rendelharris

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The 'like it or lump it' school of thought seems > to be winning on this thread. As opposed to the "I object to what you're doing and think I should have a right to insist on your not doing it even though I can't actually provide a single rational explanation as to why what you're doing is in any way wrong" school of thought?

Glad to hear that jacks09 - a good illustration that the antediluvian views of a few on here are very much representative of a tiny minority these days.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Much of what you say is true. I'm simply > questioning your inability to see that not > everybody might have thought it appropriate while > they're eating their dainty sandwiches and yummy > cakes. Some might have thought it inconsiderate of > the other diners. Again, why? Until you can actually explain in what way it is inconsiderate, inappropriate or offensive your objections are entirely irrational!

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some good points there fatcats but the woman in > Claridges could still have asked for a discrete > comfortable area rather than be in full view of > other diners. If Claridges can't provide such > facilities then there's no hope for anywhere else. Still want an answer as to why this is in any way upsetting to people? In what way does a baby being breastfed hamper one's enjoyment of one's tea and cake? Frankly, given the lamentable decline in table manners, I'd far sooner have a breastfeeding baby in my eyeline than people getting their snouts into the trough. But still, please, WHY do you find it a problem? Arguments about whether it should or shouldn't be done here, there or everywhere are redundant unless you can provide a logical explanation as to why it's in any way offensive.

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @keano77, there's no legal restriction on a woman > juror breastfeeding her baby in trial so far as I > know. I can certainly see it might be grounds for > a successful exemption application by the mother > or indeed an objection by prosecution or defence > counsel to her sitting as juror but I don't think > there's anything specific prohibiting it. I believe breastfeeding can be a reason for exemption - never heard of anyone doing it while on actual jury service though. It's one of the very few places I could see an argument for a ban; firstly because unless the juror was one of those lucky mothers whose babies latch on first time every time she would surely be, at least to some extent, distracted and not fully focussed on the evidence, and secondly as a crying baby who would probably need changing shortly after feeding wouldn't be terribly conducive to the smooth running of a courtroom. Really it'd probably best if the primary carer for a newborn was given automatic exemption from duty for a year or two, wouldn't it? But as I said, that's one of the very few instances where I could see some justification.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Such inappropriate behaviour is what I'm objecting > to Rendel, not the day to day practice to satisfy > basic human needs. Why is breastfeeding anywhere inappropriate? You're saying what you object to, but not why. What is it to which you object? The revelation of a few square inches of flesh, usually a lot less than you will see on any beach, park or indeed in a pub in the summer? The reminder that we're physical beings with needs which need to be fulfilled? I really do not understand what it is that causes you a problem.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You deliberately miss the point of DulwichFox's > post Rendel. > > He or she was criticising what was obviously > attention seeking on the part of the mother (look > at me ... I've got a baby). She was sitting at the > bar. There was no need to breastfeed her baby > there. > > There may well be psychological reasons behind > this - vulnerable new mother, has given up a > career to bring up children, feels like she's > losing her identity etc etc No I'm not missing his point at all. He thinks that a woman breastfeeding in a place HE deems inappropriate is making some militant statement (and you apparently think that she may be addressing her psychological problems), whereas any reasonable person sees no reason a woman shouldn't breastfeed where she wants without being accused of attention seeking or having psychological issues. Quite frankly, it's those who object to seeing a mother feeding her baby who have the psychological issues. Seriously, what's your problem with it? What harm is it doing you?

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Breast Feeding in public is Fine..... > > ... except when its used as a deliberate > Exhibition of Progressiveness. > > I have seen Women sitting at the Bar in a Pub > Breast feeding when there are more suitable > facilities. > I don't mean the Toilets.. I'm talking about > seating within the Bar area. > > Your Child has the Right to Privacy and Dignity > too. > > DulwichFox Pretty sure six month old babies don't give a damn provided they get the grub - and in any case, what's undignified or requiring privacy about a child being fed? It doesn't lack dignity or require privacy any more than someone eating a sandwich. As for "when there are more suitable facilities" - you get to decide where's suitable, do you? You're obviously part of the problem. Does it not occur to you that a woman breastfeeding in a bar is not necessarily putting on a "deliberate expression of progressiveness" but possibly choosing to remain with her companions rather than spending her (probably very rare and therefore precious) time out sitting somewhere you deem appropriate rather than where she chooses.

Rather a silly argument which could be applied to anything which doesn't cause people to die. I would have thought as an obviously keen pubgoer you would appreciate the damage losing such precious community assets to the greed of developers and the pubcos is doing to our society. I wonder if you'd be so phlegmatic if the EDT was closed?

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually the TVs may cause distractions to those > patients very aware that they are ill and worried Speaking for myself, I've twice sat in King's waiting to hear if I had cancer and they've done nothing but annoy the crap out of me! And seriously, not a soul watches them - furthermore I once asked if they could be turned over to Wimbledon when they were showing some dumbarsed property show and was told (this is true, I swear) that the receptionist didn't "have the authority" to change the channel! Some departments don't have them and the result is a much more relaxed atmosphere.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 2) Every time a letter is written to our doctors, > following a consultation, a copy is sent to us. > This copy letter comes with a separate sheet of > paper telling you that it is the Trust's policy to > send copy letters to patients. That information > could be put at the bottom of the original letter, > or on the back, saving hundreds thousands ( ? ) > of sheets of paper. > > These are two tiny examples of wastage. I am sure > there are many more. Very true - and also (I'm rather a frequent flyer for reasons to boring to explain) the letters say you can opt out of this service; wanting to save NHS money I've asked five times for them not to bother sending me copies to no avail! I've also suggested that as I have to have bloodtests once a fortnight minimum that they could email me the results instead of sending a paper copy...apparently not. I have nothing but praise for the staff at King's who have, very literally, saved my life three times, as well as patched me up more times than I care to remember during my rugby career, but the wastage is sinful. And don't get me started on ludicrous huge televisions showing Homes Under the Hammer which nobody watches and just serve to cause annoyance...absurd.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat is right. These are two different things. > One is an example of a female employee being paid > less than men doing the same job (which is > unlawful). The second figure relates (presumably) > to the gender pay gap, which tells you the > difference between the average pay of all female > employees and the average pay of all male > employees (which is about representation). A > couple of highly paid executives of either gender > can skew the latter. I know that, what I was pointing out was that if you have a large number of female employees in the lower ranks earning slightly more than their male equivalents, you could have no women at all in the better paid and less numerous senior ranks and it would still come out that women earned more than men on average even if they had no representation at the higher levels.

Yeah you tell 'em Loz - 95% of murders in the UK are committed by men, but as long as you can come up with one story of a woman killing a man...pathetic.

So "Across all current political appointees, women were paid on average 1.6% more than men overall" - which might mean that at bottom pay level women were doing better, in subordinate low pay positions, but up top the men are doing far better. More analysis required. Not that I really give a shit about whether someone's getting ?125k or ?150K, I'd be very glad to take either!

SNARL Facebook page yesterday: "We are aware of the swan attacks (hideous, not thought to be related, despite press reports)"

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lavender27 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The Queen should be informed, they do belong to > > her. > > Incorrect.. The Queen (Crown) does not own ALL of > the Swans in Great Britain. > > DulwichFox She does however own these ones, as they're on open water and not on the Thames.

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you're missing the point Which is?

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?80 is a day's wages for many people. > > Sweepers clean the streets, so let's get some > perspective... Sorry Angelina, but that attitude is so poor - someone else'll sweep it up so it doesn't matter, just chuck it down on the ground? Yes ?80 is a lot of money, easily avoided by hanging onto your litter until you pass a bin, it's not asking the impossible! Agree about motorists but that's an entirely different issue dealt with by the police, not the council, and funded from an entirely different source.

Go-Ahead, which owns Govia Thameslink, had ?3.4BN revenue and ?156M operating profit last year, but it expects the government (i.e. us) to pay to rectify a hazardous issue on one of its own properties? That's fair...

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And now Froome has some questions to answer > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42335916 > > The correlation between asthma drugs and champion > cyclists is really quite ironic I know it seems absurd (and it's not just cyclists, around 40% of British Olympic athletes use an inhaler) but this, from Dr.John Dickinson, head of the respiratory clinic at the University of Kent, explains it: "Athletes are more susceptible to asthma than the general population. The reason is that when you?re exercising you?re breathing in larger volumes of air, which, if you are susceptible, increases the dose of potential triggers for an asthma response. In cycling, you increase the amount of dry air going into your airway; and out on the road there is air pollution as well. Therefore you are more likely to trigger an inflammatory response, which is likely to cause asthma symptoms. Athletes increase their exposure, so they increase the chances of developing the condition."

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But now we're going to get ?350 millions a week > for the NHS. Ah, no, wait, it was a blatant lie > yet lots of people bought it. > (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) You see, we can agree! You speak truth there.

Londis on Lordship Lane do Hermes dropoff and collection.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Elphinstone's Army Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > DKH is the only station which arbitrarily > > announces platform changes with 2 minutes to > spare > > - and an officious employee who refuses to > allow > > access to platforms to those of us with Freedom > > Passes > > > Wouldn't that be because Freedom Passes are only > valid on trains at certain times? All day on the Overground, so be interested to know why they stop access.

Happy Christmas to you too and I shall keep my carol singing on the way home to In the Bleak Midwinter rather than Ding Dong Merrily!

DirtyBox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Chez Bruce, they are paying so you can afford a > cab Lovely restaurant but closes at 6pm Sundays.