rendelharris

See TheCat above for an example of how to disagree without being rude or descending to the tactics of the playground.

Truly shite performance from the Corbster - Government performs a massive U-turn on something you've been asking for and they've been refusing to give and it ends up making you look stupid? Despair.

Actually it's called Peckham Square (I now realise), Peckham Platform is the arts venue to its right hand side but all the same vicinity - yes do watch out there, and on the Surrey Canal path too - hit a bunch of leaves that had frozen overnight there last week, made for an interesting detour over the grass!

No (sorry to answer for you Anna) the Peckham platform is the plaza outside Peckham library (where cycling is permitted, despite the dirty looks from some people!).

Hope you weren't hurt! On a related note, can people please stop washing their cars on the street in the current weather conditions? In shaded areas the resultant ice can stay for days and can be really hard to pick up.

Massive cherrypicking Loz: if you look at the article you've linked, the chart shows that across all workers (the light blue bars), 16-17 is the only age group where women earn more than men. 18-21 women are 3% worse off, 22-29 4%, 30-39 12%, 40-49 25%, 50-59 27%, 60+ 22%. "Part time women earn way more than part time men" - only, according to your article, in the 16-17, 22-29 and 30-39 age groups, in all the others men earn more.

TheCat Wrote: Do a bit more > research and you'll see there are many, many areas > where girls and women are outperfOrm boys and men. But are any of those areas in salary and/or promotion? If females are outperforming males academically but still lagging behind in terms of equal pay and promotion prospects, it won't do them much good, will it?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Angelina Wrote: > > > > > It's also interesting that this is all focused > on > > > Trump and not the actual half of the American > > > citizens who voted for him... > > > > It's worth noting that actually only 27% of > those > > entitled to vote voted for Trump, so 73% of > > Americans didn't vote for him. As with Brexit, > > galvanising apathetic voters would seem to be > the > > real problem...easier said than done. > > No, it's not worth noting that. At all. > > God, I hate this ridiculous argument that keeps > popping up in so many places that 'x% of people > DIDN'T vote for whatever', by somehow taking into > account the unknown views of people that couldn't > be bothered enough to get off their backsides to > exercise their right to vote. Don't care if it's > Trump, Brexit or what video to borrow from the > store (OK, showing my age there): not voting is > accepting and validating the result, whatever it > is. That's not what I was arguing at all Loz. If people don't vote, tough, and their absence does not invalidate a ballot. The reason I mentioned this is that I was replying to Angelina's comment "It's also interesting that this is all focused on Trump and not the actual half of the American citizens who voted for him..." - simply making the point that we cannot assume that 50% of all Americans support Trump, we can only know that for sure about the 27% who voted for him, and in no way saying that invalidates his election.

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry but you miss my point totally. Brussels is > hugely undemocratic, expensive and massively > corrupt. The euro is just a German racket. The > whole rotten edifice is tottering. No I haven't missed your point, subtle, well nuanced and backed by facts and argument as it isn't. You said you thought it was extraordinary that people were trying to "overturn a democratic decision by the British electorate." I simply pointed out that that is what the leave campaign have done for the last forty years.

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It just seems extraordinary to me, a mere ignorant > uneducated Leaver, that you are all exercising > your democratic rights to protest to try to > overturn a democratic decision by the British > electorate to rid ourselves of a hugely > undemocratic Brussels Juggernaut. Ironic,eh? You are aware that there was a democratic decision by the British electorate (by 67% in favour) to join Europe in 1975, and that leavers spent the next forty years trying to overturn that result? Or does the right to continue campaigning only apply to one side?

With way too much time on my hands I went and had a look and you're dead right - a whole line of people getting off the front door of a normal bus as if it's standard practice! I suspect your suspicions may be right.

Angelina Wrote: > It's also interesting that this is all focused on > Trump and not the actual half of the American > citizens who voted for him... It's worth noting that actually only 27% of those entitled to vote voted for Trump, so 73% of Americans didn't vote for him. As with Brexit, galvanising apathetic voters would seem to be the real problem...easier said than done.

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't believe all this. "LEAVE" is a simple word > of only one syllable which surely even the dimmest > amongst us must comprehend. Which part of it do > you not understand? "DEMOCRATIC RIGHT TO PROTEST" is eight syllables but it's still quite simple to understand.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I always say "hello" to the driver when I get on > but very rarely say thanks on the way out. I doubt > they can hear you on most services, though on the > smaller vehicles they may well be able to do so. > Speaking of etiquette, it's a bit annoying when > folk get off at the front of the smaller buses. I > get it if they are elderly/carrying children etc. > > (Dr Watson and his fellow passengers on the bus in > the last episode of Sherlock did exactly that, on > a double decker. Makes me wonder whether any of > the production staff or actors have ever ridden a > bus in London!) This is so nerdy I'm ashamed to type it, but I believe in that episode they were on a new Boris/Heatherwick bus, which is designed for all three doors to be used for both entrance and exit, no?

Ah, now that's what I should have claimed!

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Cheers - Jeremy's posted it for me now anyway! > > You posted Our Lips Are Sealed, I posted > Lunatics! Whoops thought I'd got the url for Lunatics, double snafu.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "identity politics is divisive nonsense that is > reaping what it sows in the US and, to a lesser > degree, the UK or certainly the Labour Party to > the detriment of us all" - discuss For an extra credit: "Identity politics is being used as an excuse by some voters to allow the more selfish and bigoted elements of their opinions to rise to the surface, confident in the knowledge that when they apply these opinions at the ballot box the subsequent ludicrous outcome will be blamed not on them but on the people who directly oppose those opinions. Discuss."

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendel, if you want the video to appear directly > in the thread you just have to click on the > 'Share' link below the video, then click on the > 'Embed' link, and then copy the highlighted url > and paste it directly into the EDF comment box... Cheers - Jeremy's posted it for me now anyway!

Well all I can say is thank goodness we'll finally be rid of that awful "joie de vivre." ETA To be replaced by the good old English, "Mustn't grumble, I suppose..."

OK I've spent far too long on this but I do find it fascinating: just realised the LMA doesn't in fact call it "The junction of Lordship Lane and Dulwich Common" as above, just "Lordship Lane, Camberwell." So I'd suggest it could be a view looking down the hill into which Townley and Heber roads run, making the building on the left Elm House, as per this: http://www.mappalondon.com/london/south-east/peckham-rye.jpg. The bend and gradient are about right, though it doesn't explain the grand house mid picture. Thoughts?

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a lot of difference between a landscape > and a topographical (mapping) painter - the former > will paint what makes a good picture, the latter > what is there. Although both skills were important > in the 19th century (army and navy officers were > taught topographical painting as part of necessary > military skills before photography could replace > these) landscape painting was also a common skill > and exercised extensively by (particularly) middle > class ladies. Using landscape painting of an area > can often give you a good impression of 'the sort' > of things that were in the location, but you > should not expect exactitude, or map-like > accuracy. Buildings in particular could often be > 'pretty-fied' or improved to improve the > composition (at least in the painter's eye). Trees > might be moved, certainly roads would not be > slavishly captured. Well indeed, but one generally would expect a minimal standard of accuracy, such as not showing a road which runs quite steeply downhill as running uphill! I happened to ride down Court Lane today and I find it very hard to believe the attribution is correct. Titles of paintings by minor artists do get lost over time, I think some later cataloguer has just made a rough guess at location.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suspect Brussels Sprouts will be off the menu. > What might they become.. ? > > Foxy Mini Victory Cabbages.

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well I'm not bothered by displays of great wealth > either - if you take the long view, the trappings > of wealth of our age will probably seem as > ridiculous to our descendants as the day long > gorging on food practiced by feudal lords does to > us. Just on a side note, a friend who recently spent a year doing doctoral research in Denmark told me that not only is there far greater integration of wage strata there - it's not uncommon for a junior office worker to live on the same street, or at least in the same district, as the company CEO - but virtually nobody, however rich, buys Ferraris, Porsches etc as they're regarded as a vulgar ostentation; people literally point and laugh in the street when they see them.

Absolutely RRR - there seems to be an idea amongst the ideologues of the right that there is an infinite money supply and anybody can simply "create" wealth. The truth of the matter is that were there an infinite money supply then runaway inflation would inevitably ensue. The amount of money available is necessarily finite, and if someone is drawing an enormous salary in 99% of cases that will mean many other people working for the minimum wage to fund it. It should be possible to have a system whereby hard work, good ideas and talent are well rewarded without preventing those who just want to do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay getting a (proper) living wage as well.