rendelharris

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do we really want, need or have to discuss Trump, > like his name full of hot air and a buffoon. But > then most from the USA are loud mouthed, never met > a quiet or civilised one. We certainly neither want nor need him, but he's not going to go away if we ignore him. I have several American friends who are amongst the most civilised people I know - a top flight classical musician, an excellent painter, a former Cambridge English don...though none of them are quiet, I'll give you that.

Trump's trade advisor has announced today that "there is a special place in hell" for Justin Trudeau, claiming his comments came "straight from Air Force One". Stone me.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Give her a break, the poor thing's had no sleep! > > The fact the noise team took action makes me feel > she wasn't being unreasonable. I'm sure she may not have been and I get as annoyed at selfishly loud/late parties as the next middle-aged man who likes to go to bed around eleven - I also think Kibris' comment was rather stupid and of a part with his/her general sneery contributions to this forum. However, to claim "abuse" and ask admin to close the thread down because someone makes a silly comment is ridiculous, sleep deprived or not.

Countrlass22 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not one off been going on long time.. > First time able report.. > > > ADMIN > Close thread abuse not tolerated on here Certainly isn't, but where precisely is it on this thread? One mildly sarcastic (if somewhat silly) comment?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a reason why, unlike the Republic of > Ireland, the British people were not given the > chance to vote on gay marriage. The politicians > knew it would not pass. As I recall, prior to gay marriage being put on the statute book, polls consistently ran at about 65-70% in favour. The reason we weren't given a vote is that that's not how our system works, whereas Eire has a written constitution that can only be amended by referenda.

No argument or defence from Loz against the fact that everyone disagrees with him, I note, just insults. It's richly ironic that someone who acts round these parts like a more erudite version of the Daily Mail, excoriating "Guardianistas" and "political correctness" in general, immediately starts whining and insulting people the minute his own demographic is on the receiving end.

Picked up a signed first edition of Siegfried Sassoon's Memoirs of a Foxhunting Man in a secondhand bookshop in Cambridge for 50p in about 1988. Loaned it to a girlfriend, we broke up, never got it back. Could have been my pension, that...

The guy who coined it (although Caitlin Moran previously memorably described David Cameron as "a camp gammon robot, a C3PO made of ham") sums it up well: Now, I don?t think anyone genuinely believes ?gammon? is racist. No one has ever found ?Gammons Go Home? daubed across their front door. There were never segregated schools for gammon children. And the fact that many of the commentators claiming to be so offended by the term routinely call millennials ?Generation Snowflake? is delicious. They?re also rather selective about which free speech they choose to defend. Likening right-wing men to pork products is beyond the pale, but shouting ?Gas the Jews? at a pug is apparently of Magna Carta importance.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Only the right have attempted to make the > pathetically poor case that "gammon" is a racist > > insult - ironically those who immediately cry > "political correctness gone mad" if anyone > objects > > to far worse insults. It's a bit childish but > calling it racist is desperate. > > Apart from the glaring error of your first three > words, an insult that is specifically applied to a > certain race is, by definition, a racist insult. > The insult even alludes to a skin colour. QED. > > I notice that those who disagree with me haven't > actually made any actual argument that it's not > racist, just the very weak 'defence' that 'they' > use insults as well, so it's OK. Which is a bit > like saying that assaulting someone who may > possibly have assaulted someone else is somehow > OK, rather than the ever-descending-circle of > madness is actually is. > > I don't much like the views of Brexiteers either, > but 'gammon' is still a racist insult however much > you try to justify it. I'm not trying to justify it, I said it was childish, it's just not racist. It refers to the propensity of certain over-indulged MPs to wattle up when displaying their outrage, so it doesn't in fact refer to a skin colour, rather a skin condition caused by high blood pressure from over-indulgence and frothing rage. It's not aimed at a race, rather a certain type of person. As Owen Jones (I know you'll love a quote from him) said, ?affluent white men with reactionary opinions are not a race. White people mocking other white people over their skin color is not racism.? Call it childish, call it offensive by all means, but calling it racist is just plain silly.

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > using his head to bust of out a burning plane was > probably a high point While carrying a bottle of gin, don't forget!

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I read that as nobody has to read Hemmingway > > which I fully agree with Hemingway had his moments though.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It just seems so...amateur, like they were really > just trying to provoke for the sake of it. Yes, reminded me of those Benetton ads in the late 80s/early 90s, where they'd put a picture of a guy dying of AIDS or a just-born baby up in order to persuade one to buy more pullovers.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > flocker spotter Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Possibly badly delivered but the avalanche of > negative comments in the crappy press and online > > does not seem to derive from any reasoned > consideration of the (admittedly jumbled) issues > > presented, just hot steamy knee jerkery action > from hot gammon jerks. > > Ah, nothing like a racist epithet to really drive > home that point, is there? Only the right have attempted to make the pathetically poor case that "gammon" is a racist insult - ironically those who immediately cry "political correctness gone mad" if anyone objects to far worse insults. It's a bit childish but calling it racist is desperate.

Sorry to hear this. Report it to the police, they may be able to narrow it down (if they can be bothered). Also, if you get a crime number, you can make a claim for damages to your bike and personal injury to the Motor Insurance Bureau, which exists specifically to compensate victims of hit-and-runs and uninsured drivers https://www.mib.org.uk/ Hope it doesn't put you off cycling, ride safe.

Interesting rational account, I've been using it to irritate the "Free Tommy Robinson" eejits who are befouling just about every Facebook thread this morning.

Victorious Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it'll be ideal and of great benefit to > have a place of worship (Church) on this site, one > of the major entrance to East Dulwich... after all > the site is partly located on Lordship lane. Why > not allow God to take charge of this site! There's already a church right opposite - we've got enough trouble finding accommodation for real people, without building houses for our imaginary friends!

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > violent crime cannot be totally removed but it can > be controlled, most often by cash funding. > unfortunately , this is an exponetial costing > problem - the fat tails are the hardest and most > costly to cover, so tolerance risk models are used > to determine the best confidence scenario & > provide some kind of acceptable balance. These fat > tails take the form of dead young men these days. > the accceptable output of a risk model that has > accepted a certain level of fatality as part of > the cost cutting. the UKG has accepted this level > of slaughter as part of its never ending austerity > programme. these dead young men are the direct > result of cold number crunching. Truth.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Robert Poste's Child Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Frankly I'm not sure Theresa May gives much > > thought to people at all. I think she's more a > > policies and process person. > > And what, pray. do you expect her to do? Reinstating the ?600m of cuts she's imposed on the Met as Home Secretary and PM might be a good start.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulwichFox Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's getting to the point where Stabbings are > no > > longer News-worthy. > > > > People are no longer shocked by such news. > > > > The Government knows that while the people > are > > fighting each other, they are not fighting the > > Government. > > This makes the people divided and weak.. and > > that suits all Governments. > > > > It's all very very sad. > > > > DulwichFox > > No argument with your first point but do you > really mean the second part - that the Government > is in some way allowing or wanting people to kill > each other over trifles? I reckon it comes down to language, Fox didn't say they want it, but it can suit them - just as George W. doubtless didn't "want" 9/11 (unless you believe the tinfoil hat merchants) but it did suit his agenda of massively boosting defence spending and taking revenge for daddy's defeat in Iraq.

Quick search of 2 Adys Road shows it was the headquarters of "John Walsh Motor Factors (office and administration) for the London Area".

Thank you, Admin.

Bored with your drivel now, there's a limit to how interesting it is watching someone make a fool of himself before it all just becomes rather pathetic. You've amply demonstrated what sort of person you are, I shall not be responding to any more of your leaden "wit" nor your spoon-sharp intellectual points. Farewell, skin crawling casual-racist misogynist.

Quia Differt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > "and a skin crawling casual-racist misogynist > > (according to those who've seen your previous > > incarnation)?... > > What goes around Rendell, My Dear, comes > around.. > > ." according to THOSE" PLURAL.. The only reference > to that was from Admin . SINGULAR NOT > PLURAL...THOSE is only used when MORE THAN ONE > CHARACTER IS SAYING IT. "Those" referring to both Admin and those others who have seen your previous incarnation, including me, as your slithering unpleasant statements are still easily discoverable on this forum. Nice try, failed. You're neither witty enough nor clever enough to try that sort of thing, I'm afraid.

Quia Differt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > edcam Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The same as I said before since you ask. > > > > Quia Differt Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > > What say you now ? > > So, for example you think originally putting > "TonySebastianFarquharson.co.uk", for example, and > the second time round > "TonySebastianFarquharson.. com" constitutes > trying some form of deception and getting " caught > out?".does it ? > > :) You're in danger of distracting from the main point of why people were laughing at you, which is that you have had to develop a new alias as previously you were banned from the forum for being a skin crawling casual-racist misogynist. I'm sure you'd like people to remember that.

Exeunt is a plural and only used when more than one character leaves. Nothing funnier than seeing someone trying to be clever and failing miserably through ignorance - or are you referring to your split personality as a nice person (according to you) and a skin crawling casual-racist misogynist (according to those who've seen your previous incarnation)? You described Robinson's propaganda as "his videos of what is actually happening in his Hometown of Luton." Clear affirmation of the fact that you believe them. No "allegedly" or any other qualifier, you've watched a video made by a proven neo-fascist and taken it as a true account of "what is actually happening". Your words. Re the videos, the BBC video Robinson showed referred to people being subject to racial attacks. No mention of Islam or religion at all. Re Stacey Dooley being abused, she was abused by a small number - a very small number - of stupid fanatics. Wrong? Definitely. Representative? No. Same for finding a few idiots who say they only obey Sharia law. If you want to stir up hatred, it's very easy to find a few hotheads with ignorant bigotted opinions (I trust you recognise yourself) and make a video framed to make it look as though they represent the majority. The fact that you find such videos interesting and refer to their content as if it's clearly true speaks volumes. There's a reason it hasn't been discussed in the Guardian or indeed other media outlets - it's because, unlike you, most people don't fall hook line and sinker for whatever biased manipulated rubbish is served up as truth in order to fuel hatred and confirm prejudice.