rendelharris

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the only thing you can do is carry a tool. > no one else is gonna look after you obviously. > it's a shame, but lambs to the slaughter is not a > reasonable solution. Unfortunately, though I can understand the urge, when set upon by four of the cowards any weapon is just going to end up used against you and the outcome will almost certainly be worse. A very loud rape alarm, for men as well as women, might help...

Very sorry indeed to hear this, I hope you recover quickly mentally and physically. As above, do make your tutors aware of what's happened as soon as possible - every college (I know because I've worked in them) will have policies in place to make sure you don't lose out on the result you deserve. Good luck. On a political note, I'm the most liberal, limpwristed, namby-pamby soft on crime snowflake imaginable (I must be, been told so often enough on here!) and even I think that rule about not chasing moped riders once they take their helmets off is quite ridiculous - effectively a free pass. It really needs looking at.

I honestly did just want to say thank you to those who were in Sainsbury's, but it's really nice to see how many good people there are on the EDF as well! xx

Thanks again all, you're very kind xx

Thanks Mick. They thoroughly deserve their thanks, in a funny sort of way, though I'd rather it hadn't happened, the whole business has rather cheered me up with its multiple examples of how kind people can be.

Many thanks again all, you're very kind. Bermy, sorry you and Mrs.B had to see it - I know from experience it's far worse for the onlookers than for me, I may have looked bad but I can't remember any of it. Everyone was brilliant though. xx

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How horrible for you but glad you're ok. Good to > hear people were helpful. Get well soon.. Many thanks singalto, much appreciated. Worse things happen at sea!

...was me. Nothing much to worry about, part of a long-term chronic illness with which I won't bore you. Usually I can anticipate if a collapse is coming on and get to safety accordingly, but for some reason this one came on more or less out of the blue. Now, unfortunately in the process of going down I must have bumped my noggin on a shelf or the floor (certainly feels like it from the bump, and have spent the last four hours or so in A&E to check for a bleed on the brain (isn't one, I'm pleased to say!). Subsequently I don't remember anything until I came to in the ambulance: the ambulance staff told me that Sainsbury's staff and members of the public had done sterling work in looking after me until they arrived. I will of course be writing to Sainsbury's, the ambulance service and A&E with my thanks but if you were one of those members of the public, thank you so much for your efforts, they are much appreciated, even if I wasn't quite in a position to show it at the time! All the best, Rendel

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RH there used to be a pub at Smithfields where the > meatworkers were in super early in the morning for > beers - went there a couple of times after late > club nights, I think it was like 0600 or something > - mental ! There was one in Shepherd's Bush, somewhere near Goldhawk Road as best I can recall, which opened very early for market traders (talking 25+ years back now) - you would be asked at the bar "working in the market?" - though I never saw any of the assorted nightfolk turfed if they said yes!

RFU have said it's "too early to speculate" about rule changes. Hope they do change it, no sour grapes, well played Italy and a great idea, but it's going to get pretty dull if there's no passing back from the ruck, just a succession of thudding charges up the middle - may as well put on thirty locks and have done with it.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Morning fag (pah) I see a geezer who looks like a > painter and decorator, with his kit, at the bus > stop most mornings 7.30 am with a Special Brew > (and he doesn't look-vaguely > alcoholic...yet....he's mid 20s I'd say) Maybe he works overnight (though Special Brew in any circs is not a good sign, especially not while waiting for the bus) - I used to be quite surprised when living by the Fox on Denmark Hill and nipping in for a coffee (honest) how many rail workers there were tucking into pints at 8.30AM until I had a chat with them and found they worked the night shift and this was their "evening" pint. That's what they told me, anyway.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Apparently there is a local offside (a few feet > around the tackle) > > But not for the backs loitering > > I''d just have gone straight to pick and drive > until the Italians put > players in - it's not just Wales who can't think > outside the plan then :) Ah, that's what Poite meant when he said "One metre around the tackle." Yes it was hilariously obvious what they should do, I've just been watching some clips - in possession, six men together, only two Italians in front, turning round to pass back and complaining there are Italians in the way!

I played at a reasonable level until I was 34 and I must admit I had no idea that if it was only the tackled player on the ground there was no offside! But then international players really should be more aware of the rules, especially as it seems Italy are not the first high level team to come up with the idea. If England had been on the ball they should have just started sending Care sniping up the middle with Itoje and Brown on his shoulders, Italy would have had to change their tactics or ship 50+ points, I reckon. It was pretty funny, though a bit unedifying as a spectacle - not a game I'd show to someone in my quest to prove it's the best team game ever!

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Look rendel, we must stop meeting like this, > people will talk... :-)

Ah yes, well spotted, my error. So is it OK in Keano/Littlejohn world to shout racial and religious abuse but not to scream it?

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree with both of you that we should be much > more concerned with human rights and workers > protections than the labeling of our eggs....but I > find the automatic assumption that the 'evil' > tories are chomping at the bit to tear our rights > away, a tad alarmist. > > Oh, and can we please stop labelling something a > 'Strawman' just because you don't find it as > interesting or important as someone else might - > all it does it serves to belittle someone else's > concerns or questions, before you have even begun > to engage. Well, it's funny that Joe and I should both have used the same phrase. It's not one I use often and it is often abused as a term, but in this case it exactly fitted what you did: a straw man is "an intentionally misrepresented proposition" - you proposed that there is a binary choice of either saying that the British government can be trusted to make reasonable laws or that they will go off the deep end without EU supervision, when you know full well that nobody has suggested that will happen. The cap does fit, in this instance.

Ah, welcome back to the EDF's very own Richard Littlejohn. Yes, being rude to someone on here is obviously worse (in your eyes) than screaming abuse on racial or religious grounds at someone in the streets - which is a hate crime, not "name calling" - I think you should have a look at your moral values and question why you want to try to soften racial and/or religious abuse down to the level of a playground spat. I have no compunction about being rude to someone who claims that reporting someone shouting "terrorist" at Muslims in the street is "stirring up prejudice" and that people who commit such acts "should be pitied and helped and not prosecuted and condemned." One should be as rude to such people as possible.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But often commenters on the same side of the fence > are concerned that when it comes to things such as > human rights, the environment & climate change, > workers protections etc etc...then suddenly losing > the EU laws is the worst thing in the world, and > on those issues, the British government cant be > trusted to manage things reasonably? > > So which is it? Do we believe that the British > government will make reasonable laws on their own? > or do we believe they will go 'off deep-end' > without Big Brother from the EU watching? Both, clearly. When it comes to reasonably non-contentious issues such as the definition of free-range eggs, the government will probably be happy to leave current regulations in place, with other issues such as human rights and workers' protection they have already signalled their intention to abolish current EU legislation. You're setting up rather an obvious and weak straw man, nobody on either side has ever suggested that the government will rewrite the entire statute book post-leave, but many have expressed their fears over those parts they will rewrite: see here for a recent example: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/feb/21/top-lawyers-warn-of-human-rights-crisis-after-brexit

It is pretty horrid and I don't smoke until the evening these days, but I guess with the proliferation of the smoking ban and breaks being heavily monitored etc...I remember when teaching if one had a full timetable and break duty it was a choice between having one (or three) at 7.30 or not having any until 1PM. In the the words of the old Viz advert, "I smoke 'em because I'm addicted to nicotine!"

Sounds a fairly typical anti-EU complaint: there are differing definitions of free range in different jurisdictions, but any reasonable person would agree that a free range chicken is one which has continual access to an outdoor range during daylight hours. This farmer's complaining that he doesn't let his chickens have that access 25% of the time and so the horrid EU won't let him call them free range. When we leave the EU there will still be government regulations and food standards, and I'll be very surprised if it will be permitted to label as free range chickens kept locked indoors for one week in every four. "Maybe he couldn't grow courgettes in the recent shortage incase he offended a greek fisherman?" - you've inadvertently been very funny there; I know you're trying to parody EU regulations but in fact that's a brilliant parody of unjustified anti-EU sentiment.

I agree MM that there has to be an element of assumption, in the absence of an in-depth interview with the perpetrator, but I wouldn't say it was a terribly large assumption. In the popular imagination at this time, terrorism is associated with people of middle eastern appearance, so if someone is shouting "terrorists" at a couple of such appearance it's logical to assume their race played a part in the perpetrator's decision to attack them rather than someone else. If it didn't it was an attack solely on their religious appearance, which is of course just as bad. Perhaps we can just call it a "hate incident" - I don't think anyone, apart from maybe GG, would disagree with that.

Outdoor tables on Camberwell Green and at the Walworth Road end of Burgess Park, though possibly not the best option in the current wind!

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You make several hasty assumptions. It probably > was islamophobia but it may not have been > **clearly** "racism" or "discrimination". He/she > may have been the same race as you or me or them. > Were they white, black or clearly of a different > race from the person who shouted out? There are > white muslims and Chines muslims out there you > know. > > By using the words **whatever you want to call > it**, you are provocatively inviting readers to > put whatever other prejudicial words they might > want to assume apply. > > Probably the most applicable label you used is > islamophobia i.e. a fear of Islam. The > islamophobic person would be conditioned through > fear of islam. Probably he/she has experienced or > has seen evidence of atrocities carried out in the > name of Islam by extremists. People who have > phobias ( and there are many of them) should be > pitied and helped and not prosecuted and > condemned. They suffer on a daily basis with their > phobias. > > So instead of stirring up prejudice through your > (unsubstantiated) outcry, you should show some > pity to the person with the phobia. > > GG I love the fact that in a following post you describe the above piffle as "well argued views" - brilliant. KK was very wrong (above) to call you a tool, but I guess what you should really be called wouldn't get through the forum filters, so tool will do for now. Just to restate your "argument": people who abuse innocent Muslims in the street should be pitied not censured, and it's "stirring up prejudice" to act in the Muslims' defence and to report it. Astonishing.

peckham_ryu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > In fairness, 'terrorist' is not in and of itself > racially offensive. If the boor had directly > referred to the couple's ancestry, for example by > calling them 'Micks', 'Paddies', 'Fenians' or > simply 'Irish b*****ds', then that would be your > proper racism. > > Top marks for civic mindedness. Personally I don't > think ringing the law was a good use of your time > in the circumstances you described. Sheer guesswork but the balance of probability would be that the abused couple were of Middle Eastern or African appearance, in which case the slur would be racist as directed at an assumption based on their race, rather than some random shouting at white people on the basis that they were ALF or Red Brigade...I think it is important that the police are made aware of this sort of incident as they are now alerted to a potential problem in the area, perhaps have a description of the abuser and can plan their strategies accordingly. It wouldn't be good if, heaven forfend, someone ended up stabbed in such an incident and it was later discovered that there had been several such abusive incidents but nobody had bothered to report them. Again, fair play to Jim, in my opinion.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Brixton has always been diverse for its eateries, > it's just people from certain postcodes chose not > to venture into those places because it wasn't > 'cool' to do so back then. Now it's become quite a > generic place, boring even. Peckham is next in > line for the Brixton treatment, in fact it's > already well underway. > > Louisa. I lived in Brixton, just off Coldharbour Lane, from 1997-2006 and although I loved it (though I do quite like some of the improvements since) my memories are that good places to eat were what it was lacking - excellent for places to dance, drink and make merry but apart from the Satay Bar and Bah Humbug I really don't recall much in the way of good eating places. Mind you it was a long time ago and some of the more interesting substances on offer from the corner boys did not necessarily help promote perfect recall...