rendelharris

Fidgetsmum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Absolutely NOT. This is precisely why we moved > here was to get away from the ridiculousness of > CPZs. Seriously, you moved house just to get away from paying a few quid a week for parking?

janepinkcat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The point of my post was to try and warn parents > and dog owners, I'm confounded by the crap that's > been written in response This your first time on t'internet?

One would have thought that the Environment Secretary might know that sort of thing, without having to have it brought to his attention eleven months into the job...

IlonaM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > IlonaM Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > You're never that far from a rat in London. > > Years > > > ago we used to take the foreign students in > > Halls > > > to Lincolns Inn Fields and watch masses of > them > > in > > > the evenings. This was before the lawyers got > > > together to overhaul the gardens. > > > > Did the rats leave in disgust at the presence > of > > so many lawyers? > > I'm deeply hurt!!! > > Sadly, I think it was more of a death sentence > than voluntary exit. Just joshing, I have three of them in the family (lawyers not rats).

IlonaM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're never that far from a rat in London. Years > ago we used to take the foreign students in Halls > to Lincolns Inn Fields and watch masses of them in > the evenings. This was before the lawyers got > together to overhaul the gardens. Did the rats leave in disgust at the presence of so many lawyers?

I opted for a delicious plate of pasta while my husband was equally impressed with...oh sorry, not that sort of post. But also sort of is...

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RH - Watch out for sheep on the way back down the > hill... they like to share the road! Thanks, yes so I've read! Have you done it? Is it as hard as it looks?

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m pretty sure Prince William didn?t attend the > football. Can't have been him then. Media maybe.

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sweeney Todd and Hilary Briss jokes aside... it > does seem strange that they can apparently make a > miraculoulsy good meat-free burger, but are unable > to cook chips. I'm guessing they don't make the burger and it's quite possibly oven-cooked, so unless you can't cope with keeping an eye on the clock it's pretty hard to mess up.

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm never one to shy away from the elephant in the > room... is nobody suspicious of these remarkably > good "vegan burgers"? Hah! Bit of a Sweeney Todd thing going on you reckon?

Seems a lot of products coming to suprmarkets soon: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/may/19/fake-steak-supermarkets-flexitarians-meat-free-burgers The Vivera "steak" at Tesco's looks particularly interesting, I regularly buy their Schwama kebab "meat" and it's very good indeed

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pretty much it. I don't think anyone likes Camilla > and her position as Queen would not carry any > goodwill. > > But then, the Duke of Edinburg is not King so > would Cam actually be the Queen? IDK Yes she would be (and Charles is reportedly quite insistent about it) - under the antediluvian rules, a queen is always subordinate to a king, so a woman marrying in can become queen as she still has to obey the king, but if a man marries a queen, he can't become king as the queen would then have to obey a man not of the royal blood. That's why when Albert married Victoria he became Prince Consort, not king. All bonkers!

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unfortunately 1) The Guardian is still quite > useful for news (though rather less so than it > used to be), 2) The Graun like to plaster > clickbait links all over the page (because - lets > face it - they have to do something to get the > nodding dogs of Gruaniadworld to stump up ?5 a > month for nothing). You don't see any contradiction in saying they're quite useful and that asking for subscriptions is demanding money for nothing? The two chief rightwing "broadsheets" demand payment, why do the right find it so risible that the Guardian should ask for a voluntary payment, and why do you insult people who think it's appropriate to do so? Why aren't you mocking people who pay for the Times (where the quality of journalism is far lower, by the way). There are a million sources for you to get the news, if you don't like the Guardian don't use it, but stop talking about it as if it has some sort of duty, which it's betraying, to conform to your point of view.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don't think we'll hear very much more from > the > > East Dulwich councillors on this forum. > > > On the other hand... > > Give them a chance, eh? I'm not sure how to do the smiley face emoticon thing so I'll just give an old fashioned hear hear. Proof of the pudding and all that.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Robert Poste's Child Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > ETA: loving the Guardian website: their > coverage > > of the wedding has a collapse button so you > don't > > have to see it if you don't want to. > > I just wish they'd extend the idea so you can > completely ignore their increasingly rabid, > po-faced, half-witted "opinions" writers. I feel the same about the Telegraph, I find not going to their website, or if I do not clicking on the opinion pieces, works quite well.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi rendelharris, > But it has enough money for Golden Goodbyes to > Labour councillors who chose to stand down as > councillors back in December. > At the February budget setting Lib Dems showed how > to make sufficient savings, from memory ?5M, to > avoid any increase in Council Tax. Amazingly this > was rejected and Council Tax increased by 6% this > year. > It is political choices that caused the ?16 fee to > be introduced. ?17k James, no idea if that was justified or not - you would have a better idea of the ins and outs of local government than I - but a bit of a drop in the ocean compared to ?12M cuts. ETA I have immense respect for you and your work, but I assume the proposed ?5M savings couldn't have been made without some cuts to local services, or charging for previously free ones? (Admin please delete if inappropriate but I'd say what's happened to Southwark's budget is quite relevant to ED?)

Thanks JB, very useful, just chucked a couple of bob at it too.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > there will be no planes over Windsor for 15 > minutes today Though I was visiting my mother near Kingston and we saw/heard a very low flying chopper going to pick Wills up for the cup final and coming back again, and doubtless he'll be coming back that way...very ecological!

Scottfield Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cyclists shouldn't be riding on the pavements > really. Except where it's legally permitted and there's a clear cycle lane delineated on the pavement, as on the OKR. Then it's probably OK. Second Sally's recommend of that route, it's a joy. Took a New Zealand mate round there the other day, he was stunned by how good it was.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Precisely. > > Plus I suspect there?s far more support for them > than republicans would like. I doubt we?ll be > seeing any more referendums anytime soon anyway, > but even if one was held, I think we?re many, many > years away from support for wholesale reform. Plus > it?s tied up with many other constitutional > issues. Yep, not in our lifetimes I'm afraid.

Alexthecamel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m sure it?s a great project but could you > describe it?s aims a little more? Many people are > quite wary of clicking on links. I can answer that as the mob I volunteer for are tangentially involved with this up north. It's a project to provide free sanitary products for girls in schools, and a very worthwhile one it is. The link is safe, by the way.

chris1001uk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Had the burgers and fries quite a few times and > it's by far the best vegan burger I've ever had. > Does anyone know anything about whose behind this? > Cheers No idea but by golly I wish they'd put a version in the shops!

Cora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello James, > > I am finding the ?16 cost for collection of bulk > waste really galling. I have 1 armchair to collect > but am allowed up to 10 items. I have asked a > neighbour if they have anything they would like to > get rid of and we will share the cost. I also > thought that if other items come up I would be > able to amend the collection but no, once I have > handed over the money I am not allowed to add > anything else to my collection. Why has the cost > gone from 0 - ?16?! and why is it so inflexible > that if I find an old stereo that can go I have to > fork out another ?16?! rather than add it to my > collection. I completely understand why people fly > tip now, what's the incentive not to? ?16 is a lot > of money and I do believe that bulk waste should > be part of residential waste collection. I do not > have a car so I have no alternative. > > I understand this was a Labour council decision. Ahem. Perhaps one needs to go a little further than that. It was the decision of a Labour council that's had ?12M cut from its budget by a Tory government, and so reluctantly can't afford to provide all the free services it did previously.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mick Mac Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Ellem86 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > But I cant see it working long term. She has a > > career and has achieved a lot already - I don't > > know how she's going to come to terms with > royal > > life in the longer term. > > To paraphrase the late, great Mrs Merton... > > ?So what first attracted you to the famously > wealthy Royal Prince...?? Such cynicism! She's worth $5M apparently, so probably the status rather than the money that attracted her - after all you can have all the money in the world but you don't get to live in Kensington Palace. And she does seem genuinely smitten with him, and he seems a fairly decent sort of cove. As a fellow human, I wish them all the best. As a taxpayer and a republican I wish everyone would just shut up about it and I wish we weren't paying for it!

This Sainsbury's one doesn't taste much different to my palate/// https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/gb/groceries/sainsburys-dill-mustard-sauce-160ml?langId=44&storeId=10151&krypto=5UrxHZvx%2BVII7vsJ8ldLy%2F7eIEvQHJ1xP8VQhK9bwUWd%2BPmKOUrciKPphY%2Be2%2BUrhFGFK5%2Fyanq%2FrLZUGn55YFw4UpI2Mt8gfI2Voy1ZLzj7e980NBGy8ILDPmHxCd1YwvhiqLHKan51dhESuyM5VUWcVPprsbrGRD%2Fkt2nPlOw%3D&ddkey=https%3Agb%2Fgroceries%2Fsainsburys-dill-mustard-sauce-160ml