rendelharris

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seems like a reasonable answer, rendel. If > everyone who didn't become a manager within two > years resigned... you'd have a pretty small team > left. Aye - some of us (me for sure) are cut out to be life's footsoldiers, and perfectly happy to be so...especially in teaching, where the minor salary bump to be HoD is accompanied by a wholly disproportionate increase in aggravation.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When I first moved here thirty something years > ago, I went for an interview with a > Swedish/Norwegian newsprint company. I was > interviewed by Ake Inghammer, a very pleasant > man. Being a bit/very green I answered questions > honestly. He asked me if I was ambitious. When I > replied truthfully 'no', he burst out laughing and > gave me the job. Sounds a good guy - at my first interview after teacher training I was asked by the head of department, "Where would you see yourself in two years' time?" I said I thought I'd still be learning, I'd be happy to still be in the same post for which I was being interviewed...lost the job to a friend from the same course, I was told in the debrief the only thing that separated us was the answer to that question, her answer having been "If I haven't taken your job I'll be looking elsewhere." Ah well.

Love it Jah - all the more remarkable as Dylan had only got the band together on a whim the night before.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > WATO: So, did you hit Mr.Woolfe? > > Mike Hookem: No I never. > > > > Brilliant. Presumably his mum has written a > letter > > to Nigel Farage: "Now I know my son, Mr.Farage, > > and he doesn't tell lies..." > > Is he actually saying he missed. Ha - I put it to you Mr.Hookem that not only are you violent but that you're also crap at it.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James Barber has focussed on repairs in the past - > but I like to think that LL is now a caf? / al > fresco hot spot. It needs a complete paving > upgrade - using an architect not a repair man. > > I always think that if JB actually lived near LL > things might be different - he's happier looking > after Court Lane than Lordship Lane :) I hold no brief for Mr.Barber and am not of his party, but he recently took the trouble to contact me about an issue outside his ward to see if he could help, so I think that might be a bit unfair!

tomskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The op is looking for somewhere to "work on her > computer" not "use as an office". I would have no > problem with it as a cafe owner so long as the > person with the laptop made some purchases and > didn't block the table at a busy time. I know it's > a long-running theme on the EDF about wifi workers > taking advantage, but how unfriendly is it to > dismiss this entirely reasonable question in the > way you and Dog Duck have? Incredibly rude, > prejudiced, unwelcoming and off putting! A simple > search of the op's username reveals that English > is not her first language. I'd far sooner share a table with someone working on a laptop than with someone having a long Dom Joly type "I'm in the caf?" conversation on their mobile!

WATO: So, did you hit Mr.Woolfe? Mike Hookem: No I never. Brilliant. Presumably his mum has written a letter to Nigel Farage: "Now I know my son, Mr.Farage, and he doesn't tell lies..."

"Why are you wearing a waistcoat with your suit?" "Because it means I only have to iron the collar and cuffs of my shirt." Didn't get it.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course some travellers are thieves. So are some > members of most other groups. They just commit > different kinds of theft, like fraud and false > accounting. Nail. Head. Wallop.

peckham_ryu Wrote: > To clarify my views and admit prejudices on the > record: gypsies are people. Some are good, some > aren't, just like all other people. When it comes > to the bad people in many social groups, those > wrong'uns often tend to specialise in a particular > class of bad things. For example, the criminal > Columbian gangs over in Stockwell stick to drug > related crime, with a talent for extreme violence. > Gypsy criminals are known for metal theft. With > the best will in the world, those are facts. If there are Columbian drug gangs in Stockwell, then if there's a drug related crime it would perfectly reasonable for the police to start looking for members of those gangs. It wouldn't be reasonable for them to start suspecting every Columbian in the area and harassing them on the grounds that they're Columbians. Similarly, if the recent traveller arrivals have amongst their number people known to be metal thieves it would be reasonable for the police to go and have a word. It would not be reasonable to start harassing them simply on the grounds that they are travellers. On a purely logical note, if I were a metal thief I would not commit my nefarious acts a few streets away from where I'd set up a camp which I'd know from experience would inevitably swiftly attract police and council attention.

katanita Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In case it's useful, here is my backstreets route > to Ladywell fields to the start of the Waterlink > way. > > JBWgxglOiCKtioBVjag. That is handy, thank you.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Waterlink way is all paved and reasonably well > signed, there are spurs off it to explore and you > can pop into both Wickes and Screwfix if you are > that way inclined. Interesting change of scenary > Lower Sydenham to Beckkeham! Shame some of the > 1930s small industrial units are going. > Gentle/flat as it follows the river. Fortunately > it doesn't go as far as West Wickham. A Wickes, a Screwfix, a cyclepath and a coffee shop? Who knew Nirvana was five miles off our doorstep!

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My point made > > Now go make yourself a nice cup of tea > > Big love > X If your point was that you have the capability gratuitously to insult others, then yes it's made beautifully. Thanks, I think I will have a cuppa now.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Chocky Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > As a human being, rendelharris, > > > I am disappointed at the distraction that you > > have > > > introduced to this thread. > > > I ignored your message as I thought you were > > > trolling. > > > > > > It's not about me. It's not about you. It's > > about > > > children dying - of starvation - in 2016. > Young > > > human beings starving to death - avoidable > > > suffering and avoidable death, as a > consequence > > of > > > adult human actions. > > > > > > Thank you DaveR for the link to > > > http://www.msf.org.uk/country-region/yemen > > > > > > Please share more actions that we can take to > > do > > > what we can to end this crisis. > > > > Firstly, if you think handwringing on a local > > forum is going to change a single thing, you're > > deluded - why not go and volunteer for, for > > example, an organisation that helps refugees? > I > > do. Secondly, if it's not about you, why > > introduce the "as a parent" note? > > Are you still banging on about this detail RH? > > You're being a tit, leave it alone. I was responding to a comment made to me. This is a forum, by the way, where people are, I believe, in the phrase at the head of the Lounge, free "to chat about anything." Hopefully without people resorting to insults and obscenity, but if that's the way you want to roll, go ahead.

Chocky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As a human being, rendelharris, > I am disappointed at the distraction that you have > introduced to this thread. > I ignored your message as I thought you were > trolling. > > It's not about me. It's not about you. It's about > children dying - of starvation - in 2016. Young > human beings starving to death - avoidable > suffering and avoidable death, as a consequence of > adult human actions. > > Thank you DaveR for the link to > http://www.msf.org.uk/country-region/yemen > > Please share more actions that we can take to do > what we can to end this crisis. Firstly, if you think handwringing on a local forum is going to change a single thing, you're deluded - why not go and volunteer for, for example, an organisation that helps refugees? I do. Secondly, if it's not about you, why introduce the "as a parent" note?

peckham_ryu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just imagining how this kind of thing happens. I > wouldn't be surprised of the story goes something > like this... > > Annual cost of chap to take care of crutch > recycling: > ?22k staff cost + ?4k office space and services + > ?1k consumables > > ?someone does a calculation that Crutch Chap is > under-utilised for 80% of his time and so they put > his role in scope of some outsource contract or > other, to save a notional ?20k per year (which > they announce as a ?100k saving over the contract > term). > > Outsource contractor doesn't really want to do the > crutch repair service, as they were after the more > lucrative main business, so they deliberately > price crutch repair at a prohibitively high rate. > Now it's cheaper for the Trust to just bin the > crutches and buy new ones. Contractor lets the > Crutch Chap go, and the saving on staff costs goes > to their bottom line without any benefit to the > Trust. > > Just a cynical flight of fancy there :) And a witty and doubtless close to reality one, but that's an argument for overhauling the idiocy that's ruining the NHS, not against reusing crutches per se!

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh heaven please sake. They're cheap to make, and > they'll be recycled. > > Chuck the things in the green bin. Well yes, but reusing is greener than recycling and still curious to know why King's don't take them back when many other hospitals throughout the country positively clamour for them. NHS crutches apparently cost ?23 a pair, so say King's give out ten pairs a day (surely a conservative estimate) that's somewhere north of ?85,000 per year, enough for three nurses or a consultant.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > when I do little bits and pieces of writing for > a mate > > in the States I tell him to keep the money in > his > > account, then when he comes to visit bring > > something I need/want he's bought in the > States, > > where usually things are much cheaper anyway > > > Although the exchange rate is advantageous at the > moment (despite commission) True, but the Kindle Paperwhite, even at the current exchange rate, is the equivalent of ?93 over there and ?109 here, and my favourite baccy is an incredible ?6.50 a tin compared to ?13 over here! You have to pick and choose what you want brought but still very decent savings to be made.

Help-Ma-Boab Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Its a pop up over the Xmas run in. > > "Little Baby Cheeses" Blessed are the cheesemakers...

Rosetta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, it's from someone I know. Thanks for that > info, will investigate. Just a suggestion but being sick of exchange rate/commission ripoffs in my main freelancing work (which is mainly writing for US firms), when I do little bits and pieces of writing for a mate in the States I tell him to keep the money in his account, then when he comes to visit bring something I need/want he's bought in the States, where usually things are much cheaper anyway - for example pipe tobacco and a Kindle are two of the things he's brought over recently, both way cheaper than here and no commission to pay. Only works if your friend's going to visit though...

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, Kings won't want them back - they didn't want > mine back in Feb (or whatever it was). If it's not > Kings - worth calling I guess. > > It does seem silly though... surely easy enough to > clean them up and put on new rubber feet.. I was told when trying to return some after a rugby injury that they'd have to be scanned to check there were no internal fractures before being passed safe - but other authorities often issue pleas for their return. Sounds like something on which the Department of Health should issue a blanket guidance, it does seem a terrible waste of resources.

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > there's a lovely french cafe (Le Delice) as you > head north from Ladywell Fields/station - 38 > Ladywell Rd, London SE13 7UZ So much the better, cheers!

Thanks both, that's Sunday's outing sorted then!

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is also the wider question of the value of > education. Travelling communities don't live in > the same constructs that we do. They have their > own economies, and children mostly follow their > parents into the same way of life. Their need for > a formal education is not always going to be on a > par with our kids - which may be anathema to us, > but is perfectly ok to them. Good point - but then maybe some form of agreement needs to be reached (no idea how) that this is the case, so that authorities don't force traveller children into temporary solutions for education which they may well feel are useless, and therefore be resentful and disruptive (not my experience as detailed above, but the experience of some colleagues).

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. uncleglen posts and nobody really reads it > properly - instead there's a mass outbreak of > pious BS, dismissal > > 2. rendelharris agrees with uncleglen > > 3. I point that out. > > 4. Renewed outbreak of pious BS, this time > including "Dave seems to think..." i.e. anyone > challenging my worldview can be assumed to hold a > whole load of repellent views. Dave, I didn't agree with uncleglen exactly, he said there was disruption and it was unacceptable: I agreed that from my experience there was disruption and that it made life harder for teachers, I expressed no opinion as to its acceptability. My post was more aimed at those, presumably without teaching experience, who seemed to me to be claiming that traveller children can easily be assimilated into schools and that it was no more challenging than having SEN pupils. That's not my experience but I was not intending to address the wider controversy about the traveller way of life.