rendelharris

If you were you or your solicitors would have had to notify them when you bought the property and pay a change of ownership fee, so unlikely unless you've forgotten, and if you've not heard from them in eight years seems you're probably not. Still, a quick call should set your mind at rest.

Quia Differt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > A thread concerning Britain's most notorious > > neo-fascist, QD posts approvingly about his > videos > > as if they're true, complaining he never sees > > anything about it in the Guardian. QD gets > pulled > > up on this and various other unpleasantness, > such > > as calling Jews a a race. QD whines the thread > has > > been hijacked. Excellent. Skin crawling casual > > racist misogynist. > > Calling Jews a Race was simply a mistake. You have > no credibility in my eyes as your mind is totally > fixed and nothing will change your view. It's just > frightening that you actually influence our next > generation. > > ONCE AGAIN back to the original subject and prod > and smear and abuse as much as you want but I > shall not respond to either you or RPC again so > the stage is yours little Man. Very much back to the original subject, you spoke approvingly of the propaganda videos of Britain's most notorious neo-fascist, whom this thread concerns, complaining that the Guardian (amusingly misspelled, very witty, that did make me laugh - the first time I saw someone doing it in about 1975) didn't cover this apparent "truth". Was that "simply a mistake" as well? Please feel free not to respond to me, the less you do the better. In fact, as you have previously been banned from this forum for being a skin crawling casual racist misogynist, and you don't live anywhere near East Dulwich, do you have any reason to be here at all except to troll and spout your poorly disguised racist claptrap?

A thread concerning Britain's most notorious neo-fascist, QD posts approvingly about his videos as if they're true, complaining he never sees anything about it in the Guardian. QD gets pulled up on this and various other unpleasantness, such as calling Jews a a race. QD whines the thread has been hijacked. Excellent. Skin crawling casual racist misogynist.

Drivel on all you want you silly little man, you'll always be a "skin-crawling misogynist casual-racist" to me. Who believes the propagnda disseminated in the videos of Britain's most notorious neo-fascist.

Too much drivel to be worthy of a reply of similar length. You want to take some water with it son. I shall simply note that my alleged "bubble" must be a fairly extensive one, being married to a woman of Asian heritage and thus part of an extended Asian family, also having taught in inner-city secondary comps for many years. Of course I'm not as "street" (what are you, twelve?) as someone like you who lives on the Kent border and has supposedly dated black women. Oh and a Mauritian paid for your takeaway, how can you possibly be a racist! Pitiful. Your supposed loveliness is somewhat undermined by the fact that, in the words of Admin, "in your previous incarnation as the skin-crawling misogynist casual-racist Tony London Suburbs you were banned for making the forum an unpleasant place to be." I see no real difference between your previous incarnation and this one, however many weasel words you attempt to shroud your nastiness in.

Quia Differt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Quia Differt Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > > > The above comment also applies to many Jewish > > > people. The Business I started in 1995 > involved > > a > > > myriad of Jewish competitors and most became > > > friendly rivals but knowing many of them well > > it's > > > obvious that they prefer to socialise and, > > where > > > possible, live among their own Race. > > > > The Jews are not a race, and take considerable > > offence at being described as such, despite the > > fact that those who have wished to > > segregate/exterminate them have frequently > claimed > > that they are. Can't believe this still has to > be > > pointed out. > > Jewish Nation. > > I have to say I can't understand your motive for > continuing after the initial : > > "The Jews are not a race, and take considerable > > offence at being described as such "..... > > I would have thought that would have sufficed or > better still simply saying " The Jews are a > Nation" but then to add the connection that those > who wish to segregate/eterminate them was rather > superflous but I dare say you had your reasons .. Because I think someone peddling the same pernicious filth should be called on it. That's my reason. You have a superficial veneer of "oh I'm engaging in reasonable debate" but in fact a lot of what you say is pretty nasty, e.g. you "know" that Jews buy up houses in certain streets to keep others out? That Asians are prepared to do business with others but prefer to remain within their community otherwise? You're a pretty unpleasant individual, as far as I can see - probably why, as per the Louisa thread, you were banned under another name. If you must reply, please don't bother telling us how many black women you have dated as some peculiar badge of tolerance, because it's frankly creepy.

Quia Differt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The above comment also applies to many Jewish > people. The Business I started in 1995 involved a > myriad of Jewish competitors and most became > friendly rivals but knowing many of them well it's > obvious that they prefer to socialise and, where > possible, live among their own Race. The Jews are not a race, and take considerable offence at being described as such, despite the fact that those who have wished to segregate/exterminate them have frequently claimed that they are. Can't believe this still has to be pointed out.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe Mr Y-L because the same things were > happening in Newham starting in the 1970s. (I > daresay Mr RH will call me a liar but hey-ho. No need for me to say anything unclejosef, the fact that you are so happy to declare your belief in the propaganda of Britain?s most notorious neo-fascist says more about you than I ever could.

Quia Differt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting to hear his address at The Oxford > Union which is on You Tube particularly his videos > of what is actually happening in his Hometown of > Luton I believe you mean what he claims is actually happening - and the Guardian and many other media outlets have in fact given extensive coverage to his ludicrous attempts to stir up hatred.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Robert Poste's Child Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I picked you up on it because it was relevant > > to > > > the point under discussion - women's > perception > > of > > > how we are spoken about and to. > > > > And fair enough if you see it like that, to me, > in > > the context of a discussion group on the > internet > > (rather than me leaning across you in the pub > and > > not allowing you to speak or similar) it seems > a > > pretty hair-trigger reaction. > > In a more general context you would (dare I say > 'do'...) get away with it but when you choose to > do it in the context of a pretty fundamental > feminist question you should expect a reaction! Let's give up - well I'm giving up - on to-ing and fro-ing about this. On a public discussion forum, somebody asked a question. Because I had the question in, um, question explained to me very well by a feminist university lecturer I thought sharing what she told me might be interesting and contribute to the discussion, so I did. If that makes me a "mansplainer" then la-di-da, sorry but I'm not going to beat myself up about joining in a discussion in good faith with no intent to patronise, demean, interrupt or anything else, I just felt I had something interesting to contribute. ETA with your entirely unfounded assumption that I "get away with it" in general, you do realise you're insulting a lot of women by assuming that they would let me - and trust me, if you knew my mother, wife, sisters and friends you'd know I wouldn't dare to try.

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > civilservant Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > as for 'mansplaining', all the women i know find > it such a useful word, it helps them be clear > > about the behaviour they're objecting to - and > believe me, there are mansplainers lurking > everywhere out there > > RH, that's my post above, and i was actually > responding to AM > what makes you think i'm accusing you of anything? > of course, if the cap fits, do feel free I didn't say you were, I was throwing out a general query as RPC had said I was, and you seemed informed on the matter. And the cap does not fit so I will decline your offer.

I know but I can't say 'cos I'd be mansplaining!

I think Admin does a great job and am very grateful for it, given the amount of entertainment and information to be had from this forum, but I can't see anything in your occasional spats any worse than mine or those of dozens of others on here, to be honest, and yours are a lot more mild than some.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I picked you up on it because it was relevant to > the point under discussion - women's perception of > how we are spoken about and to. And fair enough if you see it like that, to me, in the context of a discussion group on the internet (rather than me leaning across you in the pub and not allowing you to speak or similar) it seems a pretty hair-trigger reaction.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > civilservant Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > as for 'mansplaining', all the women i know > > find > > > it such a useful word, it helps them be clear > > > about the behaviour they're objecting to - > and > > > believe me, there are mansplainers lurking > > > everywhere out there > > > > But I still want to know how I'm apparently a > > "mansplainer" when I was explaining something > to > > another man? > > RH, the post you replied to quoted me (a woman) > and asked for more information about something > relating to women's experience (in this case, > being called a lady). > > 'Mansplaining' means a man explaining what a woman > means or experiences rather than treating her as > an equal who can speak for herself. > > Does that help? Well it explains it, not sure it particularly helps. Seriously? This is a discussion forum, anyone's entitled to answer people's questions, even if superficially addressed to another poster. I saw AM's question, realised I had some relevant experience of the matter under discussion and so answered him. I'm sorry if you think that that's in some way me behaving in a sexist manner or attemting to usurp you; on the other hand I think it's utterly, utterly absurd that you should take that view of it. Come to that, I asked civilservant a question above, not you, but you've chosen to answer it. Oddly I don't see this as transgressing any rules or trying to undermine anyone, it's what happens in discussions on discussion forums. Seriously?

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > as for 'mansplaining', all the women i know find > it such a useful word, it helps them be clear > about the behaviour they're objecting to - and > believe me, there are mansplainers lurking > everywhere out there But I still want to know how I'm apparently a "mansplainer" when I was explaining something to another man?

Quia Differt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Alan Medic Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > I was told (by a postgrad tutor who returned an > > essay with every use of the word crossed out > and > > "woman" substituted) that "lady" implies > certain > > standards of behaviour - meekness, gentility, > > decorum etc - that women don't necessarily want > > imposed upon them, in a way that "gentleman" > > doesn't, if that implies anything it just > implies > > one's a bit of a toff. After arguing about it > for > > half an hour I came to see her point of view, > > though I still find it difficult in speech not > to > > say lady instead of woman, just a habit. > > Why is it then that I and , doubtless, a multitude > of other Men have often had someone say to them, > after a perceived good deed, " you are a Gentlemen > ! "... > > Have they all been calling me a Toff all along ? I used the wrong word, I meant a good chap rather than an aristo.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > uncleglen Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > The government gives money to the local > council > > > but the local council are free to spend the > > money > > > on whatever you voted for...many Labour > > councils > > > will withhold money from the front line > > services > > > and spend more on admin at the Town > Hall....YOU > > > have given them carte blanche to do this and > do > > it > > > they will- with impunity if central > Government > > is > > > Tory...so suck it up for another 4 years. > > > > "If you tell a lie big enough and keep on > > repeating it, people will eventually believe it" > - > > Joseph Goebbels > > > > Don't know why that just came to mind... > > I do- it comes into your mind with monotonous > regularity rh- you haven't enough experience of > politics on the ground to know that it is actually > true Quod est demonstrandum. Keep repeating your rubbish uncle, eventually somebody'll be silly enough to believe you.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now have a go at 'mansplaining', RH! Eh? Given that I was addressing Alan Medic, who is a man, how am I mansplaining?

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I didn't read that thread but wondering is the > word 'ladies' offensive to women, and if so why? I > only ask because if the male equivalent is > 'gents', I just wouldn't find that at all > offensive. I was told (by a postgrad tutor who returned an essay with every use of the word crossed out and "woman" substituted) that "lady" implies certain standards of behaviour - meekness, gentility, decorum etc - that women don't necessarily want imposed upon them, in a way that "gentleman" doesn't, if that implies anything it just implies one's a bit of a toff. After arguing about it for half an hour I came to see her point of view, though I still find it difficult in speech not to say lady instead of woman, just a habit. I remember reading somewhere, though I can't recall where as it's Sunday morning and I'm nearly fifty, a contemporary newspaper editorial which said something like "The vile suffragettes are supposedly fighting for rights for women; we prefer to defend the rights of ladies." It's that sort of distinction that leads to the objections I think. Can't resist sharing a great anecdote about George Thomas, later Viscount Tonypandy, speaker of the House of Commons: a newly elected MP came up to him and asked where he could find "the bogs." Thomas replied, "The lavatory, you mean? Oh yes, go along the corrdior, turn left and on your right you'll see a door marked 'Gentlemen' - but don't let that put you off..."

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Trains are running from Forest Hill to Clapham > Junction on Saturday. Not according to TfL journey planner they're not.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The government gives money to the local council > but the local council are free to spend the money > on whatever you voted for...many Labour councils > will withhold money from the front line services > and spend more on admin at the Town Hall....YOU > have given them carte blanche to do this and do it > they will- with impunity if central Government is > Tory...so suck it up for another 4 years. "If you tell a lie big enough and keep on repeating it, people will eventually believe it" - Joseph Goebbels Don't know why that just came to mind...

Thank goodness for this forum - meeting a mate at Victoria tomorrow to go to Lord's, I was just going to stroll down to Peckham for the 9.04! Thanks.

Mscrawthew Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know of no known pro's to a CPZ apart from > Southwark Council's bank account. Those of you > under the impression that it will make the area a > more pleasant one to live in are very much either > under a very false illusion or have never lived in > a cpz. I have, in Herne Hill. It made parking slightly easier. But pretty much the area was exactly the same; it's not armageddon whether you have one or not, as many seem to believe.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- But let's look > forward to having no teachers or dentists or > nurses in the area, so long as you can park > outside your house (not that you'll be able to, > probably, as there will have been more permits > than spaces sold anyway). Oh come on, there are pros and cons to CPZs but there's no evidence for that statement, is there? Are the numerous CPZs in Southwark and elsewhere in London notable for their lack of teachers. nurses and dentists?