rendelharris

Peckhamnearbe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Re food banks - on radio 4 yesterday or day before > it was being convincingly argued that "welfare > reforms" would have been impossible without food > banks which have helped facilitate/ameliorate the > effect of these changes which have so badly > impacted people's lives. Yes, on Thursday I think I heard it - without foodbanks some people would literally be starving on the streets. Terrifying.

You've just told edcam s/he's "and [sic] educated dumb person who knows a lot but isn't very smart" and then tell him/her "please don't take this as an insult"? Good luck with that. If you want to insult someone, do so, if you don't, don't - don't try to wrap it up in patronising weasel words, it's beyond transparent.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a charity for gawd's sake. Cut them some > slack. Take a deep breath and move on. Think > about Yemen or Syria. In deed this would make a > good comedy sketch. Alternativey write to the > Grauniad's consumer problems page. They are > getting pretty desparate. > > For those who get all upity about my posts this is > said in good humour. Quite so and your posts are always good humoured (I think) but rudeness is rudeness, commercial business or not - I do think the "you're lucky to alive" business would have pissed me off. As I said above, people who work in charity shops are absolute stars, but that doesn't mean they have a special exemption to be rude - most of them (in my experience) take great pride in being really professional in their attitude.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Problem is, you're on to a loser from the outset, > because as the volunteers of a chairty shop they > automaticaaly get the moral high ground, even when > (as in this case) they were in the wrong. > > > Hope your tea calmed you down. Have a beer next. That's the best advice! God bless charity shop workers, wonderful people providing a great service to the community - especially the impecunious part of it like me - and to their charities, but there's no need to be holier than thou about it. Some years ago I bought a lovely dinner suit in Cancer Research for ?40, when the assistant tried to charge me ?60 and I pointed out it had a "?20 off" sticker on it he sniffed and said "Well, that's a cancer patient who's ?20 worse off then." Funnily enough the first event to which I wore the suit was a Marie Curie fundraiser....

Oh dear. Well down to your usual standard. Unpleasant and clever can often pass muster, as can kind but stupid. But stupid and unpleasant doesn't really leave much going for you, poor thing.

Did you catch Ian Duncan Smith on Today this morning? He was basically trying to say that Loach was making it up and that benefits office staff were appalled at the unfair way they were portrayed. I only know two people who work in administering benefits so it's only anecdotal, but they're both appalled at the policies they're being asked to implement to the disbenefit (sorry) of people about whom they, and the majority of their colleagues, genuinely care. ETA Both my friends are caseworkers working with elderly disabled clients, who do their best to ensure those clients sent to them get the benefits to which they're entitled - I can't speak for "front of office" staff.

"All you do is shutdown the conversation ,,, to me that is unacceptable in an open forum / society. You need to see that your view isn?t the only view." pop/fazer, do you really not see the irony that in telling other people not to respond to your comments if they disagree with you, and going to the extraordinary lengths of PM'ing them to tell them not to comment, you're doing exactly what you're accusing them of?

Nico was Nico Ladenis - indeed a stocky bearded chap - who went on to open Simply Nico in Pimlico and various other west end restaurants, gaining triple Michelin stars in the process. Famously rude (or exacting, depending on how one views it) - for example would throw diners out for asking for salt, on the grounds that he knew a damned sight better than them how to season a dish. He's retired now. Never knew until I saw this thread and googled his history that he once adorned LL though, there should be a plaque!

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So which way is it Rendel? - it has to be agreed > by everyone (so includes say Ireland - who won't > want us punished) or actually just Germany & > France willing (maybe) and capable (probably ) of > taking that hit, in contrast? Well I'm sure you're spot on about Ireland, but the point I was trying to make is that it only takes one member state to veto any deal and the deal cannot be approved; from my admittedly limited knowledge I'd say it's more than likely that France, Germany and others will be prepared to veto and take any hit on their economy pour encourager les autres.

I do love seeing very stupid people trying to be clever and funny, excellent. As Dr.Johnson had occasion to remark in a different context, "like a dog's walking on its hind legs, it is not done well, but one is surprised to see it done at all." Rendel Harris is my real name, unlike certain cowardly, bullying, inadequate people (you) I do not require an alias behind which to hide as I don't say anything on internet forums to which I would be ashamed to admit - much of what you say on here is either so stupid, aggressive or downright offensive I'm not surprised you require a nom de plume. I have never taught at a Harris academy so, if I may put it rather less elegantly than the good doctor, your attempted highly laboured joke falls on its arse. You're has an apostrophe in it, by the way, I'll give you that one for free.

It be that there internet to blame I reckon, like you I used to find it pretty easy to get tickets for Radio Four shows (the News Quiz when Alan Coren was on, wonderful!) but now the effort required to get on the waiting list is so minimal there must be considerably more applicants. I believe they (the BBC) also sort for demographic balance as well, so possibly if one is of an age/class/race/sex etc which has a lot of applicants one's chances are reduced?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Plus the 'fact' that the EU are a universal > aligned negotiating titan set on punishing us - > for somewhere like Ireland we are vitally > important to their economy and they won't want our > economy sabotaged by Hollande's (Fr president not > country) domestically focused anti-english 'hard > ball'. Southern Italy won't want 100,000 young > people returning and added to their horrific youth > unemployment because the UK is put through the > wringer by some unelected alcoholic in Luxemburg > who thinks we are traitors. Compromises will be > made......other events will intervene...etc Quids, you seem to strangely neglect the fact that any exit deal agreed with the UK will have to be agreed upon by every member state. it's fine to say this nation and that nation will have this and that reason to be lenient, but all of them? I think you're also underestimating the desire of the big beasts to punish the UK exit: from what I've read Germany, to take just one nation, will be prepared to take an economic hit if it means showing that member states can't just waltz out and keep the advantages of being an EU member.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, this morning. > > Quarterly GDP growth (proper first quarter read > post-Brexit)= +0.5% above consensus (+0.3%)and way > above the pre-referendum Treasury prediction if > Out won (-0.1%) > > And, Nissan announces new models to be made in UK > despite Brexit vote. > > Not so bad SO FAR The Nissan news, whilst welcome, is at present only preserving jobs, not creating new ones, and they appear only to have agreed to stay on the basis that the government has, in some way which isn't entirely clear, promised them that their business won't be adversely affected by Brexit. Not so bad so far...we're still members of the EU and in the free trade agreement, we won't see the true effects until we're out, whether good or bad. There was an economics professor on WATO yesterday who described the news as "rear view mirror figures - we can see where we've been but they don't show us where we're going." ETA: Kallum Pickering, senior UK economist at Berenberg bank, said the resilient post-referendum performance ?does not say anything about the UK?s ability to perform outside of the EU?. He said: ?The good quarter of growth merely reflects the momentum heading into the vote and the healthy underlying fundamentals after some three years of good growth. The data does not alter our long-term view that Brexit will lower UK trend growth, to around 1.8% from 2.2% per year, via less trade, migration and investment with its major market, the EU.? (Guardian)

Grok Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The fiasco that is the US elections, Russian > nuclear threats, Russian Son of Satan, Russian non > nuclear threats, Syria, global climate change, > global wildlife decline, hunting whales, North > Korea nuclear threat, wars and conflict, disease, > etc etc. Yeh right rh! > > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Any comment made by Grok. Though it's not > > irrational to be annoyed by petty patronising > > spite. The title of the thread is "TINY LITTLE things that cause you irrational rage," not "Enormous global issues which..." Even a crap teacher (so impressed that you've trawled back to find a throwaway self-deprecating comment, 10/10 for assiduity though not so much for having a life) could maybe teach you a little reading comprehension.

cazzyr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why bother with average speed cameras and 'smiley > face' nonsense. Why not put speed cameras that > take photos of the idiots speeding and also red > light cameras at the lights? People are very > motivated to obey the speeds if they realise a > speeding fine is involved! Average speed cameras do take photos of idiots speeding, if you exceed the permitted average speed for crossing an area you get fined and points on your licence - more effective than cameras in one place as people can't just slow for a camera then speed up again.

pop9770 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There may be an explanation. > > With hearing women when compared to men have been > shown to have heightened hearing sensitivity some > men have evolved to hear more than other similar > to women in hearing ability and having a better > sense of spatial awareness geometry ballistics an > ability to concentrate their attention on the task > at hand to the exclusion of distractions, evolved > to survive over many thousands of years ,,, it?s > an important factor if say they pickup on an > annoying sound it dominates the attention or say a > nasty smell it could make them feel sick whilst > for others it?s not a problem. > > Maybe if you?re descended from a gene pool that > required high levels of hearing like hunters or > warriors having evolved for survival, that would > explain why individuals hear different sounds at > different levels, why to some the pitch resonance > and level of sound differs in intensity and levels > of annoyance, why for some it?s not a problem but > to others it?s a living hell. > > If you are descended from farmers or fishermen you > have less need for those particularly heightened > senses you?ll be good at digging, have a strong > back but not require the best hearing eye sight > but have a great sense of smell. > > Who knows we are all different I accept some just > don?t hear so they are not affected, whilst others > are driven mad as I am. > > It?s impossible to have sympathy for those who > don?t have a problem there?s no logic in that, so > if someone has a problem and you don?t sympathise > that?s fine but there?s no need to tell them you > don?t have a problem unless you?re looking for > sympathy which you wouldn?t be that makes no sense > ??unless you had a strange logic,,, so you can > only be presumed to be looking for something else? That is most splendidly bonkers pop/fazer, I tip my hat to you!

Any comment made by Grok. Though it's not irrational to be annoyed by petty patronising spite.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...or....airport fees come down for budget > airlines, who are now able to fly out of heathrow > and keep fares reasonable, thus making budget > travel through a hub much more accessible to > London's poor.... > > not strictly my position at all...but just using > it as an example of the fcat that I belive > arguments can be made that there could be benefits > for not just the wealthy... I don't know if it's planned to reduce landing fees, seems unlikely - and of course there's a case to be made that more budget air travel, or indeed more of any sort, is not exactly a desirable thing.

That sounds like the shared streets scheme in Holland where not only are the road markings removed but even the pavements, seems to work. There's an interesting alternative near here on New Park Road which runs between Brixton Hill and the South Circular: the road at the South Circular end has been painted with what one can only describe as psychedelic designs, it's quite hard to see where one should drive - certainly appears to make drivers wake up and assess the surroundings - it does us anyway! Can't find a picture but this describes it: http://www.brixtonblog.com/new-park-road-traffic-calming-test-day/35879

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I normally only 'hear' the planes > (consciously) when I am reading these threads - on > other occasions I am oblivious - although I find > police helicopters overhead really annoying! Yes! I can not notice plane noise for hours then I see it mentioned here and it suddenly seems intrusive, a few minutes after I've started working again I'm entirely oblivious. Definitely a psychological element, which is not to belittle the real annoyance it clearly causes some - your suggestion of mindfulness practise seems a useful one.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i'm obviously generalising RH, nothing personal. I > can't do a one-liner that summarises all (however > many) 1000s of users ! Fair enough so ;-)

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On EDF yes it's petty, it happens all the time, > worn the badge myself a few times (as well as > mysoginist, sexist, whatever, yawn). > Many people on here generally (like any forum I > suppose) flap their gums in a way they wouldn't > face to face, because obviously they've anonymity. Rendel Harris unfortunately is my real name and I don't say anything on here I wouldn't say face to face. (Sorry to be off topic again but you know, threads do develop...)

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > uncleglen Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > Ironically, most people who fly are the > > well-off > > > who take frequent weekend breaks and holidays > > > compared with your average traveller who > flies > > > once a year. > > > > Yes, I assumed this was the case but was still > > very surprised to see a Green Party flier which > > says that 70% of the flights made by UK > residents > > are taken by just 15% of the population, so it > > would appear that a majority of nonfrequent or > > non-fliers are being asked to put up with more > > pollution, noise and expense for the sake of a > > wealthy minority. > > > No matter your views on climate change or new > runways, to me it just smacks of political > cynicism (or savvy, depending on your viewpoint I > suppose) to make it into a 'class warfare' > argument.... I wasn't particularly thinking of class warfare, just more imbalance in spending in favour of the wealthy. Was there anything I said that isn't true? Huge sums are going to be spent on a highly polluting form of transport used primarily by the wealthy, whilst cleaner forms of transport of more benefit to the less well off - regional railway networks for example - get no investment.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If shop owners starting hanging neon signs > precariously hanging 2m over the road, and someone > said "Lordship Lane is starting to resemble Hong > Kong".. would that be racist? If the shop owners were Chinese then yes, I'd suspect there was a racist element. Why couldn't the poster here say "it's starting to resemble East Street market" or "Beginning to look like Petticoat Lane" - no, chose to describe an Asian business' street display as "hints of New Dehli" - even though his own description of New Dehli, "building extensions encroach onto the pavement" is totally inapposite to the East Dulwich situation.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ironically, most people who fly are the well-off > who take frequent weekend breaks and holidays > compared with your average traveller who flies > once a year. Yes, I assumed this was the case but was still very surprised to see a Green Party flier which says that 70% of the flights made by UK residents are taken by just 15% of the population, so it would appear that a majority of nonfrequent or non-fliers are being asked to put up with more pollution, noise and expense for the sake of a wealthy minority.