rendelharris

Two thirds is right - so Labour and the SNP together could block this move, presume they won't though.

tarafitness Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My 20 year old son walked past your lot on > Saturday. He works at McDonald's in Brighton. > His starting salary was ?5.45ph, and he works his > arse off on a zero hours contract. He had to > giggle, and point out that you really don't know > how lucky you have it. Some posters on here need to take a look at the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right."

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I saw the truck and the crushed bike, too (the > chap was not there any more). > Has any one seen what happened? > Did the truck driver swerve to the left without > signalling? Did the cyclist try to undertake him > while he was turning? Really? What if the truck (as has been detailed in several inquests on those killed in this sort of instance) had a clear view of the cyclist ahead but instead of letting him go ahead across the junction tried to speed up and cut across him. > Other than signalling in advance, I don't really > know what a truck is supposed to do to avoid > cyclists! That's as daft a statement as it's possible to make. Truck drivers have no responsibility to avoid hitting cyclists beyond signalling? Incredible.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Come on, if you were her you'd do this. I > certainly would. She has people quite rightly > saying that a PM that wasn't elected by the people > shouldn't be taking the country in to Brexit. So > now she'll be very much elected by the people, > probably with a massive majority. It is a very > very good move from her. > > None of that is to say that I am remotely happy > about this. We will now have a Tory government > with a big majority, possibly for the next 10 > years. > > I just hope Corbyn will fnck the fnck off on 9th > June (have a nasty feeling he won't), and that > Labour put a woman at the helm (Heidi Alexander > maybe...). Oh I certainly would, I just don't like the dressing it up as a good thing for the country when really it's a good thing for her. But definitely the smart move from her point of view. I agree, Corbyn will probably try to hang on and create even more of a shambles than he has already. Heidi Alexander good shout, I'd be happy with either Clive Lewis or Sadiq Khan as well. ETA Worth noting that in October she categorically ruled out a pre-2020 election saying it would cause instability.

So the fixed term parliament act (introduced by the Tories) should only apply unless you see an opportunistic chance to go when the polls are in your favour. Just what the country needs at a time we should be trying to sort out Brexit and after all the brouhaha of last year, another couple of months of division and argument. Smart move by the PM, but her presenting it as a good thing for the country rather than an opportunistic move for the Tories is a bit much. Oh well, Tory government for the next five years then. Hurrah. ETA on the plus side when Corbyn gets utterly humiliated surely even he won't be able to hang on.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Suck it up" is not a phrase I like and I don't > apply it to this, but I do think an elastic amount > of acceptance is needed as much as > congestion/diesel charges, cycle lanes, bus hopper > fares, etc. etc. One can't have an "elastic amount of acceptance" about something that's killing double digit thousands every year and stunting the growth of our children, one really can't.

...and that lorries need to be careful when they find themselves alongside bicycles, responsibility is a two way street! Hope the lad's OK.

Sally Eva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Look at the first scene of Hamlet with > the gravedigger to see the historic attitude to > dead bodies. "The dust of Caesar now stopping a > bung hole" Alexander! (Though Caesar is mentioned later) ;-)

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shameless Daily Mail plug there rendel! ;-) > > Louisa. I'm very much a fan Louisa as I'm sure you've gathered ;-)

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > You have a lot of support from many people. Touch of the Trump, no? "I have a lot of support. A lot. From many people. Many, many people."

oshmosh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rick wakeman today in s,burys Don't want to be a killjoy - wish it were true - but as he was playing a gig in Tokyo last night and another tonight I think you may have seen a lookalike!

Strange assumption that EDPH staff are asking for more than everybody else. The point of the London Living Wage campaign, as backed by our Mayor and many others, is that they're asking for what should be the minimum wage in London for all workers. To point out that others may have done, or be doing, harder work for less money is irrelevant and frankly silly. In my distant youth I worked on building sites for pretty criminal wages - I needed the money and it was all that was available - but I don't regard that as giving me the right to tell others they're not entitled to a living wage.

With sincere apologies for linking to a Daily Mail article, but just because one can't see the pollution so clearly any more, doesn't mean it's not still killing us: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1015258/Air-pollution-kills-smogs-1950s.html

Still out where you're concerned, thanks.

He does love a lie, doesn't he?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's an interesting one. I thought a several years > ago there was a big push (if not by Govt, then by > manufacturers but with support / no complaint from > Govt) for diesel to be the engine type that car > buyers opt for. > Now there's to be penalties for those swayed in > that direction. On the surface that seems a bit > disengenuous. There was a massive push from the (Blair) government, giving diesels zero ratings for VED. This was because the government was desperate to meet European Co2 emissions targets and diesel cars theoretically produce less Co2 than petrol ones (in practice they produce almost exactly the same). The push ignored the fact that diesels produce far more nitrogen oxide and dioxide (responsible for lung problems and inflammation, low birthweight, retarded lung development in children, heart attacks and strokes) and particulates (carcinogenic). The current government are already talking about a limited diesel scrappage scheme but it'll have to be extended if it's to be truly effective. I do feel sorry for people who fell for the government line, though there were a lot of dissenting voices at the time predicting the environmental disaster it's now become.

"Celebrate life after death amongst the beautiful, living woods and old graves of the Camberwell Cemeteries that so inspired William Blake and others." That certainly is an amazing example of life after death, given that Blake died in 1827 and the first interment in Camberwell Cemeteries took place in 1858. No evidence that Blake ever visited the site, let alone drew inspiration from it. There's only one reference to Camberwell in the works, and hardly a complimentary one: "O lovely Hills of Camberwell, we shall behold you no more in glory and pride, For Jerusalem lies in ruins and the Furnaces of Los are builded there." (Jerusalem). So claiming Camberwell Cemeteries or their site as places which "so inspired William Blake" is more cobblers, I'm afraid.

Very interesting article for those who say there's no point trying to limit private car use when we've got buses, HGVs etc: modern diesel cars produce twice as much toxic pollution as HGVs: not twice as much by engine size, just twice as much full stop (ten times as much on a capacity comparison): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/06/diesel-cars-are-10-times-more-toxic-than-trucks-and-buses-data-shows

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, yes, maybe. Lewis is either a complete > wind-up merchant or he seriously wants to take on > local residents who disagree with him. His Twitter > feed speaks for itself. > > So for the record - because we all know Lewis > reads this - I'm not threatening him at all, he's > not worth my time. > But he should be very careful with what he's > doing, and not from the point of view of someone > punching him, but more because he could land > himself in a fair amount of legal trouble. The law > regarding Twitter et al is pretty much being made > up as cases go along, and he's skirting around the > edges of acceptable online behaviour. I wouldn't > be surprised if he got sent solicitors letters if > he took this much further. > > The bit that I think is hilarious is that he says > he wants to know who is fighting SSW. Mate, it's > no one on here. People here don't like you and > think you and Blanche are liars and full of shit, > but we aren't the ones 'fighting you'. That's > Southwark Council you're thinking of, who are > indeed as nasty a bunch as you could hope not to > meet. Wasting time and energy trying to locate > local residents so you can harass them in person - > which I suspect would result in the police being > called - is just that; a waste. No one here is the > enemy, and it says a lot about SSW that you can't > handle the locals disagreeing with you. Spot on - as per previous haven't really looked into the whole issue as it's not really my neighbourhood but it's pretty impossible to believe SSW are in the right when, as you so accurately say, they are quite clearly liars and full of shit. This Lewis character (hello Lewis, as you clearly read all this but don't have to balls to post!) really is putting himself in a legally dubious position and should be very careful about this stalking behaviour. dbboy, that Horniman Heights thread is hilarious!

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lewis is going postal on Twitter again. > > It's just pitiful now. Grown man can't deal with > being told 'no'. > He evidently wants to harass people - myself > included - which given that he has no idea who > these people are or how they will respond seems > pretty dangerous to me. Totally agree - but what's the bet he construes that as a personal threat?

mynamehere Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I went to dinner in one of the new high buildings > from which I saw a sea of concrete to the horizon > 360degrees. Where were you dining? Whenever I get up high in London, in one of its tall buildings, Crystal Palace Hill etc, I'm always struck by just how verdant it is, especially when compared with, for example, the view of Paris from Sacre Coeur. Taper's figure of London being 47% green space is accurate. I don't know enough about this particular cemetery issue to offer an opinion, but I do know that transparent gross exaggeration isn't really going to help an argument.

Villanelle for 9/11* In that fair land where freedom?s song once rang, The beacon for those yearning to be free The hymns of hate swelled as the ravens sang. The clotted darkness of harsh hate?s harangue Choked up the rivers, flowed out to the sea In that fair land where freedom?s song once rang. From those dark trees where once strange fruit did hang, Where children clapped a burning cross with glee, The hymns of hate swelled as the ravens sang. The brooding hatred?s hooded murd?rous gang Have saddled up and innocence must flee In that fair land where freedom?s song once rang. A monstrous leader from this hatred sprang To cry this land?s not made for you or me: The hymns of hate swelled as the ravens sang. And so the tolling death-knell?s hollow clang Weighed down on souls from sea to shining sea: In that fair land where freedom?s song once rang, The hymns of hate swelled as the ravens sang. *November 9th 2016, Donald Trump confirmed as US President

It's running as far as Shadwell then replacement bus every ten minutes - a pain but possibly still the quickest route?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've posted this article from 2013 before, but > it's very good. > > http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/11/look- > heygate-estate-whats-wrong-londons-housing Thanks for that Otta, very good indeed. The figures there really don't lie, do they, not only have the poor Heygate residents been well and truly sh@t on, so have all Southwark taxpayers - ?55M gained for the site, ?65M lost to evict residents. Absolutely beggars belief.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > sickening. and no law has been broken. Well, that has yet been uncovered...