rendelharris

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Read my post please. > > I said "Germans dont drive many Jags and RR's" but > you have said ""EUROPE" was Jaguar Land Rovers > largest market". There is a big difference. > > Remember, France =wine whilst Germany = cars when > it comes to targetted negotiations. Please keep up. Read my post please, JLR sales in Germany increased by 28% last year. Please keep up. You can say you're going to have "targetted negotiations" as much as you like, won't happen. EU rules forbid separate agreements between individual member states with outside entities, unless the EU actually collapses you cannot have them.

Tracey Forest Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hasn't anyone got anything to say in response. I'd > really value your feedback. Does my post concern > you at all?? Oh well, if you're begging for a response, yes it does concern me that greedy private buy to let landlords, who are responsible for so many of the housing problems suffered by those who can't afford to buy/find an affordable rented place in London, are going to use this perfectly reasonable tax measure to push up their rents. If a landlord finds him/herself with an allegedly loss making rental property as a result of this tax, let him/her sell it and hopefully contribute to some deflation in the housing market so that those currently at the mercy of your oh-so-put-upon landlords might be able to afford to buy. By the way, the claim on the website that you link to that this is going to affect "some of the most vulnerable people in society" is sickening. Private BTL landlords are notorious for treating those on benefits with utter contempt, treating them as cash cows and driving them out the second there's a problem or a sign that they might have trouble meeting the rent. I have no sympathy at all with BTL landlords, the vast majority of whom are simply exploiters of the housing crisis in London and have no interest in anything but their own profit. Well, you did ask for a response...

Green Goose wrote: >Germans dont drive many Jags and RR's In 2015 Europe was Jaguar Land Rover's largest market with over 110,000 sales, representing over 25% of total global sales, and sales in Germany rose by 28%. So, basically, you're utterly wrong. http://www.jaguarlandrover.com/gl/en/investor-relations/news/2016/01/08/jaguar-land-rover-reports-strong-full-year-global-sales-for-2015/

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Austria, who told you that then? You're not > getting confused with the Celts shipped out to > Australia are you? The Celtic culture originated somewhere around the upper Danube in the Iron and Bronze ages, but its people were gradually pushed west to the fringes of Europe (Brittany, Wales, Isle of Man, Cornwall, Ireland and Scotland) by the Roman Empire (this is from memory of some desultory linguistic studies about thirty years ago, so I'm quite willing to be corrected!).

"The inquiry does not make a finding on the legal basis for military action but finds that the Attorney General had concluded there was such a lawful basis by 13th March 2003 (para 933 vol 5)" Advice that the AG (Blair's own appointment) offered after changing from his original advice (twice) that a second UN resolution was required, advice that was contradicted by all 23 lawyers employed in the Foreign Office. So your mate changed his advice after pressure from you and against all FO advice and you're calling that a justification? This really is bringing back bad memories of the duplicitous little shit in whom many (including me) once invested such hope.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I don't think he 'lied' as > such. Well, the Manning Memo (written by Blair's chief foreign policy adviser) made it explicitly clear that Blair and Bush had agreed that military action was to go ahead against Iraq regardless of whether WMDs were found; this was before Blair went to the Commons and said that Saddam would be given a final chance to disarm. So that was a lie to begin with. Blair has also said on numerous occasions that military action was only taken as a last resort, which Chilcot specifically refutes. So there's a couple of lies for starters.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Except if you're going back that far, nearly all > of us are 'damned foreigners'. I know, let's give > the UK back to anyone who can prove they're 100% > Celtic (those with red hair are out, they have > proto-EU genes) and the rest of us clear off back > where we came from. Nah, the Celts originate from Austria. Tell you what, once things are carried to their logical conclusion there's going to be plenty of elbow room, isn't there. I think the Germans have a word for it...

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Robert Poste's Child Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > No more 'toilet' signs. It will be lavatory > or > > > loo, as indeed it should be. > > > > Don't know about that, lavatory derives from > Latin > > and loo from Waterloo - a European language and > a > > European placename? Tut. Bog derives from > Middle > > English from the Gaelic... > > Are you blaming the EU on the Romans and Saxons > then? Absolutely, we should strip the language of words of Latin, Germanic and other nasty foreign origins then we can all go back to the good old ways of grunting at each other in caves whilst painting ourselves with woad, the real Great Britain before we let all the damned foreigners in!

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No more 'toilet' signs. It will be lavatory or > loo, as indeed it should be. Don't know about that, lavatory derives from Latin and loo from Waterloo - a European language and a European placename? Tut. Bog derives from Middle English from the Gaelic...

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Give the girl a break, she was 17! She's grown up > and had children since then so has probably > clarified her ideas a bit. Yes, she's recently said she'd happily pay 70% income tax as noted above - and actually she had a point before anyway, she wasn't complaining about her tax rate as much as paying taxation without representation, which I seem to recall got some colonials quite exercised once upon a time.

Sorry if obvious, have you tried all these? http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200020/advice_services/141/welfare_benefits Good luck, Rendel

amydown Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi, > > I am considering a job in East Croydon area and am > likely to try driving. I just wanted to check if > anybody does this commute regularly around rush > hour to get a sense of how long it might take and > whether traffic is bearable? > > I have two young children and therefore can leave > the house at around 7.30am and need to get back > for 6.30pm at the latest... > > Thoughts/ advice much appreciated!!! I really would avoid driving if at all possible - we take my mother-in-law her shopping each week in East Croydon and in rush hour it seldom takes less than fifty minutes to get there and our record is over two hours; the roads are too narrow for the current volume of traffic and the slightest interference in terms of roadworks, accidents or bus breakdowns throw the whole journey into chaos. Maybe someone can give you a cunning route which avoids all this but from our experience it's something which would drive me insane if it was my daily commute. Cheers, Rendel

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Since many children are driven to and from school > and everywhere else, and he obviously hasn't been > advised of this > > http://www.airqualitynews.com/2016/02/16/higher-ai > r-pollution-health-risk-inside-car-study-finds/ > > then it's ridiculous and is obviously unfair on > poorer people...I suppose it will satisfy the > people that think those on benefits, and the lower > paid, will no longer be able to afford to > drive.... > The zone should not be extended That is a valid point (the fact that it will disproportionately hit poorer people), but to counterbalance that there has been a plethora of recent studies showing that the poorest areas have the worst air quality, that schools with the highest percentage of poorest pupils are disproportionately represented in the list of schools with the highest levels of pollution and that the poorest Londoners are disproportionately represented amongst the nearly 10,000 people who die as a result of air pollution in the city each year. So it's not all anti-poor... That said, I'd like to see far more positive and proactive measures - walking buses, more and better cycle lanes, cheaper public transport - which would convince people it's a positive to leave the car at home - or not have one - rather than making them feel they're being penalised.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > different issue - crossing picket lines; too much > hassle; wrath of colleagues (interesting piece in > the Spectator recently about what it's like to be > an out Tory teacher recently, answer frightening > and damaging to your career prospects). You are absolutely right on that - teachers may well feel intimidated into not crossing a picket line even if they didn't support the strike. But if they felt like that, why didn't they vote down the strike in the secret ballot they were offered? As Lordship 516 pointed out, abstention=acceptance of result. Unless universal participation in ballots is made law then the results can only be taken from those who bothered to vote.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gawd, when does the bloody teachers' strike end? Sorry, former teacher, no such luck. Funny that earlier today you accused me of stalking your comments and you've deliberately come back not to make a point but just to toss in an insult at me!

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If my wife were coming home alone from the pub > late at night and two men started following her > saying > > "get your tits out" I'd encourage her to run > like hell and call the police. > > Nice strawman. > > We're talking about 'leering', which is a lot > different to your analogy. Originally the point > was a forum post asking women of a certain > description to contact the poster. You've had to > ramp things up to an extreme to try and prove your > point. > > Can't you stick to the subject? Leering: look or gaze in a lascivious or unpleasant way. I think it is relevant to point out that displaying certain types of behaviour can lead into others, and that's the way the discussion has gone - and quite an interesting one I think it is in terms of the different attitudes which prevail towards such behaviour and comments.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Well yes (though it's many a year since any have > leered at me, I'm sure) but (and I realise I'm > > going to damn myself in perpetuity as > politically correct etc to some on here, but oh > well) men > > don't generally have to worry that the leering > has the potential to turn into something more > > threatening, do they? > > Yes, because all men are potential rapists, aren't > they?!?! Jesus wept. I thought we'd got past that > crap. > > Hello? 1970's? I think I've found one of your > attitudes here. Would you like to collect it? No, I don't regard all men as potential rapists, but I do regard men who who think it's acceptable to display sexually aggressive attitudes in terms of comments and behaviour in public as having the potential to become dangerous (not referring to the OP, just what we're discussing in general). There is, whether you wish to accept it or not, a difference between men and women in that respect. Put it this way: if I were coming home from the pub late at night on my own and a couple of girls started following me saying "Get your c0ck out" I'd probably have a bit of banter with them or at worst ignore them, as I'd still feel safe. If my wife were coming home alone from the pub late at night and two men started following her saying "get your tits out" I'd encourage her to run like hell and call the police. If that's a 70s attitude so be it, I make no apologies for it.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why are we talking about leering? We don't know if > the OP has leered at anyone, only that he'd > "noticed" attractive women in the area. When he describes said women as MILFs, short for "Moms I'd Like to F**k," and asks them to "hit me up" I don't think it's unfair to assume he's doing a bit more than "noticing." Obviously one person's harmless banter is another's distasteful and slightly sinister vulgarity - as a former rugby player and lover of pub chats etc I'm well up for a bit of bawdiness and robust humour, I just felt the original post was unfunny and slightly disturbing, as was his later "I'm a young adult and love my older women." You pointed out to me earlier on another thread, Otta, rightly, that I was on a public forum and that has certain connotations - would it be OK to start going on in a pub about there being lots of mums I'd like to f**k in there and asking if any would like to hit me up? Sorry, just feels dodgy to me.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendleharris wrote > > > men > > don't generally have to worry that the leering > has > > the potential to turn into something more > > threatening, do they? > > > Oh bugger .... Don't worry Dogger - I'm sure nobody objects to mutual leering.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > oh, I don't know - women can be equally guilty of > leering at men.... it's just somehow more > acceptable.... Well yes (though it's many a year since any have leered at me, I'm sure) but (and I realise I'm going to damn myself in perpetuity as politically correct etc to some on here, but oh well) men don't generally have to worry that the leering has the potential to turn into something more threatening, do they?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's just a real pet hate of mine when people pick > at a person's spelling or grammar in order to try > to dismiss what they are actually saying. > > And you seem a decent person, so just play the > ball not the man as the saying goes :-) Well, fair point - I wouldn't usually do it, in fact I haven't to anyone else on this forum as far as I recall, but ???? replied to my post with "Oh such sanctomy - yes teacher" - having a bit of a dig at an argument we had on another thread about today's teacher's strike, so I couldn't resist the bait.

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes I am! At least he's up front in what he is > after. Would you prefer the leering silent type? > Each to their own! I'd prefer to think that my wife, sisters and other female friends could walk round the area without being leered at, silently or otherwise. An impossible wish, I realise, but I would hope at least that when someone pops up saying, basically, that they've been leering at a certain of type of woman round the area and inviting them to "hit him up" that it would be recognised as the sort of creepy comment that it is rather than having people cheering it on as a bit of "harmless banter."

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, she can always go and live there...the rest > of the country can't wait to get shot of it- even > Ebbw Vale - a town that received quite a lot of EU > money as well. > Nid aur yw popeth melyn... Ms.Church does, in fact, live in the Vale of Glamorgan.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whether he is racist or not however, I do think he > is odious. That 'facepalm' speech he made the > other day in the European parliament was pathetic > in the true sense of the word. It was his moment, > the culmination of years of campaigning and > whether you agree with him or not (I don't), it > should have been a proud, victorious moment for > him. Instead of being magnanimous, of making the > most of it, he insulted everyone and came across > as mean, petty and deeply insecure. http://i.imgur.com/VBp1vuF.jpg?1

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I really don't see how > it's any different from declaring someone prefers > big busted women, well endowed men OR even someone > who prefers red wine over white! So if someone comes on the forum and says "I notice there are a lot of big busted women about the area, if you are one lemme know and hit me up!" you're cool with that?