to a restaurant which serves > food on anything other than a circular plate, my > advice is simple. Demand that the waiter takes > back the food and serves it in a more appropriate > fashion. Fair enough, no arguments with that. Try to get a free dessert out of them for > the inconvenience too. > > Louisa. Now that's just being a nasty piece of work.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > In a busy restaurant they are at best likely to > get a quick wipe over with a dish cloth that has > been stuffed > down the back of the waiters / chefs trousers. > > > > Foxy While the rest of your post is accurate - wooden boards are a serious hygiene risk - this bit winds me up. It's nonsense. Firstly neither chefs nor waiters clean the plates - that's the kitchen porters job. And if you know of anywhere that has them using cloths that have been in trousers then I'd be incredibly surprised. Have you ever worked in kitchens? If not then please stop chucking out spurious accusations that it gets might take as accurate. Some of us take hygiene very seriously. All that being said, wooden boards are still minging.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unless you have a circular saw in the kitchen, how > do you clean a wood board? You can't, not properly. That's why they shouldn't be used. Was this at Noak?

Alex K Wrote: > > > > > > Foxy > > Oh, for Heaven's sake. What twaddle. What sort > of meat was available except at butchering time > before cold storage and deep freezers were > invented? Processed, salted, smoked, > nitrite-loaded hams and bacon for the rich and > ditto sausages (scraps bulked out with rusk) for > you and me. For hundreds of years. Foxy, you > often are entertainingly misinformed, but really! > This one takes the (sausage and) biscuit. Look, sorry, and I hate to back up the local curmudgeon, but Foxy is right on this one. There is a pretty damning link between processed meats and cancer risk. What your position fails to account for is that A) for most of those hundreds of years people ate much, much less meat, and B) what processed meat they did eat was natural - natural flavourings, natural, spices and seasonings, natural cases etc. Now people eat a lot more meat - far too much in the western world, frankly - and a lot of what they do eat is often too cheap to be as good as it should be. This is very true of the processed stuff; all that salami, cured ham, reformed chicken and so on? Packed with nasty stuff. And over time that does us no good at all. Like most other stuff, moderation is your friend, and when you do eat it, pay more and get the better stuff; chances are it's less dangerous.

LauraW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Woah, where has this accusation of misogyny come > from? Lewis gets into conflicts with people and > they get into conflicts with him but a Twitter > spat with Sue doesn't make him a misogynist. If > it's relevant, I'm a woman and have known him for > 4 years. > > I'm disappointed now that I know who Sue is that > someone in the folk scene would be in favour of > turning a green space as wonderful as COC into > another waterlogged sterile place to plant graves. > The fact that she's reacted so badly to having her > identity exposed does suggest that she was using > online anonymity as a shield while behaving > trollishly on EDF. Frankly I suspect you're just a shill for Lewis, who is a spoilt little child who can't take the fact that people show where he is lying. Newton has the measure of both of you, and both of you disgust me. And your pathetic attempts at a straw man argument make you look foolish. But then that ship has already sailed...

gerritsmith Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No wonder you can't get appointments to see a dr > in this surgery. Looking at their website for > making appointments, it appears that out of eight > doctors at the surgery, only four are seeing > patients for two hours a day at the most. > Sometimes only two or three are on duty working > just two hours a day. On average eight doctors > work eight hours in total in a day, at the most. > This is scandalous. Doctors are hardly there in > the surgery to see patients. They get paid to work > full time but on average it seems each one to be > working less than an hour a day. Does Jeremy Hunt > know that GPs in this surgery are getting full > time wages for doing hardly any work? Got any actual proof of any of that? Seriously, do you?

"well, one of those posters works for the council, one is married to a Councillor, a couple work for the cemetery, one is an undertaker or funeral director, one main poster works for a major Council contractor" Can you prove any of that?

"Some very classy people on here nowadays." Yeah, you're one of them. Your passive-aggressive attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you is unpleasant, and your conviction that others are fully in support of what you see as a corrupt council if they don't see it your way is even more so. You're just as guilty of playing the player, you just dress it up nicely to make it look otherwise. And there aren't lots of places and methods where people can get buried, at least not in London. Suitable land for that purpose is at a premium; I'd be interested to read your solutions - so far I can't see any from you.

"Like I originally said, I expect more transparent and honest behaviour from the council. If you do not then thats just fine, strange but fine." That's a nice strawman you've built there. All your own idea?

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > > > > But did people address their concerns firstly > to > > The Great Exhibition? > > yes, they did - many times, and fruitlessly, which > was why James Barber had to be called in to help Then Fox's point is not proved at all. The residents did the right thing in talking to the pub first; when that didn't work they used other methods at their disposal. As I said before, I've got no problem with residents 'escalating' things if a venue won't listen to them; so long as you've given that place the chance to resolve it face to face, as it were, then you're totally justified in using social media, councillors and any other (legal) means at their disposal. But that first meeting is important.

Ah, it starts to make sense...

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think people have very short memories.. > > A few years back The Great Exhibition wanted to > keep their Beer Garden open late into the night.. > There were complaints by local residents.. > No one to one conversation with the management > made the slightest bit of difference. > There was much discussion on here and eventually > a meeting was arranged (with Councillor Barber and > the other > councillor whose name I cannot recall.) in > Darrell Road. > > The outcome was that instead of the garden being > allowed to open later, the garden was forced to > close earlier. > > This meeting would never of come about without > forum dicussion.. > > I rest my case.. > > DulwichFox But did people address their concerns firstly to The Great Exhibition?

It's not about "throwing your weight around". There's a polite and reasonable middle ground between that and being a shrinking violet. No business has the right to adversely affect the neighbours quality of life, but conversely that do have the right to expect they if they've overstepped the line then those neighbours will come to them first, not simply moan about it online. Frankly you have to be willing to go in and talk to them. Communication is everything.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have to agree that while I'm not sure if Lewis's > energies are entirely justified, he has every > right to fight for what he believes in. This > thread has become rather uncomfortable now, and it > feels a little bullying in tone. It's comforting > sometimes to remind ourselves that this forum > doesn't represent the world at large. Lewis does indeed have that right, which I support. However - and it's just my personal opinion - I think the 'bullying' tone comes mostly from him, as he seems to assert that anyone so disagrees with him is somehow in league with terrible dark forces in the council. I object to his tone and attitude on this subject. Now I'm sorry to be a dissenter, but I truly feel he's lost perspective. I also don't think his arguments add up - I get the feeling he's so vehemently opposed to the works in the current form that he refuses to see any possibility that he might be wrong. It's all coming over as pretty dogmatic and zealous. If he's willing to chain itself to things then there are better causes he could take up.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Today Southwark continued to cut down trees and > wild undergrowth - this in our backyard. For what? > For a few years of burial. Shame on us all for > letting this happen. > > Http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk > Lewis Schaffer > Nunhead. Who are you? Really, who are you? Mate, you need help. I honestly, genuinely think you've become too invested in this. Take this level of passion and put it into something that matters - because this doesn't. It's not the thin end of any legislative wedge, it's not the beginning of a facist state. It's a point of local maintenance that only you and a couple of others seem to think important. Move on.

Yeah... In regards to satisfying EHO's this idea is so full of holes there's literally no way it could work.