rendelharris

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/948785/Windrush- > scandal-Theresa-May-Jeremy-Corbyn-news-Andrew-Neil > -BBC-This-Week > > according to this Gordon Brown ordered the > destruction of the Landing Passes in 2009, which > for some people was the only proof they had as > they had never acquired a passport or > citizenship. > Of course- NO-ONE is going to believe it-are they? > especially on the libtardfest that is the EDF Have you ever considered that other fora that might be more to your taste are available?

Building site, Cambridge, midwinter, trying to eke out student grant. Wind and rain whipping straight off the North Sea, initiated by being told to climb up the outside of a four storey block on the most dodgy minimalist scaffolding I've ever seen carrying a heavy bag of tools, to find the buggers on the roof they'd accessed via a service lift I hadn't been told about...lasted two days...

"it's always dispiriting when it's made personal rather than debating the actual issues" cella, on this thread, April 16th. One imagines you find your own posts fairly dispiriting then?

FightingFit Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The Goose Green roundabout is at the 'bottom' > of > > Dog Kennel Hill (and Grove Vale) - but at the > > 'top' of Lordship Lane. Not only does Lordship > > Lane head due south from Goose Green (so it's > at > > the top of a map normally oriented with North > at > > the top) but it's at the start of a road which > > leads away from Central London - again going > out > > of town south of the river is often seen as > > heading 'down' - when going in to Town is going > > 'up to town' (from wherever you are). So saying > > the roundabout is 'at the top' of Lordship lane > > seems eminently logical, if you are using LL as > > the determinant. Using DKH or Grove Vale as the > > determinant would of course make it 'bottom > of'. > > That was worth waiting for... not. I thought it was an interesting and lucid explanation.

Quia Differt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your 2 contributions on the 16th and 17th April on > this thread did not contain any visible > acknowledgement. :) UG said we voted for Tessa Jowell who introduced them, I replied "And presumably you voted for..." - tacit acknowledgement, sorry if it wasn't obvious enough for you. Still, focus on nitpicking rather than the point I made, which is that although Labour introduced them it is Labour who are now campaigning to mitigate the harm they do and the Tories who are refusing to do so.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don#t you just love these first world > problems..... uncleglen, April 16th: "I loathe when the weather is nice and you get a coffee and go to sit outside and you are immediately surrounded by morons chain smoking."

Silly person.

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am not wrong here nor is my comment in any way > misplaced. Oh well that's us told. Your comment was (rudely) castigating others and complaining about a lack of knowledge regarding an argument nobody else had made, you created it yourself! Come on, you do this a lot, time to pack it in and either join the discussion sensibly or not at all.

Mayerhofen - excellent range of pistes, especially as you can get up and down the Zillertal valley on the train to other resorts included in the skipass. Glacier at the head of the valley for guaranteed skiing no matter what. Great range of accommodation and eating places for all tastes and pockets, local beer very good.

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > of course shops can do what they want on their own > land within reason, this does not however absolve > them of responsibility should the public access > that land as a matter of course. Good job nobody's suggested that then. The point being made is that on their own land, shopowners have no responsibility for considering the convenience of the public when positioning their A boards or other furniture (unless of course they were contravening disability or emergency access regulations). Of course they'd be liable for any injuries arising from dangerous or negligent placement, but they do not have a responsibility to provide for the convenience of passersby, even if they do step onto their land "as a matter of course." Despite your habitual lofty and patronising dismissal of everyone else, it would seem to be you who has missed the point by quite a margin.

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you mustn't say "bastards" these days as it > offends those born out of wedlock and is very > un-PC. I put "lunatics running the asylum" on this > forum and was given a wigging as it offends real > lunatics. Beware the soppy PC bunch! Again, as per your previous attempt to be "humorous" regarding that thread, utter BS. One person objected to the use of the phrase; everybody else objected to your frothing demand that a person who had killed another should just be left alone by police without due process because you'd already decided on what happened.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No charges but the crossbow was confiscated > > https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/grandmother- > fires-crossbow-machete-wielding-12382814 > > Didn't even know crossbows were legal - as it was > confiscated I suppose they aren't Completely legal for over-18s, surprised they're not used more often in criminal activity to be honest. Same caveats as carrying knives or a baseball bat apply though in terms of intent.

Quia Differt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However ( ! ) there is one teensy-weensy little > problem with your analysis is that it was NOT The > Tories who brought in these dreaded FOBT's it was > "Friends Of The Common Man and Working Class- The > LABOUR Party who were responsible for this > atrocity that has ruined so many people's lives. I believe I actually acknowledged that above; I don't deny that the Labour party under Tony Blair did indeed introduce this. The current Labour party, and especially shadow chancellor Tom Watson, are campaigning to rectify this, and the government are refusing to do so.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This has definitely become a major ED weekend > activity... (Pointing at artisan > cheese-shop/deli/pop-up/market-stall) "Yes, it's > become our fave (they never use it) and the > bread's a little expensive (they got caught with a > loaf of Allinson's) but their cheese is to die for > (Dad-in-law is a Brie bore)..." Favourite line ever of Marty Crane from Frasier: Frasier: Would you like to come dad? The food there's to die for! Marty: Your country, your family and your freedom are to die for, son. Food's for eatin'.

SpringTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > A horse died at Aintree three days ago. The > Grand > > National was always designed to be a testing > > curcuit with more regard for spectacle than the > > safety of horses. Even though today, more focus > is > > on safety, a horse stil dies jumping Becher's > > Brook, and for what? So someone somewhere can > make > > a few quid. To me, horse racing is no different > to > > fox hunting. It pushes horses to their limits > and > > opens them up to completely preventable stress > and > > injury just so that someone can get a jolly > > somewhere. The saddest thing is how those > horses > > that do manage to survive a life of racing end > up > > when their trainers no longer want them. > > > Wild horses die too. Not by breaking their necks jumping obstacles they're urged on to face by humans with whips, they don't. Horses aren't natural jumpers, they'll always go round an obstacle unless danger threatens.

womanofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pugwash ,you have to pay for Which magazine I > think. I've seen some articles mention a dualit > kettle but it's quite pricey 🤔 Sorry to link to a S*n article but they have all the results of the Which kettle test here with no need to pay: https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/2181585/the-best-kettles-revealed-including-one-that-costs-just-12/

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All the commotion and outrage when the Gowlett > closed down. What a terrible loss to the area. > > and since it reopened not a frigging peep. does > anyone actually ever go there. ?? You've always been peculiarly hostile to the Gowlett, did they refuse you service or something? It's open again, what are people going to post about? Do you post regularly "Went down the EDT last night, it was still open"? I nipped in there (Gowlett) for a pint the other day and it was quite full, didn't feel the need to let out a "frigging peep" about it here though.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I always look and see how many of the poor > creatures were put down after- it used to be a > lot...especially the National Hunt races > obviously- > and as for the proliferation of gambling most of > you voted for her! > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1474933/Op > ponents-of-new-gambling-law-are-snobs-says-Tessa-J > owell.html And you presumably voted for the current lot, who could this month have reduced the maximum bet on fixed-odds terminals to ?2 (as requested by the opposition) but decided (under pressure from the bookmakers, who, in an odd coincidence, are major party donors) to set it so that a gambler can still lose ?30 every twenty seconds. It's this government that has also rejected Labour's call for a compulsory levy on bookmakers to pay for gambling addiction treatment.

cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure anyone is suggesting businesses give up > their legally owned land or getting into CPOs are > they? Well, without them the shopowners are legally entitled to put their advertising boards on their own land, so how else are Southwark going to get them to take them down?

I don't get this at all; if the shops own the area outside their doors, they could presumably, if they wished, completely rail it off, fill it with displays or tables, or whatever. Perhaps they should be being commended for, for the most part, keeping the spaces generally clear rather than castigated for having a perfectly legal advertisement on their own property? Penguin's point nails it - how many of us would be happy to give up our front garden, which we'd paid for and owned, without recompense, to widen the pavement?

budleigh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've made vegan cheese at home and they usually > have about 3-4 "natural" ingredients (carrot, > potato, nutritional yeast, maybe some oil). hardly > lab processed. Any tips for the best recipes? My old man is a keen (non-vegan) cheese maker (blessed are they etc) and is always complaining that he can't find a good recipe for making stuff for me.

tomskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, I'm not talking about resources. I don't worry > too much about my intake of meat and dairy as I'm > sure it's way below average for a westerner. And > what I do eat is free range or organic. But I do > worry about eating highly mucked about with > manufactured food that spends much of it's life in > a lab such as, I suspect, vegan "bacon" and vegan > "cheese". You could say regular cheese is highly processed and "mucked about with", couldn't you? It's one of the earliest processed foods!

The French Pyrenees, in my opinion, have the best people in all of France, wonderful wine, great food and such a relaxed attitude to life. Many happy weeks spent down there, superb walking, cycling and general loafing around.

wayne10 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just finished a burger with vegan bacon and > cheese and I have say I'm pleasantly surprised, It > tasted smokey and the texture was a unique melt in > the mouth. Other vegan burgers I've had in the > past have disappointed me due to being bland and > cardboardy, one of my favourite burgers I > discovered was by Linda McCartney but.... I didn't > think I would be saying this, this burger from > them has out done the Linda ones for me. I wasn't > a huge fan of the Mac & cheese as it wasn't to > flavoursome. The churros are to die for! So all in > all, I am definitely going to be a regular > customer and I think its fab! Thanks for the review Wayne, I shall definitely be trying it out!

tomskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't you vegans worry about the enormous amount > of food processing that goes in to manufacturing > something called vegan "cheese" and vegan "bacon". Thanks, I won't. Have you worried about the amount of processing that goes into providing meat and dairy? The figures are easily accessible online, have a bingo. I'll give you a quick precis if you can't be bothered, per kilo beef takes 1500% more land than soya, 1000% more fossil fuel, 2000% more water and 600% more chemicals (pesticides etc).