rendelharris

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So May will be PM. No election therefore. Does > that mean it could happen now? The parliamentary party have to decide whether or not to reinstate Gove (as second runner up in the last vote) and let the membership choose between them, I think they're meeting tomorrow. If they decide against rerunning the ballot, Cameron can go to the Queen any time at all, resign and ask her to confirm his successor. Most views I've seen today suggest he might wait until the end of this parliamentary session (July 21st) to give her a chance to set up her cabinet.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyway, great to see Leadsom fall on her sword, > silly cow. Can't get this from Billy Bragg out of my head now: Goodbye and good luck to all the promises you've broken Goodbye and good luck to all the rubbish that you've spoken Your life has lost its dignity, its beauty and its passion You're an accident waiting to happen.

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > as for the 'current comprehension of energy and > matter' I am speechless. Why?

The south circular belongs to TFL, and so isn't subject to council limits.

Ladygooner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyone know if there are any bike racks/storage at > Oval station? There are a dozen or so hoops on the Kennington Road at one side and three or four on the other (nearest The Oval). They always seem pretty full during the day though.

Well yes, if you're going to plunge into the realm of metaphysics and spirituality all is possible - all I meant was it would be a physical impossibility in terms of our current comprehension of energy and matter. Agreed that all manner of incomprehensible things are possible at quantum level, but an apparition in the shape of a nun would hardly fall into that bracket, would it?

P.S. For what Lousia saw actually to be a projection of a dead spirit from the past, the entire nature of our understanding of the physical universe would have to be completely rewritten, so in terms of remotely likely...

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not remotely likley. Well that's me told. However, I was thinking of something like that famous black and white image of Jesus, which one stares at and then if one looks away at a blank wall, one can see the image in negative projected on it - that effect can easily last up to thirty seconds.

Did the figure move at all, Louisa? If not I'd suggest you were possibly seeing an after image on your retina from a statue or headstone - which would explain why it faded. Possibly a flash of light you may not have noticed when looking one way but you retained the image? Have a good look round your route and see if there are any statues matching what you saw. On the other hand of course, and much more fun, Nunhead was allegedly named after a nun beheaded at the dissolution of the monasteries, so...

i*Rate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- If you > compare the latest Porsche 'people carrier', with > it's huge quad exhausts, to a 1960's mini or a > Renault 4 for example, how come the old cards have > such tiny exhaust pipes if they emit bigger > emissions? Larger exhausts actually "debottleneck" an engine, helping it to produce more power for less fuel, so larger pipes don't necessarily equal larger emissions. The big Porsches and all others of that ilk should be banned for their sheer selfishness and utter vulgarity, but that's another story...

Leadsom said: "So really carefully because I am sure, I don't really know Theresa very well but I am sure she will be really really sad she doesn't have children so I don't want this to be 'Andrea has children, Theresa hasn't' because I think that would be really horrible. "But genuinely I feel being a mum means you have a very real stake in the future of our country, a tangible stake. "She possibly has nieces, nephews, lots of people, but I have children, who are going to have children, who will directly be a part of what happens next. "So it really keeps you focused on 'what are you really saying?'. Because what it means is you don't want a downturn but 'never mind, let's look ahead to the ten years', hence it will all be fine. My children will be starting their lives in that next ten years so I have a real stake in the next year, the next two." She clearly implies that having children makes her a better choice for PM than May: "She possibly has nieces, nephews, lots of people, but I have children." She wasn't tricked into saying it, she was asked what she thought were the major differences between herself and May and she said "Economic competence and family." The "I don't want this to be 'Andrea has children'" comment is so transparently disingenuous, it's like saying "I don't want this campaign to be about the fact that my opponent is a former drug addict and has been in prison and I don't want it mentioned again, and I'll make sure it's never mentioned again by saying I don't want it mentioned at every opportunity." If she didn't want the campaign to feature the fact that she has children and May hasn't, why mention it at all? She'd already proved what a foul person she is with her gay marriage and fox-hunting stance, she's been proved to be a liar with her CV, and this puts the icing on the cake of her unpleasantness.

Loz Wrote: > > Just look at the massive pressure on social > housing. That was 35% in 1981 and 25% now. By > your theory, there shouldn't be a problem as the > demand and supply evens each other out across the > sectors. But it hasn't worked that way, has it? I don't know which of you is correct - points on both sides I'm guessing - but surely you have to factor into the pressure on social housing not only the decrease in availability but the fact that there are almost exactly two million more people in London today than in 1981?

I would comment that our negotiations with the EU over Brexit are likely to be slightly more complex than the "Spilt or Steal" finale to Golden Balls with Jasper Carrott. But hey, you're the expert.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Radio London now agog with 'how do you feel about > having a female PM' discussion, which is a bit > disappointing as you'd hope that in 21st Century > Britain, 30-whatever years after Thatcher and with > Europe's strongest leader also a woman, we could > discuss the candidates without their selection > being qualified by being female. For what it's > worth, of the available and interested candidates > I think they chose the right two. Well, I think given that nobody under the age of 47 has ever had the chance to vote for a woman as PM, and that nobody under the age of about 35 will even remember having a woman as PM, it's only natural that it will be a topic for discussion, no? I do hope they choose May, who seems the best Tory to steady the ship. Leadsom appears to be awful in so many ways, vain, populist, preening and occasionally downright lying - her interview on World at One today was a car crash of evasion, "I don't recall" etc. I enjoyed Eddie Mair's question to one of her supporters on PM this evening: "Has Andrea Leadsom already changed her CV to say she's Prime Minister? Does she know who she is and what she's done? She managed to vote both for and against gay marriage..."

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have to agree to differ on that one then. The > other one I've heard BTL owners use is 'it's my > pension', said as though that somehow carries more > moral weight. Ha! That was one used on us to justify asking for a 10% rent rise after one year's leasing.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely there are good arguments for and against > BTL. It's not about hate. ????'s trying to be funny again.

bobbsy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jermey, agree that electricity comes from a > mixture of sources. However as we reach maximum > capacity (which we are heading towards > 2017/18/19), the marginal MW comes from the most > expensive (which also happen to be the most > polluting) production sources - oil/fuel > oil/distillate, and indeed semi-closed coal > capacity (closed as too polluting) which then > manage to acquire short term opening exemptions to > avoid brown-outs...my argument really is that > increasing the amount of electric cars in the > coming years will likely cause the electricity > they require to be generated from the same > polluting fuels they are meant to replace. They > are effective however at removing the pollution > from a city centre, but not reducing overall > pollution. That's very true, but as I understand it, an electric vehicle using electricity produced from coal is "only" as polluting as the average petrol vehicle of the same size, so even if all our electricity came from coal it wouldn't make matters worse plus there would be the immeasurable benefit of having clean air in the city. EVs using electricity from gas have the same carbon footprint as the very best hybrids and those using electricity from renewables/nuclear are obviously pretty much carbon neutral bar the emissions from manufacture. At the moment in the UK our electricity comes roughly from 30% coal, 30% gas, 20% nuclear and 20% renewables, so if all cars became electric tomorrow we would have an average of 30% of cars being as polluting as petrol cars, 30% as polluting as the very best hybrids and 40% non-polluting. Your point about peak capacity is well made, hopefully as electric cars become more commonplace (and all the analysis I've read seems to indicate that they will inevitably replace the petrol car over the next fifty years or so) the surge in demand for electricity will make it more profitable for the energy companies to invest more in renewables.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Face it, this is pure self-interest. And asking > for a donation to the campaign - Jesus wept! The > fear and greed index at work. It's almost a form > of narcissism. > > It was really noticeable in the Brexit, London > mayor and last general election campaigns that > politicians now expect voters only to care about > what's in it for them. It makes it all the more > heartening when someone does do the right thing. > Good for you, SLad. Seconded.

Tracey Forest Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apologies to all > > It's permissions the case is waiting for. And with that acknowledgement of the level of expertise and evidence with which we're dealing, I'm out. All the best with your case, hope you lose and that buy to let landlords might have to rethink their fracking of the London property market. Cheerio.

Tracey Forest Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why not - they were living and breathing - what's > a genuine example to you rendalharris? So as you say that you and some other people you met are jolly decent landlords, that's supposed to constitute "genuine examples"? Can we have a response to the point made by myself and others above about your claim that you're waiting for the CPS to approve your action please?

Tracey Forest Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We're waiting for the go ahead because that's what > we have to wait for. The CPS is there to decide > whether we can go ahead. This is the case in > criminal law as well. The Crown Prosecution Service have nothing to do with civil case requests for legal review. From its own website: "The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales." I think you really need to get a good legal advisor before asking people for contributions.

Tracey Forest Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Me for a start and a lot of the landlords who > attended the tenant tax summit in Kensington early > June 2016. Serious private landlords who want to > make a difference and do make a difference. > > I don't know what years you're talking about when > you rented but certainly since the deposit schemes > were brought in there's been a major shift for the > tenant and the landlord something I'd have liked > to see back in the day when I rented during the > eighties and nineties. There's so much more > protection now that we can only welcome it. Makes > for a fairer hearing on both sides. "Me for a start" and the fact that you met some people at a private landlord event do not, of themselves, constitute "genuine examples."

Here you go: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/jaguar-land-rover-breaks-global-10704601 Sales records were also broken in Australia, FRANCE, GERMANY, Korea and the US. None of which, as pointed out above, makes your peculiar conceit that we will be able to negotiate with Europe country by country, any less absurd.

Tracey Forest Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes that's right I did ask for a response. would > you like to qualify your response. > > Do you also think that corporate landlords are > better or worse than private landlords. I could > give you a number of examples where private buy to > let landlords do not increase rents in line with > rent rises in the general market. Where private > buy to let landlords will respond immediately to > requests for repairs. They'll also help benefit > claimants by reducing rents for the right person. > Further that they'll keep rents low for good > tenants. > > I have genuine examples and I can name them - can > you? Yep, before Mrs H and I were lucky enough to buy our own place we rented from four different BTL landlords, in all of these properties we had to make our own repairs as the landlords refused to undertake them, they regularly hiked the rents way above inflation and always held onto our deposits, forcing us to take court action to reclaim them, without justification. Let's hear your "genuine examples" of those lovely BTL landlords who respond immediately to requests for repairs and who reduce the rent for those on benefits please.

SLad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also, why in God's name would you be waiting to > hear from the Crown Prosecution Service on whether > a judicial review claim has prospects of success? > If you're asking people for money, you should at > least understand what's going on. > > I am a buy to let landlord and I think the > 'someone else can pay off my mortgage' approach to > taxation adopted until recently was ridiculous and > am quite happy to pay the new tax on my earnings > from my property. To categorise the tax as a > 'tenant tax' is quite ridiculous. Good for you Slad - one of the good 'uns, obviously. Exception that proves the rule...