rendelharris

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damn - my first time back for several months and I > find myself agreeing with Rendel. Sorry Robbin, sure it won't happen again!

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > yes it is, think about it and the relationship of > the indemnity cover provided. A third party cannot > be penalised because you have failed to meet your > side of the contract and the contract is still > extant between the first 2 parties - this is basic > insurance practice. Otherwise every TP claim would > be rejected where a car was deemed unroadworthy > after an accident .walk away from google and have > a think. No need for the rudeness. Yes, the insurer will still pay out to a third party, but if you don't have an MOT the insurer will then claim those costs back from you, therefore your insurance is, de facto, invalid - ultimately you will pay, not the insurer.

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No it doesn't, Insurance is still valid > irrespective of the condition etc of the car but > as you have broken the terms of the agreement > between you and the insurer, then they will take > you to task for their losses. this is basic stuff. So in other words, yes your insurance is effectively invalid as if the insurer has to pay out to a 3rd party they will then recover that payment from you, and they won't pay out on any claim of your own? Just checked the website of Mrs.H's insurers, Liverpool Victoria, which says: Why do I need an MOT? Your insurance is invalid without one. If you don't have an MOT then your car insurance won't cover you in an accident. This means you'll need to pay for any repairs to your car yourself and cover the costs of any other drivers involved if you are at fault. And, if your insurance is invalid, you could also receive a fine and points on your licence. So at least for that company it's not "basic stuff"!

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's insured Not if it hasn't got tax or an MOT it isn't, is it? Insurance is automatically invalid if you don't keep those up to date, surely?

Peckhamguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Haha what the hell funny person > I don?t need to cover up nothing, everyone knows > me on here and they know what I?m about ,witch is > nothing of the sort thank you 🥂 > Very silly Yes I think we're all clear what you're about, you went to look at a neo-nazi site and came back saying there was nothing bad on it. If your initial comment was so sensible and justifiable, why have you deleted it?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If someone wants to access a female changing room, > do you really think that applying to change their > legal status, their passport, there driver?s > licence, bank accounts etc etc, is the easiest way > to do it? No of course not, but surely the point is that if/when this is accepted people will be able to say they're identifying as a particular gender and access spaces reserved for that gender without having to offer proof? If facilities like the leisure centre started asking to see a passport as proof of gender before allowing people to use the facilities that would start another avenue of protest, not to mention extreme embarrassment.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As I?ve said already, the idea that lots of men > will legally change their sex and chose to live as > women in order to access female only spaces for > nefarious purposes seems to me, far fetched. I think you're absolutely right, there certainly won't be "lots" of men doing it - but some might. The reason the proposed gender identification laws are worrying is that anyone could simply change their gender - and change it back again - as they pleased, simply by ticking a form, without any evidence of genuine transgender leanings (that's very poorly expressed, can't think of a good phrase) or in any way living as a woman. One can well imagine transphobic people deciding to use the proposed system to make a point, in fact were one that way inclined it'd be a gift, surely? I don't have any answers to this conundrum, but the changes out for consultation, if accepted, seem to me to be opening a very dangerous can of worms.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Peckham Rye, Scutari Road, Brenchley Gardens, all > to the west of Forest Hill Road so far. A small > geographic area. Probably isn?t significant of > anything more than they chose to slap a few up > quickly and run off. All locations where there are easy escapes into open areas if challenged, possibly? If they weren't so utterly vile their cowardice would be rather amusing.

Curmudgeon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You missed my point > > I object to women being the only ones deemed > relevant on the petition, and that men are > excluded > > If the transgendered community has been consulted > to the exclusion of all others, then the petition > should call for an open consultation > > I believe in transgendered rights, I also believe > in women?s rights, but not to the exclusion of > men?s rights > > You say ?We?ve all been cowed into silence by the > screams of ?transphobe, bigot? isn?t it time that > we put aside hypocrisy > > Transphobic or mysogynist? To me this signifies a > rise in misandry Logically and in isolation you're right. In the real world, how many women are going to be self-identifying as men in order to get into men's changing rooms or similar? Will that put men in danger? The negative aspects of allowing people rights according to their own self-identification regarding gender are going to fall overwhelmingly - and I mean overwhelmingly in the sense of 99.9999999% - on women. It's not misandry, it's just not wasting time, money and effort on something that really won't affect men.

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > flocker spotter Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > You should do some more research on Murray > and > > why > > > he was sacked and booted out of the > diplomatic > > > service - preferably not from his own endless > > > takes on the subject. You may also wish to > > check > > > out his fellow travellers for a bit more > > > perspective. > > > > As I recall, he was charged with a number of > > misconduct offences (after making repeated > > complaints about the US obtaining evidence in > > Uzbekistan through torture) and was exonerated > of > > all charges, but was sacked for talking to the > > press about them. Wasn't that what happened? > > > That is what Wikipedia states yes. The misuse of > HMG property ( a Range Rover) was an interesting > one. Didn't look on Wiki, was just saying what I remembered. What did he do with the Range Rover? Going to have to look it up now!

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You should do some more research on Murray and why > he was sacked and booted out of the diplomatic > service - preferably not from his own endless > takes on the subject. You may also wish to check > out his fellow travellers for a bit more > perspective. As I recall, he was charged with a number of misconduct offences (after making repeated complaints about the US obtaining evidence in Uzbekistan through torture) and was exonerated of all charges, but was sacked for talking to the press about them. Wasn't that what happened?

There's a Roy Croft living in Rotherhithe who might fit the bill - try 192.com, it really only works if you pay but only a couple of quid. Hope your dad finds his mate, let us know if he does!

Captain Kernow Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Absolutely and on that subject, I followed up on > my report today. Local Borough police are aware > and keeping an eye out and as I mentioned > yesterday this has been escalated to anti-terror. Good work sir, thanks for taking the trouble. They may be few in number, but as my mate who had her head cracked open by a neo-nazi skinhead wielding a bottle at a GLC gig in Jubilee Gardens in the '80s can attest, it only takes one...

Pathetic. That the best you've got? By the way it's useless to try and cover your tracks by editing out your first message, as it's been quoted several times. Calling people objecting to neo-nazis snowflakes - the term is used almost exclusively by very, very stupid people, but I think yours is actually the stupidest I've come across. Well done, you must be jolly proud of yourself.

Peckhamguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Went on the site and could not find much wrong as > there is loads of news articles on there about > police scandals ,Muslim grooming gangs etc will > have a better look on the site but the articles > they have put up are all true as people have been > prosecuted for all offences labelled on there, you > lot must have seen something I did not see. Opened the site and the very first thing to catch the eye is "ZERO TOLERANCE FOR NON-WHITE RACES," then "Turn off the electric Jew" (whatever that means), "Paki rape gangs coming to your town soon" and "Hail AIDS" - a link to a charming video explaining that "AIDS is a cure for faggotry." If that comes under your definition of "not much wrong" ...

Thanks for organising again AM, good fun.

Portable, untraceable, sell on eBay for up to ?1500.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Some people with children but not dogs also own > and use the park > 2. There is dog drinking trough by the public loos > which is more than adequate provision. Abe, in what way would it impose upon people with children but not dogs to ask the contractors not to dump their waste in the stream? I genuinely don't understand your first point.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He seems like an experienced troll. His style is > familiar Yes I suspect he's been here in other guises. Sad, isn't it?

BillBobDee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > BillBobDee Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I have better to things to do in my life than > > be > > > in Sainsburys for 2 & a half hours, thanks > for > > the > > > tip though, i'm sure someone far less > > interesting > > > than me will find it helpful. > > > > If you've got time to leave a comment as > pointless > > as that, the evidence would appear to > contradict > > your opening clause. > > > I would respond to this but like I said earlier, I > have far better things to do then respond to your > rather rude message.......enjoy the supermarket > car parks, there's one next to Lidl in Peckham you > might enjoy too The only rudeness was your stupid, pointless trolling comment. As per my comment on another thread, grow up or move on.

BillBobDee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gentrification has ruined Lordship lane, I fondly > recall the days in Dulwich when one could whip out > ones cock & bollocks freely in public without the > fear of judgment, abuse or someone with a > smartphone eagerly filming it for their own > titillation, the worlds gone mad. > > I for one will now think twice before I whip out > my 'man giblets' for a relaxing, airing on the > street, I may move to Sydenham where residents are > far more liberal, such a shame. You've been a member of this forum for less than a fortnight, in which time you've posted five messages, mostly childish, braggardly, unfunny and in this case downright disgraceful. Grow up or ship out.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Corbyn mis-judged what he said, what he clearly > missed is that this is incident is not party > political but rather in the national interest. If you think May hasn't got an eye open for the opportunities this gives her to get a statesmanlike boost for her premiership (what good did it do for her to be shown round the park bench in question yesterday - and what did it cost in policing and transport?) you're much more trusting than I.

Boris Johnson giving a speech on this matter this lunchtime - at the Battle of Britain Bunker museum. This is getting absurd. I've always suspected politicians think it's only a war that lets them be really statesmanlike - Thatcher/Falklands, Major/Gulf I, Blair/Gulf II etc. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity..."

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HI RH. Clearly Gavin Williamson is MORE mad. But I > still think the tone of Corbyn's comments was > ill-judged. There would have been a way of > sounding statesmanlike about this. And he didn't > manage it. I agree he could have sounded better - his best mates wouldn't call him a great speaker - though I would add the caveat that it's rather difficult to get a reasonable point across with the entire Tory party shrieking "traitor" over you. His article in the Guardian is perhaps a better vehicle by which to judge him: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/15/salisbury-attack-conflict-britain-cold-war

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi John L. I don't know what's motivating Corbyn. > But the trouble is that his comments sounded at > best naive, and at worst a little mad. I can see > that the Labour Party has managed to pull its > message round on this now - but it's not good > enough really, is it? May hasn't completely > screwed this one up in my view. Which of course > doesn't excuse the fact that she and the Brexit > ultras are hurrying us down the road marked 'ever > decreasing international influence', without any > thought for the consequences. With all respect, Jenny, I don't see calling for a measured assessment of the evidence ("To rush way ahead of the evidence being gathered by the police, in a fevered parliamentary atmosphere, serves neither justice nor our national security") and a proportionate and effective response ("We agree with the government?s action in relation to Russian diplomats, but measures to tackle the oligarchs and their loot would have a far greater impact on Russia?s elite than limited tit-for-tat expulsions?) as either naive or mad, if anything, it's statesmanlike - more statesmanlike than saying "Russia should shut up and go away," at any rate.