rendelharris

240l - the 140l are the "slimline" ones. Not as sad as I seem, honest - just happened to be ordering a new one this morning!

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Foxes eat rats??? Definitely. Out walking in the countryside recently saw one catch a squirrel.

eddeal1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > not one person has said i have room in my house i > will take this human in.and try to help him. Have you?

I ask for a 'phone number in case anything prevents me from being in at the appointed time, and will text a couple of hours beforehand to check they're still coming - haven't had a blowout yet!

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Im reminded of the photograph round from Ask the > Family with Robert Robertson from the 1970s Brilliant spot - exactly that!

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "She was said to have alleged that between five > and seven years ago he made a crude remark when > > she said she had cold hands. ?I know where you > can put them to warm them up,? he allegedly > said." > > That is making a mockery out of the current issue. > I've no doubt that there are more than a few in > the house of commons that need to be bought to > justice and better processes need to be in place, > but raising thoroughly underwhelming stuff like > this does nothing to help. Entirely agree - could have been addressed by "Grow the f@ck up, Michael" - not like Leadsom was a young researcher being exploited. Utterly demeans the serious problems which clearly exist. Leadsom, who seems a thoroughly unpleasant character (remember the "I'll be a better PM than May because she's childless" statement?), clearly has her own agenda. However one suspects Fallon has more on his record: one can imagine May saying "If you can promise me this is all there is, you can stay. Is this it?" "Umm...well..."

I live just about equidistant between the two and love them both, though given a choice I'd sooner be nearer a park than the shops. Longer walks to the train or bus = better for health! But in any case, when you say "one is much nicer" sounds like you've really made your decision!

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > The Met's budget is set by the Home Office and > has > > been cut year on year ever since the Tories > took > > office in 2010. > > Not true. At least not in cash terms. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40354815 Fair enough, please insert "in real terms" after the second "year"! I think everyone understands that with inflation no rise is a de facto cut, don't they? Or should the Met stop complaining because they're getting more than they had in 1970?

trinidad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it is the mayor of London, but do people > still attend police stations? The Met's budget is set by the Home Office and has been cut year on year ever since the Tories took office in 2010. Sadiq Khan has consistently protested against the government cuts and has provided ?27M from the mayoral budget this year to try to mitigate the worst effects.

Oh dear robbin, you really are tying yourself in knots here whilst trying to wriggle out, poor thing. Let's just go through the steps shall we: firstly you accused me of attacking uncleglen while hiding behind internet anonymity. When I pointed out that I was using my real name, you strongly implied that that was a lie. In order to try and substantiate that assertion, you lied. When called out for lying, you say you won't dignify it with a response and that it's a strawman. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. I cede the field, please say what you like from here on but I won't be responding: I shall leave it for others to judge to worth of any comments made by someone who bullies others on the internet while hiding behind anonymity and is a proven liar. Good day.

Fine, you have demonstrably tried to lie about me in order to try to belittle the point I made about anonymity and now try to weasel out by saying "I won't dignify it with a response" - transparent and pathetic. By all means let us leave the thread to ageism, now you have been proved a liar and to have no justification for your falsehood.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Try not to get too worked-up Rendel (or should I > call you 'RENDEL'). I think you've missed (or > maybe just tried to side-step?) the point. Nope, you've tried to reinforce your point by lying. Now, seriously, go and look back at the things you've said to and about Louisa (often ganging up on her with others) and think about what bullying is. ETA Why did you lie about my name getting no Google hits, by the way? Didn't it occur to you that at least I would check if that was true?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be fair on Robbin, you do have a quite > surprisingly small Google footprint. > > Personally, I think you are a little naive using > your real name. When I started using the internet > back in the 90's, I used my real name right up > until someone I crossed swords with online tracked > me and rang me at my work to verbally abuse me. > Certainly, even on this forum, I've had someone > rather creepily ask to 'meet me in person'. > > There are a lot of nutters out there. True, but for me the principle outweighs the risk. Each to their own of course, but it's slightly ludicrous for someone like robbin posting anonymously behind a user name to accuse me, using my real name, of hiding behind anonymity. I think you'll find most people who aren't famous have a fairly small Google footprint - especially if, like me, you freelance from home, so I don't show up on any company lists, and nearly everything I write is ghostwritten for others to use - blogs, books, speeches etc - so I don't show on author credits. Also I'm crowded out by my illustrious relative and namesake! Anyway, large or small footprint, I do show at #6 on the first page of a Google search, so robbin's claim that there are no Google hits for my name, which he made to try to say I was lying about using my real name, was itself a lie, albeit a pathetic and easily refuted one.

Come on now robbin, either refute my statement above (which you can't because it's true and anyone with Google can prove it) or admit to, and apologize for, the lie you told. By the way, in my teabreak this morning I had a quick glance through your comment history. I suggest that before mounting your high horse and accusing others of bullying that you go back and have a look at the way you were taking to, and about, Louisa last year, it's pretty unpleasant.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'll take your word for that being your real name. > If it is, I am envious - you have managed to > avoid having any obvious footprint on the internet > - even apparently avoiding any Google hits. Well, I'll leave the rest of your post - and again refer you to your behaviour on this forum last year - but this bit is cobblers. If you Google Rendel Harris, you'll get 144,000 results. Admittedly most of those are related to my distinguished several times great uncle, a noted biblical scholar after whom I'm named, but the sixth result on the first page is my Facebook page and the fifth result on the second page is for a book of mine on Amazon. I don't mind a heated debate, but I'm not keen on being called a liar - not on. A retraction would be appreciated. Yours, RENDEL HARRIS ETA In case you should claim that rendelharris sans space gets different results, that still comes up eleventh and twelfth on Google. I very much do not care if you don't like my opinions, but I will not accept my veracity being impugned.

Then despite my having a different POV to most here, that stinks. Are they really permanent?

Firstly, Robbin, if I heard someone spewing UG's vitriol in a pub I'd be more than happy to tell him to can it (and have done so in various situations), and secondly I had no intention of commenting on this thread until he mentioned me by name when I hadn't said anything. My real full name, by the way, unlike yourself and Uncle - I long ago decided I'd use my real name on any internet forum on which I commented so that I didn't say anything I wouldn't be prepared to put my name to. Cheerio! ETA By the way, you may wish to cast out the baulk in your own eye - generally you're quite a reasonable chap (or chapess, don't know) but I suggest you have a look back at some of your posts around referendum time last year, as I recall you got pretty vicious with those who didn't agree with you yourself.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please please please don't bring back the > Harvester, it was horrible (in my opinion). Jeremy Hardy: "Have I been to a Harvester before? You don't suppose anyone ever comes here twice, do you?"

chuff Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are new 5mph signs now at College road and > Court Lane entrances for cyclists. Are there? Be interested to see how that will be enforced - on the roads, speed limits cannot be enforced against cyclists, indeed they don't apply to cyclists, as bicycles don't have speedometers. I would have thought "Cyclists please ride considerately and give way to pedestrians at all times" would be far more effective. Any decent runner can easily exceed 10mph, will there be signs for them too?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't trust G4S etc any more than I could throw > them but maybe I'm old fashioned or something but > I thought everybody (citizens and police) had the > same right to arrest in the UK. The powers of citizen's arrest are actually quite limited - from memory a person has to be about to injure themselves or others, to cause loss of or damage to property or to be at risk of absconding before a police officer can attend having done one of those things. One can't, for example, carry out a citizen's arrest on someone who owes you child support, even though a court can order they be arrested for the offence. A civilian can't execute court arrest warrants unless specifically authorized by the court to do so - I think that's the main power the government want to give G4S. Which, given their track record, is a very, very silly idea.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > By clean, I meant corruption-wise. You have to > agree that the UK is, relatively speaking, freer > of the kind of corruption that plagues Spain, > Italy, former Soviet Bloc countries, etc. True, it > must exist but it is of a scale and type that is > different. Actually global anti-corruption campaigners frequently rank the UK as the most corrupt nation on earth, because the City of London and the property market are used to launder trillions of dollars of crime money each year with successive governments afraid to challenge it for fear of upsetting vested interests. It is true that we don't have to suffer the low-level corruption endemic in other countries and cultures - bribing policemen not to ticket us etc - but until we've cleaned up the financial sector it ill behoves us to give ourselves too many pats on the back.

If it ever was the house price madness has surely rendered the term meaningless now. All is relative, I recently saw an advertisement for a flat "on one of the best value streets in Belgravia"! (It was ?7.5M)

I think for Dulwich Park they're allowed off the lead outside the perimeter road from the Court Lane gate round to the College Road gate (going clockwise) and have to be kept on a lead in all areas inside the perimeter road and around the sports pitches.

Nigello Wrote ------------------------------------------------------- > Spanish politics is not as clean as it is here, > centrally or regionally. Both sides have been > stubborn and unimaginative. Oh yes, that's very different to what pertains in the UK at present!

Loz Wrote: > And as for Grenfell, well it's hardly news that > there are some political groups trying to leverage > the Grenfell tragedy for political reasons and to > make the inquiry terms include issues much wider > than just the issue of the building, the fire and > what led up to it. Now, I don't know if the person > mentioned is one of those doing this. I don't know > her at all. Maybe either RH or UG can say. Yvette Williams MBE (UG's 'stirrer') is a policy advisor on equality and diversity to the Crown Prosecution Service.