rendelharris

jimbo1964 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be honest the dispute between the staff and > management at the pub is really between themselves > to resolve and not up for public debate. The pub's a community business, so for a start it's at the very least a matter of legitimate concern for all those who own community shares. As for the wider public, you don't think people are entitled to know if establishments they frequent have ethical employment policies, and to discuss the issue? Odd. If all NHS workers went on strike, would you say it's just a matter for them and the government to sort and not a matter for public debate?

BFAWU representative Tom Holliday told the Star that negotiations between management and workers? representatives would resume today and it seemed ?very likely? that management would concede to the workers? demands. Mainly because, it would appear, what the workers are demanding - fixed hours contracts and union recognition - were on offer anyway. It's quite clear the full story behind this dispute has not been made public yet. As for the Morning Star, yes in terms of accuracy and balanced reporting it pretty much is on a par with the Daily Mail, and I say that as someone very much on the left myself.

Good, because you have in the past posted derogatory comments about the Ivy House and your post on here was ill-informed, malicious and untrue. You called for a boycott of a respected and well-loved venue without knowing anything about the case and simply making rubbish up to try and make the management look bad. It's pathetic. A lot of your posts are nonsense but when you're calling for action that could cause permanent harm to, or closure of, a community business when you have no idea at all what you're talking about, you really need to put a sock in it. (ETA response to DF's very welcome offer to say no more)

Thanks for the info BNG, clearly more nuanced than some have assumed and good to see that IH are recognising unions and offering fixed-hours contracts (and always have). Perhaps a certain poster above would like to withdraw their unfounded, ill-informed and malicious accusations?

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would urge people to get both sides of the story > before leaping to conclusions; I suspect there?s > more to this than meets the eye. Ivy House has > never seemed like that kind of employer. Hear hear, if the Ivy House have been treating their workers badly then let's stand with the workers, but let's hear the full story. Certain people, including one who has already posted on this thread, have always been dying to see the pub fail for odd reasons of their own and will instantly jump on anything that looks detrimental to it. Hope the Ivy will tell their side of the tale so we can make a fair judgement.

Have to say it looks bloody great (and I wasn't convinced by the choice of artists initially) - isn't it better to have it welcoming our visitors by train and visible to pedestrians than visible to car drivers whipping through? It's a nice positive enhancement to the area and should be welcomed.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where an Act authorises or requires any document > to be served by post (whether the expression > ?serve? or the expression ?give? or ?send? or any > other expression is used) then, unless the > contrary intention appears, the service is deemed > to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying > and posting a letter containing the document and, > unless the contrary is proved, to have been > effected at the time at which the letter would be > delivered in the ordinary course of post. > > By which I take it to mean that if an item is > posted via first class post on working day x it is > deemed to have been delivered by working day x+1 - > assuming that that is the day by which it is due. > In which case no penalty would be allowable for > 'late return'. That is only effective if, in > general, delivery of first class post 'next > working day' is a norm. If the post arrives, then, > a day later (2 working days after posting), it is > still assumed to have arrived 'on time'. In SE22 > rather than a day late, it is more likely to be a > week or 10 days late, or not at all. I have no > idea whether letters posted in SE22 are also being > unreasonably delayed. > > That is why proof of posting is deemed to be proof > of delivery - when there is a penalty otherwise to > be exercised on an item arriving after a given due > date (tax payments come to mind). I have not > chased down the law but I would be much surprised > if a similar allowance would not be given where a > late payment was received for a civil debt, but > where the cheque could be shown to have been > posted in good time for normal delivery. Sorry Penguin, you're just wrong on this. As nxjen points out, proof of posting is proof of service; that I have, for example, sent HMRC my tax return a reasonable time before a deadline. That means they cannot sanction me for not meeting the deadline. It is not proof that they have received it, and I could not take action against them (or any other entity, for example a business that didn't get my cheque and so cancelled an order I needed) on the grounds that proof I had posted was proof of delivery. The only way you can get a legal proof of delivery is to send by registered post and have it signed for.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The context is about sending legal documents, the > inference must be that if proof of posting in > these special circumstances are proof of receipt > the same would be true of other items posted. You're misreading the law; proof of posting is taken as proof of service, not of delivery.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/sectio > > > n/7 > > > Not sure whether that is referring solely to the > serving of "documents" required by an "Act"? > > I'm sure a lawyer would be able to tell us! It doesn't actually say proof of posting is proof of delivery, what it says is that if you can prove you posted a document then that document is deemed, for legal purposes, to be "served", e.g. if I send HMRC my tax return a week before the deadline and they never receive it, if I can prove it was sent in good time they can't fine me for late filing. It is not assumed, legally, that anything that has been posted must have arrived - that would be absurd as it would assume a 100% error-free postal service which can never be achieved.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would think that the corollary of 'reducing car > use' is to reduce car ownership. And 'improving > public transport' is hardly the watchword in our > neck of the woods, with TFL reducing bus > frequencies, for instance. That's predictable - and nonsense. Encouraging people to use their cars less - for example not to drive a mile to the shops - is not in any way the same as encouraging/forcing them not to have a car. You've stated that "The ruling party is on record, indeed it formed I think part of their manifesto, as wishing to reduce private car ownership in the borough"; clearly you cannot produce evidence of that "record" and so are reduced to semantic quibbling. You should either produce evidence of your assertion or withdraw it.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The ruling party is on record, indeed it > formed I think part of their manifesto, as wishing > to reduce private car ownership in the borough Can you provide any evidence for that statement? It's certainly not in Southwark Labour's current manifesto, there is simply a statement that they want to reduce car use by encouraging walking, public transport and cycling and improving facilities for same. I know many believe (including you, it seems) that the council are waging a secret war on motorists, but you are always rigorous in insisting on high standards of evidence from others; citation please.

Wouldn't an average speed camera be the best solution? Cost (as I understand) about ?100,000, but speed tables cost ?20,000 each.

Seems pretty straightforward providing you know CPR:

supergran Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think the bike was stolen else I would not > have taken it I am a pensioner and this was like > manna from heaven for me I have given my > children's bikes away in the past . Thankyou for > all the lovely comments , the doubters need to get > a life and try and do something nice . You enjoy it SG, there's no reason to think it was anything but a really nice gesture. See you on the road!

As has already been noted, nobody is suggesting that many of these incidents are foxes predating on live cats. 230,000 cats are killed in the UK each year by motor vehicles. Foxes are scavengers, and they will scavenge on any road kill, including cats. They will take the head and the tail first as these are easiest to detach. The argument that "foxes don't attack cats therefore there must be a cat killer" is a total red herring; nobody has put forward fox attacks on live cats as an explanation.

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nothing on that link about Cpzs On the "Barry Road Map" link at the bottom of the page: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/barryroad/supporting_documents/BarryRoad20mph_V7.pdf

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Received the much-feared Royal Mail red card > through the door ?we tried to deliver but...?, > having popped-out for 20mins. > Darn it. > Was going to Peckham anyway, so hey no problem > popping round the PO to collect my parcel. > Queue from basement where I presume you collect > parcels right back to street. One bunch of > pissed-off people. > Feck it. The t-shirt was only a ?10er. I can?t > blow 2hrs of my life for that. I guess someone > else will get it. > Having seen this and realising that I don?t have > such huge time slots to give away, RM is > effectively off my radar now. You could just go online and ask for a free redelivery...

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Streatham vets still reckon this is the work > of a human. They also said they had only seen "four or five" cases, they "did not perform detailed post-mortems" and "We would very much hope that it just turns out to be foxes preying on cats post mortem however some of the wounds we have seen would be difficult to explain in this way." Difficult - not impossible. Also, ordinary vets are no more trained in post-mortem forensic examination than a GP is in comparison to a forensic pathologist; they're trained to treat wounds, not forensically identify causation. The Head of Veterinary Forensic Pathology at the Royal Veterinary College would, one imagines, have rather more expertise in this area than a small-animal practice.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps the Bike was stolen and who ever took it > had second thoughts. (Like their Mum told them to > get rid)?? > Lots of bike thefts recently. > > Bikes are expensive. People do not give them away > for FREE. I've given several bikes away in my time, the last about three months ago to a friend's son who was off to his second year in college with digs a little way from campus and couldn't afford a bike. Admittedly I've never given away one of my really expensive ones, but if I could only get ?100 or so on eBay/Gumtree I've preferred to give them to someone who could benefit - and I'm certainly not a particularly generous or altruistic person - so people do give them away for FREE. People have sometimes done so on this very forum. Also I'm pretty sure a bike thief who decided not to hang on to a bike would just dump it, not leave polite notes asking people to take it. I'm a cynical bugger myself but cynicism can be well overused.

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I assume that an admin's editing of the title > means that the bike is still there. Wouldn't have thought so, I got the impression supergran took it? Expect Admin thought it would be nice to have a title more likely to be seen by the donor. Nice thoughtful behaviour from all concerned!

Chick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No. It depends on the angle of attack, as long as > air is moving faster over the top of the wing > there will be lift and the plane will keep > flying. Isn't lift caused by air flowing faster under the wing and slower over the top? Pretty sure that's how it works. So if the wing is inverted, the air will be flowing slower under the groundward side and faster over the top, pushing it down? Mind you I'm an English graduate who doesn't really understand why electricity doesn't fall out of empty sockets, so could well be wrong!

Take Note Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > foxes do share some humans' love of killing for > fun, as seen by their destruction of chickens. That's a pernicious myth about foxes, perpetrated by the fox-hunting lobby. Yes, when a fox gets into a hen run, it will kill as many as it can, with the intention of returning and burying what it hasn't eaten for eating later or, in the right season, bringing cubs to eat. Usually its entry is detected before it can do this. It's both anthropomorphic and inaccurate to say they "kill for fun". > I'm not going to argue with the vet's view that > the cats she saw could not have been mutilated > by another predator. But you are going to argue with the Head of Veterinary Forensic Pathology at the Royal Veterinary College and the Metropolitan Police Force, who say it's foxes.

lilolil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Only to suggest that you might care to read up on > the case which is widely documented on Twitter and > Facebook. > I do not want to get involved in a slanging match > with you or anyone else. > Please respect my views as I respect yours. Nobody has disrespected your views, you have simply been asked to provide evidence for your statements, which apparently you are unable or unwilling to do. I suggest you look at the conclusions of the police team, whom you previously eulogised as being experts.

lilolil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, it is not evidence. You're right. So would you care, as you obviously feel passionate about this, to offer some substantive evidence?

lilolil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I did try to copy that link to the post. I have > been really upset by some of the personal comments > directed at me. > I do believe that there is someone out there who > is doing this. That is my opinion. > Hopefully I am wrong but there are many people > with similar views to me. You have been asked, politely and reasonably, by me, to provide evidence for your statements. If you can't, that's fine, but then I can't see why you expect your comments to be taken seriously. "I believe" is not actually evidence.