rendelharris

Unfortunately the fire brigade refuse to come out for cats in trees any more (unless the RSPCA come and decide they're needed). Do you have a ladder? Cats are pretty handy descending ladders, if you lean one up against the tree then retreat indoors it might well use it. Good luck!

Excellent.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And as I've said ,my first choice would be if > Rendelharris left me alone .But if he's going to > continue criticising me ,I will respond . Passing lightly over the fact that it was you who moved the discussion on the other thread from a debate to personal insults, for future reference I would suggest if you want someone to "leave you alone" (i.e. allow you to state your opinions unchallenged) starting a whole thread about them is not the best way to achieve that aim.

You really can't see the irony in whining about not being left alone because someone sent you a PM and a reply to your response, on the one hand, and starting a whole new thread specifically to attack someone on the other? Do unto others, etc...

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendall,Why have you put up an unread private > message again when itatm has asked you to leave > her/him alone? I do not believe itatm has been > aggressive, I'm curious to why you feel you should > share this message when itatm does not want to > read it. I also feel when posts are deleted, it is > difficult to tell if people are responding, > whether they read previous deleted post etc. Because I wished to make it clear that my message was not offensive or in some way out of order. You are entitled to your opinion as to ITATM's behaviour - personally I think starting a separate thread in the Lounge to "call me out" is somewhat aggressive.

Because the "other party" was responding to the personal attack your response contained.

I really think it's a very slippery slope to allow posters to start threads to "call out" others personally in public, quite surprised it's permitted.

Enough now, it's boring me so God knows how dull it must be for everyone else. Just give it up.

Give it up now old fruit, you've taken this far too far already - posting about me personally in the Lounge? I mean really, presumably you're a grown adult, have a little dignity.

For those interested, ITATM launched a personal attack on me on another thread for having the temerity to disagree with his/her views. Rather than carry on an unedifying argument in public, I sent him/her a polite private message defending myself. S/he responded saying s/he refused to read my message, so I answered saying it was a shame that s/he is so arrogant that they can't even bring themselves to read any criticism of their opinion. That's all - for reasons best known to him/herself s/he now wants to appear some hounded martyr. Rather pathetic really.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendel - > I've asked you to leave me alone ,you clearly > don't understand that this means do not send me > PMs . > > What on earth is the matter with you that you feel > the need to persue someone with inane criticisms ? Very well, as you refuse to read my personal message I'll post it on here for you. Kindly bear in mind that it was you who launched a personal attack on me, not vice versa. I thought I made it rather clear that I haven't enjoyed the discussion as I find it absurd that one has to try to defend people trying to be kind to others. I'm sorry that you've chosen to be so aggressive, I think you should note that it was you who began attacking people by calling them, and I quote, "misguided" "misdirected", guilty of a "kneejerk reaction" and "a delusion or pseudo helping behaviour." If you don't want your views criticized by those who disagree with them don't post them on a public forum would be my advice. Regards, R

(Deleted on a life's too short basis)

P.S. Bowing out of this thread now and thanks for the discussion; just realised I've spent half the morning when I should be working trying to defend people for showing a bit of charity and compassion, which suddenly strikes me as rather absurd.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Colluding with an ill person will keep them a > rough sleeper and increase their chance of dying > this winter. > A blanket won?t stop pneumonia. Let Streetlink do > their stuff. As already noted, Alice, this individual doesn't want institutional help. Streetlink have been alerted to his situation and I haven't noticed "their stuff" has made much of an improvement, have you? In general there is a case to be made that misplaced aid can worsen the problem, I agree, in this man's case, no.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "But the resources offered on here - it seems to > me - are things like the odd spare blanket or > leftover food, giving things like that to an > individual is not taking away resources which > could be given to an organisation." I disagree . Why? If someone takes him the remains of their Sunday roast they're not going to parcel it up and send it to the Sallies instead, are they? > I'm not sure why you're so keen on arguing with me > ,all I've said is that I think more could be > achieved by supporting organisations than by > direct help to individuals . It's hardly > inflammotory stuff . Because you didn't just say that, you said: "To me ,this thread represents a way in which individuals can feel that they are "doing something " ,helping . But I believe that their help is missdirected ,missguided .Greater benefit could be achieved by a regular donation to one of the charities that work with homeless people . Surely that's not hard to understand ? I guess "adopting" our own EDF homeless person creates a temporary glow and feeling that someone has been helped - I'm guilty of this when I hand over money to people in the street .For me it's a knee jerk reaction and makes me feel a bit better about myself and a little less guilty about the money I've just spent on myself in the shops . BUT I think it's a delusion or pseudo helping behaviour as Alice has described it,the money would be better used in the hands of an organisation who work with the homeless ." Which I regard as negative, patronizing and unwarrantedly judgemental on people whose hearts are in the right place. Incidentally I may be wrong but I haven't seen a single person on here say they've given him money, as far as I'm aware it's all been spare items etc. I can't quite understand why you're objecting to me saying that you're being binary when your stance is that people's effort and assistance should be going to a homeless charity and not this individual. That is either/or and seems to negate the idea that people can do both. However, we're going in circles so perhaps just agree to disagree and let others decide for themselves what they want to do to help the homeless, whether as individuals or as a whole, without judging them for it.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > from comments on > this thread it seems that his resting place has > been made inaccesible ,his goods lost and that he > now has fewer clothes and wet coverings as opposed > to his pallett ,mattress ,sleeping bag etc > So that makes me think that his position is worse > . What has any of that to do with the help people on here have offered? Did the owners of the Grove board up his shelter because people had been giving him blankets? Not sure of your point. > You're keen on slating me for a " binary " > approach ,and assuming that I have decided that > people are choosing to do something at the > exclusion of something else . I don't know what > people are doing ,I've never said that I did . > I've just expressed a view that resources would be > better used in the hands of an organisation . I > have no idea where get this "either/or" attitude > from . But the resources offered on here - it seems to me - are things like the odd spare blanket or leftover food, giving things like that to an individual is not taking away resources which could be given to an organisation. If someone, or a group, were giving him ?100 a week then I'd absolutely agree the money would be better given to Crisis etc, but they're not. You do seem to be saying it's either/or even as you deny it, saying that resources shouldn't be given to this individual but to an organisation. As noted, I'm sure many of those who've offered help also support charities.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We're all entiteled to opinions ,just because they > differ doesn't make them patronising . "I guess "adopting" our own EDF homeless person creates a temporary glow and feeling that someone has been helped" - that's pretty patronising. > Has this person's position improved ? If the time > ,energy and money invested in him by EDF posters > had been directed at organisations working with > homeless people ( who ,by the way ,offer support > other than accommodation ) could more have been > achieved ? A) Has this person's position worsensed? Maybe he'd be dead without the help he's been given, I don't know - and neither do you; B) as above, why do you assume that trying to help this guy is the only thing those who have done so do? Why does this have to be an either/or?

Amazing how binary some people's view of the world is. Giving money or goods to a person on the street does not preclude giving money to or volunteering for a charity, and I'm sure many people on here do both (I claim no such thing for myself, beyond buying him a sandwich a few years ago I've had no interaction with this man). With this particular individual he has made it clear that he chooses to reject institutional help, so people aren't keeping him on the street by giving him the occasional blanket or pot of food; the accusations that they're "keeping him out there" and are likely to kill him are ridiculous, he'd be out there anyway - quite possibly they've kept him alive. All this guff about intruding into his life by having a thread on here is tiresome. It seems clear from what many have said that he welcomes the attention, and he himself agreed to have his plight publicized in London's biggest newspaper, so let's give up on the "cyberstalking" and "shoving yourself into his life" accusations, shall we? I find it really depressing, in a world full of selfishness and greed, that when people try to do a little something for a fellow human being others leap for their high horse to tell them they're doing it the wrong way, or being patronizing, or only doing it for their own ego, yadayadayada. Maybe all those things are true, maybe not, but they're still trying to do some good. Perhaps everyone should only give money to established charities, and when someone like this guy who won't take help from them dies of pneumonia which maybe could have been avoided if someone had taken him a spare blanket or the occasional bit of hot food we can all give ourselves a pat on the back and say we did the approved thing. If I'm ever unfortunate enough to find myself in Paddy's position I hope I receive the goodwill, kindness and concern others have shown for him, and I won't question their motives or ask them why they're not giving through properly regulated institutions, I'd just be glad of it.

Carofen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He is a proud man and doesn't want conventional > help, he has his reasons and we have to respect > that. At the same time, we should still care. He > never asks for anything. No reason to close the > thread. Just care about people. I asked him why he > won't accept help on the usual way, he had his > reasons and I understand. He is resourceful and I > think he likes the support he gets from the > people. Let's not judge. He has a massive heart, > he has a daughter somewhere, we asked where she > was, he pointed to his heart. He's another human > equal to us, he has feelings just like we do. If > you choose to not accept his lifestyle choice > that's ok, just don't view this thread. Very well said.

sabrina79 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think I understood what Alice meant . > > The guy in the wheelchair does not accept any help > from the organisation ...Salvation Army? Is he a > proud person ? want to be independent? I truly > believe a person like him could have a warm place > to stay .If he wanted . > If he have people giving stuff he will NEVER > accept help from Organisation still living outside > in his condition are not safe and healthy ...I > think if you all people want to help him .Stop to > give things and talk to him or bring him to one of > this organisation who can give a warm and safe > place to stay . He is sick,alcoholic and disabled > .he really needs someone to look after him . > We have a lot of homeless that is why we support > ,give money to charities and organisations .Do you > ? A) yes and I volunteer for a charity which supports them, DO YOU? (I'd never usually ask that question but as you're saying it to others...); B) many people on here have been trying to help this individual with food, blankets etc etc. He doesn't want institutional help for a variety of reasons, also discussed. Some people don't. People are trying to do their best to help, it's not "pseudo helping behaviour." Sure, it would be great if he'd accept Sally Army or other help, but as he won't it's good to see the community doing what they can, I don't understand why this should engender such a negative response.

That would make perfect sense James...so not holding my breath... Given the current chaos perhaps an interim measure would be to leave the exit barriers open at peak times so people could simply tap in/out rather than wait for the barriers to let them through one by one. This was done quite a lot when the new exit first opened, I don't know why. Yes it would doubtless facilitate a certain amount of fare dodging (though most people at rush hour are coming from places where they need to get through a barrier to get in anyway) but rather that than the crush disaster which is plainly waiting to happen. One small but significant bugbear is the number of people who get to the barrier then start looking for their Oyster in jackets, bags etc! Is it a shock that you're going to have to use it? Perhaps signage or tannoys reminding people to have their tickets ready might help - shouldn't be necessary but it's amazing how often the queue's held up by the unprepared - and they always stand right in front of the gate whilst searching rather than step aside and let others through! (See also people in the supermarket who wait until they've bagged all their shopping then start looking for their cards!)

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Scarily, the coffee bar entrance door used to be > the sole door into the station - can you imagine > that now? Yet in the time I lived up (and commuted from) there I never recall any real crush! It's the funnelling everyone through a couple of automatic gates that really causes the problems as much as anything. Don't know what the solution is to that in terms of managing fare evasion but it beggars belief that the great brains behind the redesign couldn't figure out that forcing several hundred/thousand people through three two foot wide slots might cause problems...

I've moved a fair bit round South London over the years and never knew what ward I was in until the next election came round. People don't really use ward names to decide on property purchases, do they?

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely cars with blue badges aren't allowed to > park on double yellow lines either? They can (I know as my sister has one) - up to three hours as long as more than 15m from a junction and there are no other posted restrictions.

Can't vouch for the quality but if you're nervous about losing your negatives there are home solutions to convert them yourself, such as https://www.maplin.co.uk/p/ion-slides-forever-film-and-slide-scanner-a76lb?cmpid=ppc%3Aaudio_entertainment%3Apla%3Agoogle&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvY6xqbHN2AIVQ7HtCh3j_gzyEAQYAiABEgK9J_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds