rendelharris

almost peckham Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendell H wrote > > Not doubting your veracity, but I live on > Copleston less than a hundred yards from that > junction, and I walk, cycle and occasionally ride > the bus through it many, many times a week at peak > and off-peak times and I've noticed none of this > at all. > > Well, you are doubting my veracity, really. Aren't > you, Rendell? > I must be quite unlucky, then. About 6ish on a > weekday can be pretty chaotic. Are you doubting > the increase in traffic on those roads since CG > has been shut? No I'm really not, just saying that's not my experience. I agree that traffic has increased on Bellenden, Mcneill etc, I haven't noticed any increase on Copleston or at that junction.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've just been reading about the dead burglar and > some of his lovely feral family members. It's > quite shocking! Pretty vile people. Good candidates for Commissioner Dick's new "Al Capone" strategy perhaps, get them out of circulation through any legitimate means.

almost peckham Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Since Camberwell Grove has been shut a lot of > traffic has been displaced to > Avondale/Bellenden/Choumert/Danby/Copleston. This > has resulted in the Avondale/Copleston crossroads > being really quite dangerous at certain times of > the day. Traffic jams, arguments, car horns, P13 > buses blocking part of the junction because car > drivers tend not to cede to them as they wait to > get down Avondale. Absolute loss of sightlines for > pedestrians, cyclists, kids, dog walkers - anyone > really. Plenty of pollution. And many drivers, > venting frustration, once able to, speed off down > adjoining streets at dangerous speeds. So, while > some are having a lovely time tootling up and down > CG many others (cyclists included) are at the risk > of injury and generally tolerating a shitty > atmosphere just round the corner. Not doubting your veracity, but I live on Copleston less than a hundred yards from that junction, and I walk, cycle and occasionally ride the bus through it many, many times a week at peak and off-peak times and I've noticed none of this at all.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh do be quiet Rendel . > > Your constant derailing of threads to take offence > is getting boring . > > "nobody finds offensive except in one context " it > appears that you now feel entitled to speak for > everyone . Nothing like working out old grudges, is there? Hope you feel better now. You will, if you're not blinded by your desire to avenge perceived past slights, notice that it was RPC who "took offence" and took the thread off topic by complaining about the use of the term lunatic, not me.

hammerman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Charming Rendel, exclaiming that RPC is being > tiresome and a bit confused about a word! > > Surely they are entitled to their opinion. > > Then again, you do love taking over a lot of > threads with tiresome descriptive words etc. etc. What's truly charming is accusing people of being insensitive about mental health, and apparently as bad as someone who uses foul racial insults, for using a term that (as proved by the examples above) nobody finds offensive except in one context (in the medical lexicon). It's really not on to be casting slurs at people on the basis of some linguistic value system you've made up yourself. I'm sorry you find the use of adjectives tiresome.

I'm rather fond of the phrase "He's completely hatstand" (derived from the Viz character Roger Irrelevant, as far as I can recall), also "Mad as a box of frogs" though doubtless RPC would take me to task for that. Look, the thing is, language use changes over time, obviously - it was fascinating, hearing all the wonderful speeches of MLK yesterday for the anniversary, to see how often he used the word "negro", something that's obviously become unacceptable. But what you can't have is someone suddenly creating their own rules (based on a miscomprehension, I believe - nobody calls mental health patients lunatics any more, or the institutions that help them lunatic asylums, but that does not mean the word lunatic in other contexts is regarded as offensive) and then accusing other people, using a word in a sense that's in general use (by the Guardian for heaven's sake, how much more confirmation that it's not un-PC do you need?), of being like people saying "Paki" or "Gyppo." Weird thread this for me, the EDF's "leading bleeding heart liberal PITA" (forget who it was called me that, but obviously a title borne with pride) not only defending the boys in blue and the due process of the law but having to defend against a charge of un-PC language! ETA Interesting comment from my little sister: "Because it's wrong to call someone a retard, is it still wrong to call someone emotionally retarded?" Minefield.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendel, your examples don't make it OK to use an > outdated, pejorative word simply because it's in a > slightly different context. Using the words keeps > the bias alive, even if it's being used > indirectly. Looks like the changing of attitudes > to mental health has a way to go around here. You're just being tiresome - my examples clearly show that even the most politically correct of media outlets don't think there's anything wrong with using the word; indeed you're the only person I've ever seen making a fuss about it. The idea that saying "nuclear war would be lunacy" is somehow derogatory to people with mental health problems is, frankly, lunacy itself. I fear you're a bit confused about how language works, I've tried to explain but clearly however much it's proved to you that using the term lunatic when not referring to someone with MH problems is not regarded as offensive you're just going to carry on saying "yes it is" without evidence, so let's leave it there. ETA and what's not OK, very much not, is accusing someone using a word which, as I've demonstrated, is regarded as perfectly acceptable in common speech and in the media, of being as bad as someone saying "Paki." That's both an unjustified and frankly spiteful way of desperately trying to justify your non argument.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Robert Poste's Child Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > 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. > > Except that the word still includes the MH > connotation so it's always there in the resonance. > 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. For most people it isn't, I don't believe. And by equating saying "the lunatics are taking over the asylum" to saying "Paki" or "Gyppo" you're just being silly. In what way, seriously, could someone use the same argument I used above to justify those terms? Nonsense. ETA Actually I really object to the link you've drawn between my argument and those of your erstwhile friend, with the clear implication I'm just as bad. Quick Google throws up the following: "This Brexit leak shines a light on our collective lunacy about immigration" "Australia, China, and the lunacy of Trump's talk of a trade war" "How the lunatic fringe conquered world politics" "Lunatic coaches, controlling managers and overzealous parents are wrecking kids' sport " I could give many more examples, but they'll do. Those are all headlines, from the last year, from that bastion of political incorrectness, The Guardian. "it hasn't been an acceptable label in the lifetime of anyone using this forum" eh? I rest my case.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Depressing that no one but me seems to have an > issue with the use of 'lunatic'. I'm pretty sure > it hasn't been an acceptable label in the lifetime > of anyone using this forum. 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.

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let's just accept that the Law is an Ass, and the > lunatics are running the asylum. No let's not, let's accept that the police are doing their job, which is to investigate violent deaths fully, including questioning under caution all those involved, and that the only lunatics are those who appear to believe that due process should be replaced by some form of adhoc justice administered by the police.

Peckhamguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Flicking through old posh joes comments haha u r a > proper blogger, I?m working long hours wile u lay > back on edf sipping ya frappe it?s rather funny > coming home to these comments and most times I > don?t come back for a couple days as I rather get > my head down as I have no choice in life and have > to work to live and earn my stuff, nothing is > handed to me over here lol 🥄🥄 You mean JoeLeg the former infantryman and current chef (that well known stress-free easy living occupation)? If you want to pick on someone for being effete and not working as hard as some for what they've got, have a go at me, I'm an easy target, but trying to attack him on those grounds just makes you look even more of an utter plonker than you do already. (Apologies to JL who is more than capable of fighting his own corner but one really can't let this sort of twattery go unanswered)

siousxiesue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This happened to me once, in the dentist near Post > Office LL. I was paying quite a lot over a few > weeks/months and did pay the fine for missing an > appointment, but when the dentist treating me went > though my charges she refunded it! Was that Nicola by any chance? Sounds like her - a wonderful dentist and lovely person - shame she's moved to Australia!

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh do stop preaching, Malumbu. My posts weren't > ranting, they were exploring what has been > reported and what that suggests. Other people are > as entitled as you to share their views, surely. I don't speak for Malumbu, RPC, but I'd hazard a guess his post wasn't aimed at you in the slightest but at the OP and certain other well-known frothers.

SpringTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So the old boy appears to be made the victim > twice. People should have every right to defend > themselves and theirs. I hope that the law sides > with the gentleman and acts as a precedent that > favours victims of crime as opposed to lending > further licence to criminals. People do have every right to defend themselves with reasonable force (and that can include force that results in death). But when they do, clearly it is necessary for the circumstances to be fully investigated. If I call the police and they find a dead person in my hall, and I say they attacked me in the course of a burglary and I stabbed them in self defence, should the police then say right you are sir, we'll be on our way? Or is it their duty, and the duty of the legal process, to check my story's true by a full and thorough investigation (this including, as per procedure, placing me under caution and taking me to a police station - this has to be done for "anything you say may be used in evidence" purposes). I really don't see why it's so difficult for this to be understood, particularly as several of those frothing away above are those who are continually bemoaning the decline in the rule of law.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > From the reports thus far it sounds as if this > > gent was defending himself and if so hopefully > all > > charges will be dropped - after a full and > > properly conducted investigation. > > I haven't read anywhere that he has been charged > with anything (so there's no charges to drop). > He's only been arrested, which means he will > presumably be interviewed and eventually the CPS > will make a charging decision based on the facts > known to them. The police have a job to do, which > is to investigate - where someone has died, they > cannot take things at face value without first > checking what is being said/what might have > happened. Yes sorry, my error - should have said if it's determined he was defending himself then no charges will be brought, after (agreeing with you again!) a full investigation.

sidebirds Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > rendelharris Wrote: > > > > > - > > Peckhamguy's absurd statement that "the true > > working class who has never had nothing handed > to > > them on a plate the ones who actually see the > real > > world" > > Nothing wrong with the quoted statement. The > working-classes get it in the neck first and > millions of them are righteously p*ssed off after > having their wishes flouted by several decades of > elected politicians. Nothing wrong with the quoted statement? You are aware that the context of the quoted statement was the claim that the working classes who've never had anything handed to them etc etc would agree with Peckhamguy that there was nothing wrong with a neo-nazi website? You're getting rather silly in your desperate attempts to seem righteous now. ETA The full sentence of which you've quoted part was: Just objecting to Peckhamguy's absurd statement that "the true working class who has never had nothing handed to them on a plate the ones who actually see the real world" would agree with him - plenty of my mates fit that description and don't think neo-nazis are OK. Nice bit of selective quotation.

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps these proselytising bleeding hearts might > feel a little differently if it was their house > and family invaded and threatened in the night by > this vicious filth? Presuming that's me, I would defend my family to the utmost degree - but if I stabbed someone to death in the course of doing so I would accept that the police have to follow procedure and investigate fully. It's called the rule of law, something everyone has to abide by - something frothing rightwing types are always claiming to fully support, unless of course they've decided on the basis of a couple of news reports that they know all the ins and outs of a case, then apparently it's OK to disregard the law and for them and their ilk to act as judge and jury. From the reports thus far it sounds as if this gent was defending himself and if so hopefully all charges will be dropped - after a full and properly conducted investigation. That's how it works, you see. Funny for a bleeding heart liberal to be more supportive of the law of the land than those who reckon themselves great defenders of same, isn't it?

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It'll never come to court - a pensioner defending > himself against two attackers in his own home, and > one is fatally injured in the course of committing > a crime. Absolutely - but the decision will be made by the CPS, APB seems to be complaining that the police didn't make an on-the-spot judgement and leave him alone.

Somebody's killed in a stabbing and the police should have just made their own judgement on the spot, taken the word of the person who's killed someone else (whether justifiably or not) that it was self-defence and leave them alone? Do you seriously not see how absurd that would be?

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendelh yes you?re trying to be nice. > But your still totally wrong Would you care to expand on that? What particularly do you object to in what I've said?

Amy A Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Second, there is an uncomfortable edge on this > thread of people mocking Peckhamguy's lack of > literacy, for example.... Amy, you really are not so much flogging a dead horse as a non-existent one here. I've taken the trouble to go back and look at every comment on this thread; one person made fun of Peckhamguy's use of English, and that was to say that he should get an earlier night and his English might be better as a consequence. Personally I took that as implying that as PG's posts were often in the early hours of the morning that he was one over the eight when posting. Be that as it may, that's the one post making fun of his English (if it is). > I really don't want this to come across as a group > of posh people ganging up on a working class > person and part of some kind of East Dulwich > gentrification culture war. Because that is > unpleasant in itself, and I think unhelpful in > this specific case. I don't believe it would to anyone who views it objectively; it's a group of people who object to someone supporting a neo-nazi website, and to his replies which imply that he somehow has some "genuine" knowledge, due to his claimed class (I still can't help wondering if he is in fact an adolescent troll), which makes him right in his lack of objection to an utterly vile organisation. He was, incidentally, in his replies, quite rude to everyone else - far ruder than anyone has been to him - but you seem determined somehow to posit him as an injured party. This thread started as a warning about neo-nazi posters, then became criticism - perfectly fair criticism - of someone who was offering tacit support for neo-nazis. The only things that have made it about a "gentrification culture war" have been your posts, which with all due respect I think have been somewhat hairtrigger in finding offence where no grounds for it exist (and before anyone else says it, I'm quite capable of doing that myself). I don't doubt your heart's in the right place, and if people had behaved in the way you seem to think they have towards PG your comments would be justified, but they haven't, and so I think to a large extent they're not.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kford Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Some sad quitters are doing this to their own > cars > > apparently. > > Taking back control. Perhaps we could have black > and white plates again. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/786435/BREXIT-BOMBSHELL-EU-demands-UK-number-plate-RECALLED-2019

Amy A Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And for those on this thread talking about the > limited word view of the white working classes, I > know you qualified it with 'some', but it's still > a bit offensive. There are loads of white working > class people who aren't bigots. Indeed, and there are some who are - as demonstrated on this thread. And there are plenty of the middle classes who are and more than plenty of the upper class. Why is it offensive to say that some of any class are bigots when it's patently true?

Mr.Mayor has put some pictures of his visit today up on the his Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/sadiqforlondon/?hc_ref=ARQZPVmoCi3jqUoYPy86KcJ6VjClg_Wos3-NVlM8aZ-ei2jIMGTKmAJCJ566i9K_dcU&fref=nf

Got anything constructive to contribute sidebirds, or are you just bored and filling the time with a bit of (frankly low quality) trolling? P.S. I don't speak for JoeLeg and have never met him, but I know he's a former serviceman so I suggest he probably has a lot more experience of the "real" workingclass than you - and nothing in what he's said suggests that he is in any way snobbish as you try to imply.