rendelharris

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know - I'm not going to go through all the > obvious things, but removing Junk from their title > (i.e. main selling point) would be a good start. They haven't put junk in their title at all, it's not mentioned anywhere in their website - that's just something Wayne put in his thread title. They're called Vegan Plates East Dulwich. Personally as someone who's been a vegan for three decades, I loved meat before giving it up on ethical/environmental grounds and anything that's a good simulacrum of a hot dog or a burger will get me through the door!

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am pretty sure Royal Mail (and prior to that the > Post Office) has always set the price of stamps, > obviously taking into account the money the > government required it to raise. I seem to recall it was Ofcom who set the caps on stamp prices pre-privatisation?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi rendelharris, > GP's are all private businesses. That's been the > case since the NHS was founded. I didn't say they weren't James (though it's a bit of a misnomer as although they're self employed all their wages, staff costs and premises costs are paid by the government), but if the government decides to cut funding for GP surgeries and move towards a private model we'll experience closures just the same.

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Kford is very naughty. I also used the word > "scum" in the Hither Green thread and was severely > admonished as only unpleasant people used that > word about the criminal classes. That is such BS. You were criticised on the Hither Green thread for your ridiculous ranting at the police for arresting someone who had killed someone else while they investigated what had actually happened. Get your nose out of the Daily Mail and try using your brain instead of whining about political correctness etc, it's so boring.

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Royal Mail has to stand on > its own feet now and there's just no way loads of > local sorting offices are remotely viable given > that reality. This is doubtless what we'll be being told about the NHS in a few years - multiple GP surgeries are no longer viable, the NHS has to stand on its own feet now...what's wrong with a vital national service remaining in government control and getting a helping hand (not a very large one, in governmental terms) from our taxes?

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jim1234 what has this got to do with the LDs? Vince Cable as Business Secretary in the coalition oversaw the privatisation of Royal Mail in 2013, selling it at a ridiculously low price (within six months shares were trading at an 87% premium). Unions and experts warned that privatisation would lead to exactly the sort of closures ED has now experienced.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agreed! > > I too experienced the Cold War and recall being > terrified as a kid at some of it. It generally > pays not to watch the news - which is a problem if > you're addicted to it like I am! > > I'm very suspicious of the whole thing - TM just > wants to keep in with POTUS (no bad thing up to a > point) but I wouldn't be at all surprised if some > bunch of desperate religious zealots on the verge > of defeat set off chlorine gas themselves, with > the hope of getting someone to intervene and come > to their rescue. But then it is at least as > likely it was the regime. Either way, for the > reasons I have already mentioned I can't agree its > a good idea to intervene with token bombing. I read an interesting piece by John Pilger recently (he talks equal amounts of truth and raving conspiracy theory, in my experience) about last year's alleged chemical attack. According to him, satellite images of the Syrian air force loading up Russian munitions showed none of the usual precautions that are routine when handling chemical weapons, and the warheads weren't even the right shape. What he posited is that in areas where ISIS were rampant, farm people tended to flock to the towns for safety; unwilling to leave behind their assets for looters, they would bring their stores of fertiliser, weedkiller etc with them and store them in warehouses. Pilger suggested that conventional missiles had hit one of these warehouses and that was what had released poisonous gas; he claimed that independent observers had verified this. I have no way of knowing how true that theory is, but it's an interesting alternative explanation.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I will have a go at the as a matter of course - > I don't care who said what since the responses are > so predictable...in your bourgie way You want to take some water with it, Uncle...

I don't like the police overreaching themselves using the "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" regs, but this would seem an obvious place to use it; the people leaving tributes have been back twice to replace ones which have been torn down, it's only a matter of time before a physical confrontation happens. Seems a clear case of deliberate provocation and must be not only terrifying for Mr.Brooks but also extremely concerning for all the neighbours.

All? Didn't quote me, mmph.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where I can't see common ground is the conclusion > drawn by Rendel from RPC's "I used to have a > friend who used your argument every time she > described something low-quality using the horrible > abbreviation for Pakistani or a derogatory term > for traveller." that he is accused of being the > same as someone saying "P" or "G". I believe there's a clear implication that there is an equivalency - the fact that RPC hasn't suggested otherwise in multiple subsequent posts would seem to support that. ETA - if not, why even mention it?!

A very sensible summation poch, thank you.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > when rendel leapt with his boots on Just to remind you, as you seem to have built this up in your mind into some terrible personal attack, I politely disagreed with your statement regarding the word lunatic, thus: It's not - for describing people with mental illness. As a common epithet for silly - "The lunatic plan for a garden bridge" - I've never seen it suggested before that it's wrong to use it. It's all context, one wouldn't call a child with learning difficulties stupid but that doesn't mean it's offensive to say "that's a stupid plan." Nor have I ever seen it suggested that the phrase "the lunatics have taken over the asylum" as used above is offensive, it's certainly still in common use. Bad news for Funboy Three residuals if it's wrong. Language is morally neutral. It has > no value or fixed meaning of its own: it exists > purely to express our ideas and pass them on to > other people. We customise and reinvent it > endlessly to do that. Exactly - so words which once held a stigma can, over time, become inoffensive when they take on a different use. (slightly bewildered as to why you think > someone with access to the media writing about it > is any more 'evidence' than us talking about it), I have no idea what that means. > (PS: the traveller word wasn't the one rendel > used.) Whatever the word was, you still accused me, basically, of being as bad as someone using the word "Paki", and that was both rude and absurd. ETA You are, seriously, the only person I've ever encountered who objects to the use of the word "lunatic" in a non-medical context, and I've worked with a number of mental health professionals and mental health charities. And I'm tiresomely politically correct...I think you're just wrong on this one. You haven't answered Joe's question at all, which was are we now not allowed to say something's crazy, mad, daft, stupid?

Administrator Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Look, he's obviously a knob and he's been banned. Hats off to you there Admin, thanks.

Can't see anything to disagree with in the above from P.O.U.S. Anecdotally, having once employed an electrician who saw fit to make racial jokes about my (second generation England born but of Asian heritage) wife, I'd be glad to know of tradesmen who hold such opinions.

Deliberate choice of word Uncle? Glad to hear it, looking at the majority of your posts I assumed they were just created by a random Daily Mail froth generator. If you took two seconds to look at the discussion, you'd see that it is actually RPC who's arguing for a more PC form of language, saying we mustn't use the term "lunatic" in any context because it's offensive to those with MH issues, and I argued against that. RPC actually obviously feels sincerely about this and I rather regret being quite so aggressive about it (though I wasn't until I was accused of being the same as someone saying "Paki" or "Gyppo"). However, you're just jumping without an ounce of thought on the opportunity to have a go at "the PC brigade" without thinking at all about who's said what. But I'm guessing you don't often engage the old brain before rushing to comment.

Hmmm...Admin does a great job, and very grateful for facilitating the forum, but I must say I can't see anything posted by Blah that's as offensive as Peckhamguy's support for neo-nazism - or indeed particularly offensive in any way - and if that's a PM from SoD that's implicitly threatening to the level that could be legally actionable, isn't it? Can't really see why Blah (with whom I have no connection) should be sanctioned when someone supporting a neo-nazi website isn't. Maybe Blah shouldn't have taken it elsewhere on the forum, but PG is, prima facie, a neo-nazi sympathiser: "I gave my opinion that I feel there is nothing wrong [with this website, https://gab.ai/SRNETWORK, sample comment "Zero tolerance for non-white races]", which I think most people on here would agree is not to be encouraged...

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not worth a reply. Missed the point totally. > Pathetic. In other words, you don't have a reply. I've answered your "point" (such as it was) in full, and in detail - but then facts aren't really your thing, are they?

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does the ever so PC rendelharris not think that if > we ranters and the public outrage that followed > not occurred that the lethargic wheels of justice > would have got around to releasing our Hero so > quickly?? A similar incident in Catford last > December when a violent drunken intruder was > killed, strangely attracted little public > attention or outcry and the brave householder was > hauled up to face a murder charge months later at > doubtless huge public expense, before being > summarily acquitted by the jury. No actually I don't, the police and judiciary have their faults but thank goodness they are not generally influenced by the likes of you baying for blood. OK, the case you mentioned in Catford: a drunken man with mental health issues (and no weapon) stumbled into someone's home late at night. After a struggle the "brave householder" (your words) managed to throw him into the garden and went inside and locked the door. He (the homeowner) then got a knife, unlocked the door, went back into the garden and stabbed the intruder fifty times, including thirty times in the neck, killing him. The two cases are not in the slightest bit comparable, taking the man in the Catford case to court was entirely justifiable and frankly I'm astonished he got away with a justification of self defence given the frenzied nature of the violence and the fact that he had secured his safety, then chose to abandon it in order to carry out the attack. I recall at the time legal experts criticising the CPS, saying that if they'd gone for manslaughter rather than murder as the charge he would in all likelihood have been found guilty. ETA and by the way, the defendant in that case himself had severe mental health issues, and admitted to police that he was "in a rage" and had "lost control". But still, yeah, the police and CPS should have just done nothing about it. But of course you see everything as black and white, "heroes" and "scum", so pointing out that policing and the legal process are highly nuanced, complex, require handling by experts and should not be rushed under pressure from a baying mob is probably a bit of a waste of time.

hammerman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Pensioner to face no charges - so, to address > the > > ranters who started the thread, police > > investigated quickly and efficiently, justice > done > > as it should be. > > > > ETA Crossed with BB > > Somebody started a perfectly reasonable thread at > the time but to call them a ranter? > > It does seem like you got your tuppence worth in > though Rendel! Not like you, obviously. Unbelievable. Pensioner attacked by two scum burglars in his home. He fights back and in the struggle stabs and kills one (pity not both). Police, who have given up on theft and burglaries, and with London streets littered with bodies,arrest the householder. I despair of this country. You don't regard that as a rant, and think it's "perfectly reasonable"?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And right on cue, here is the stupid attention > seeking troll again. Do not feed................. Oh stop picking on him because of his class Blah, this is just typical groups of middle class EDFers ganging up on a misunderstood chap...

Being disorganised this has happened to me frequently and makes me furious (partly at myself of course). Time limited gift vouchers should be banned, there's no conceivable justification for them - in fact the longer one doesn't spend a voucher the better for the store, as they've already got the cash so they can earn interest on it all the time you don't spend. Would be genuinely interested to know if anyone knows a justification beyond we'll make a profit if someone forgets?

Pensioner to face no charges - so, to address the ranters who started the thread, police investigated quickly and efficiently, justice done as it should be. ETA Crossed with BB

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If anything, this shows the limits of reaching > conclusions based on one's own limited, personal > experiences / impressions. Unfortunately, > evidence-based policy is a rare thing these days. > I am, for example, not aware of any exhaustive > study conducted on 20mph or on the cycle lanes, > before it was decided that those would be rolled > out throughout London. Rendel will remember our > discussions on these points! I do, I still have PTSD (Post-Traffic Symposium Disorder).

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendel, what's tiresome is how quickly you retreat > into moral outrage and personal attack when > someone has an opinion that's opposed to yours. > For what it's worth, I've worked in communication > and mental health so perhaps I just have a more > developed awareness around this than you do! No, RPC, have a look back at our exchange; I politely suggested that it was not offensive to use the term "lunatic" outwith a medical context. I took offence when you suggested that my argument was the equivalent to someone trying to justify saying "Paki" or "Gyppo." I would suggest that you would take offence at someone saying the same to you; you can't really expect to say things like that to someone and not have them react, can you? You haven't answered my point as to why, if the use of the word outwith the medical context is so offensive, even an entity which strives so hard to be PC as The Guardian sees no problem with using it? One person's "developed awareness" is another's "oversensitivity." I work with language, as both a writer and a teacher, maybe I have a more developed awareness of how that works than you? ETA If you want to criticise people for going off on one with moral outrage and personal attack, have a look at your own flareup at malumbu in this thread when he clearly wasn't even addressing you!