rendelharris

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The closest you'll get in this country is > 'Abelour' single malt scotch whisky. It's 120 > proof. It will blow your socks off, but at least > it's drinkable and not something awful from the > black market. > > Louisa. Aye, Abelour Scotch A'Bundah, 120 proof - but that's "only" 59% alcohol, nowhere near the pure alcohol you're asking for and not suitable for rebrewing. As the others have said, think long and hard about what you're doing, self-poisoning very very easy with what you're planning.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes - probably elf n safety. Sort of, but they could have been left open if Tfl could afford a conductor to monitor them, but they can't. Another example of Boris' style over substance policies.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So unless we vote to remain Osborne is going to > put 2% on basic > rate of tax and 3% on higher rate - and cut NHS. > > Can he actually make threats like that ? Ugh, one of the worst things about this referendum is that one finds oneself having to defend Osborne and Cameron, which frankly makes one feel grubby. But... You know you're being as sensationalist as a Daily Mail writer there, making it sound as though he's threatening to raise taxes as a punishment for voting out. What he's said is that if we leave there will be a ?30bn black hole in the UK's budget which will have to be made up from somewhere. Whether that's true or not I'm not competent to judge, but calling it a threat, as if it were some kind of arbitrary sanction he would place on us for not voting remain, is frankly rather pathetic.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree with DaveR on this. > > Yes we know that as a rule white, well educated > people get a far easier time from legal systems. > No one is arguing about that. > > But the thread title is "Brock Turner", and in > this specific case I agree that race wasn't a > factor. They published his bloody swimming times > in the news reports FFS. With all due respect Otta (because you do make lots of sense on here) I think that's a red herring: Brock was thrown out of Stanford and has been banned by the US swimming federation, so this is not one of those other cases mentioned where a college has shamefully tried to hush up sexual assault allegations in order to keep their star quarterback/point guard/pitcher, in fact as far as I can read Stanford acted admirably promptly and there was no attempt to cover up or hang on to him. So he'd already lost any college sports protection when he came to a US court, where the judge gave him a ridiculous sentence because he didn't want his life to be ruined. We may never be able truly to know why the judge behaved in this manner, but when you see a rich Stanford educated white man letting off a rich Stanford educated white man it's not too difficult to join the dots.

It does seem to be the case that it was an insanely biased judge - as per above, former captain of the Stanford lacrosse team - with some very strange notions that a criminal shouldn't go to prison if it is going to make his life worse, which one always imagined was kind of the idea behind jail as a deterrent.

WorkingMummy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > White, well educated people enjoy unfair leniency > in our criminal justice system. I wish I could say > they do not. Quite so and the same is the case in America, although apparently when seeing a white well educated youth get a farcical sentence even suggesting his wealth and status might have played a role is "not helpful" and "inflammatory."

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Google Martin Schultz to find out his view - he's > the President of the European Parliament. He is > quite clear that there is no guarantee Dodgy > Dave's February deal will be passed (in his > Parliament), and until then he says it is not > binding on anyone. Blah Blah, you seem completely > certain, so are these other people out of their > minds? BBC: "Following talks with UK PM David Cameron, it was put to Mr Schulz that some people in the UK were unhappy with the idea that the deal on which the referendum campaign will be based could be vetoed later by the European Parliament. Mr Shulz disputed the idea that there was a veto and said that although no parliament could give guarantees he said that in his experience "it does go in a good direction" when there has been such an agreement between all the heads of state." So in other words he's being cautious but saying it's pretty unlikely it wouldn't be passed. By the way, by voting to remain we don't have to promise to stay in the EU forever, if the deal were reneged upon we could pull out any time we wanted (and wouldn't, legally, need another referendum if Parliament agreed to it).

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > > > > > We already have an agreement, made in February > and > > to be implemented if we vote to remain, that > > Eurozone countries will have to bear the cost > of > > any future bailout, not us: > > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu > > > m-36456277 > > You really think it's that certain? It's not. > Dodgy Dave's February 'agreement' is not in any EU > treaty... > > http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/ > 2016/feb/24/david-cameron-eu-deal-legally-binding- > michael-gove-analysis-joshua-rozenberg Interesting article you reference there, which appears to contain a swathe of expert professors and lawyers saying yes the deal is binding and, um, Michael Gove saying oh no it isn't.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so, as being of the EU, we contribute money to the > EU. This would be used towards funding the debts > of the country needing bailing out....bt we > wouldn't bail them out directly. oh no. Cameron's > agreed that. > > it's laughable / very scary how different people's > opinions are and the varied levels of trust people > have in the EU governemnt / our own government. The February deal specifically states that if any EU funds are used in financial bailouts of Eurozone countries the UK's share will be refunded.

Yes of course there were other elements at play, particularly his social status. But when you say "had Brock been black and with all those connections, he would have still got a light sentence" you're doubtless right, the point is that very few (proportionately) young black men in America have those connections, so the law is still skewed in favour of the rich white male. Of course we can never know what part each element played in the sentencing (the fact that the judge is a Stanford alumnus who captained their lacrosse team seems to be a fairly glaring one) - maybe race didn't play any part at all. What I object to is being accused of being "inflammatory" (not by you) for suggesting, perfectly legitimately, that race may have played its part in the leniency.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And also to add (sorry for the multiple posts), > have we forgotten O.J.Simpson who got away with > double murder (although now serving time for armed > robbery)? Another sporting hero. There's no > denying the disparity between black and white in > sentencing in the US justice system, but there's > also a different law it seems for sportsmen. You rather make my point though Blah - the OJ case was far less about his sporting status than racial issues in the cauldron of LA post-Rodney King and the riots, remember he was acquitted by an all-black jury then found guilty in the civil case by an all white (or nearly all-white?) one. So in that instance, as in the Turner case, raising the question of how much race influences justice is perfectly legitimate and not "inflammatory."

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My point was that that's not really what this case > is about; if the accused had been a black (or > white) college athlete from a more > prominent/lucrative sport e.g football or > basketball it's conceivable that the college would > have tried to keep it out of the criminal justice > system entirely. It's not helpful IMHO to > introduce race issues where they don't arise, > because it's both inflammatory and likely to > divert from real issues. The difference between sentences received by black and white criminals for the same offence, is, as noted above, a very "real" issue in both the US and the UK, so when a rich white person receives a joke sentence it's perfectly legitimate to speculate as to whether his race and social standing played a part in the leniency. If you regard raising a relevant issue within a perfectly valid context as being inflammatory then so be it. "if the accused had been a black (or white) college athlete from a more prominent/lucrative sport e.g football or basketball it's conceivable that the college would have tried to keep it out of the criminal justice system entirely." That is very true, but in this case it wasn't a more prominent sport, the perpetrator was arrested and brought to justice, then received a joke sentence, so he wasn't protected by his sporting status but, arguably, by his race and social status, making it perfectly legitimate as a subject for discussion.

No, race played no direct part (that I'm aware of) in the Stanford case, but WorkingMummy's point was that had the accused been black workingclass there's no way he would have got such a lenient sentence.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What about the price we will have to pay if we > stay in and as seems likely Italy and/or Spain > default like Greece did (but with a far, far > larger bailout required and a much worse effect on > EU growth)? We already have an agreement, made in February and to be implemented if we vote to remain, that Eurozone countries will have to bear the cost of any future bailout, not us: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36456277

DadOf4 Wrote: > As far as cyclist safety (which was one of the big > drivers and heavily debated) - nada. I still > regularly see traffic turning into the path of > cyclists coming from Greendale direction. I regularly cross this junction from Greendale to Townley Road and I must say the "cycle only" light on Greendale is a great help for safety, enabling me to get across the junction before the Townley Road traffic is released. The one thing I would say is that the hold isn't long enough, unless one's really on the ball, in the right gear and quite strong the right turning traffic is released before one can get across, a few more seconds' delay would make a notable difference.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think white people as such are treated > more leniently. I think rich people who can > afford good lawyers are treated more leniently. > > But, admittedly, the rich people are predominantly > white. It is certainly the case that the wealthy stand a better chance of reduced punishment due to being able to afford the best lawyers, but there aren't enough wealthy people committing the most common categories of crimes which attract prison sentences (theft from the person, ABH, theft from a vehicle, theft of a vehicle, criminal damage to a vehicle, shoplifting and burglary), for obvious reasons, to skew the figures very much. Those figures I quoted above (official MoJ figures remember, not a liberal thinktank or similar) of BME defendants being 20% more likely to receive a custodial sentence, and that sentence being on average seven months longer, for the same offence, are pretty unequivocal.

Yes I know, but then the next poster seems to be saying that they aren't; it's semantically confusing but WorkingMummy said (in paraphrase) I wish I could say white people don't get preferential treatment, Medusa has said if you did say that you'd be right. Maybe s/he's been thrown by the double negatives, but that's to what I was replying.

Medusa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...and you'd be spot-on. Not really. Ministry of Justice's own reports show black or Asian defendants 20% more likely to receive jail sentences for the same offence, and when they do on average they get 7 months longer than whites. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/courts-are-biased-against-blacks-with-white-offenders-less-likely-to-be-jailed-for-similar-crimes-8959804.html

Don't overlook eBay, quite often when people are refitting or having extensions built they'll sell really good quality kitchens just two or three years old (or sometimes new ex-display) on there. You'll need to hire/borrow a largish van and enlist a strong mate or two, but one can often pick up a whole fitted kitchen with appliances for ?1-2K; any competent craftsman shouldn't have any trouble adapting it to your space.

MM22 Wrote: > almost unbelievable; they stop at almost nothing Incredible isn't it - a friend of a friend kept his R6 in his garage out in Surrey with a special setup of titanium bars which went through the spokes - not quite clear on the exact arrangement but it was obviously pretty unbreakable, as he came home after a weekend away to find the garage broken into and two wheels in situ - they'd lifted the rest of the bike, obviously to sell for parts.

Caesi01 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > hi > Problem with the ground anchor is it has to go on > your property i.e. your front garden most likely. > > This might be difficult for many, as with wheelie > bins taking up most the space, not much room left > to also park a motorbike. The anchors IMO would be > more useful if they could be installed on the > pavement/Street in front Until then, a lamppost is just as good as a ground anchor as a point to lock up to - don't use street signs though, some of the thieves who come in gangs with vans have been known to lift a whole locked bike up and over the top of street signs, taking it away to work on the lock at their leisure.

Good points Wulfhound. MT, sorry to sound like a cyclevangelist but I was just looking at routes for Mrs H who's a bit nervous of cycling in traffic, realised that one can get to Waterloo, with a few minutes of bike pushing, without ever mixing with traffic: if you live anywhere near Rye Lane you can cycle down the bus only section, cross to the Surrey Linear canal path, ride into Burgess Park, exit at the northeast corner. Dismount and push your bike about 600 metres along the Old Kent Road to the Bricklayer's Arms roundabout, from there the pavement either has cycle paths on or signs saying it's shared between pedestrians and cyclists all the way to Elephant. At Elephant join the new cycle path which will take you completely traffic free to Blackfriars Bridge. From there you could either cycle along the south side of the river (though on some bits, like past the OXO tower, you have to dismount) or better still, cross over Blackfriars (still completely traffic free) and ride along the new east-west route, again completely traffic free, to Waterloo Bridge, from where you could dismount and push your bike to your workplace. So basically, apart from maybe ten minutes' walking (if that), you can get from Rye Lane to Waterloo Bridge without ever sharing a road with motorised transport. Cheers, Rendel

Fair enough MT, cycling's not for everyone and as you say, anxiety is not conducive to safety. But if you work at Waterloo, surely overground to Clapham Junction from DH and then the trains virtually every minute from there to Waterloo would be a good bet?