rendelharris

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No it's not healey- I know cat poo when I smell > it! Shame you don't have the same faculty for detecting bullshit...

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's been patently obvious from day 1 that all you > people in your ED bubble have NO Idea what is > going on in the poorer areas of the UK .....so I > give up- you'll have to just suck it up when it > comes. Does giving up mean you'll stop posting bigoted ill-informed hateful drivel? That would be nails.

My previous Macbook survived best part of a pint - take it apart as far as you feel confident you can reassemble, remove and wipe dry battery and RAM modules, wipe off anything sticky, leave a couple of days in as dry and dust-free an area as you have, reassemble and send up a quick prayer...

^That

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The bureaucrats of the EU, if it is any sort of > professional outfit, should have rules and > regulations in place in case a country wished to > leave. They do, any country can unilaterally withdraw from the union without negotiation and with no terms agreed (why didn't we do that, since according to you everything about the EU is so evil?). If the leaving country wishes to negotiate terms of trade and other issues, they have two years from activation of Article 50 to do so. The negotiations are intensely complex and will vary according to each leaving member's requirements. I can imagine the whining howls of outrage from the likes of you if the EU had turned round and said OK you're leaving, you have to stick to these rules. Good to see you're still sticking to your standard whackadoodle mix of bigotry and conspiracy theories though, rather than opening your eyes to what is becoming more and more apparent: we've made a leap in the dark and found there's no safe place to land. Hammond's airy claim that we'll have a transition agreement is the usual nonsense: the EU have made it quite clear they won't even consider a transition agreement until the UK has signed the terms of its exit.

I suspect you're getting more fun out of getting a rise out of people by calling them whingers, bleeding hearts, a sewing circle etc than you are from the actual debate, so yes I'd call it trolling - a harmless enough version of it.

If there's a video of Stephen Hawking on YouTube lecturing on black holes, then it's an authoritative source. You're clearly enjoying yourself but no need to troll absolutely every comment.

I can imagine a situation where going into the cake shop and saying "I think I'll have the best cake in the shop but I'm only going to give you a quarter of the price" would receive a somewhat robust response. Of course, one can then toddle off to other cake shops and pay twice as much for a worse product, but at least one can tell others "I didn't let that first cake shop rip me off, no sirree!"

And according to the latest polls is now more than half. "When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" J.M.Keynes

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where's the positivity? Calling half of those who voted "bleeding heart remainers" and characterising any objections as "whinging" isn't overwhelmingly positive...

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They wish to spend time with there son in an > environment that is free from animosity, why can > that not be in the childs best interest. Its not > as if Charlie will be having any different > treatment than he is having. People have been > moved from other countries to die at home, this is > not an unreasonable request in fact I believe it > will be > In Charlies interest. I don't wish to sound harsh, but from all the evidence I've read poor Charlie will not be aware of any changes in his surroundings, I don't think the question of benefit to him really forms part of the current action over where and when he should die.

Cheers I see. Been looking more into it - apparently the Crown was knocked down and rebuilt, then the landlord of the Greyhound moved to the Crown before it (Greyhound) was knocked down and took the name with him to keep his clientele. Bet the new building was up in less time than the refurb took!

I imagine GOSH are also wary of what could happen if these poor parents, who one doubts are capable of thinking too rationally by now (God knows I wouldn't be), suddenly decide they won't allow withdrawal of life support once he's home - prospect of doctors having to enter the house with a court order accompanied by police officers in front of the media.

Call Southwark Environmental Health, they'll come and assess and if necessary serve notice on the landlord to take preventative measures - if they agree the problem lies on his side.

Crossposted, your evidence seems conclusive but there still seem to be anomalies...odd.

Properly confused now, as found another site which says the C&G was built on the site of the Crown, but the same site has this picture of the Crown: http://i.imgur.com/w6woO1C.jpg Surely not enough room for the current 1905 building?

That's great, I remember Mr.Pickwick retiring to Dulwich but didn't know Dickens used to drink here! I think it's probably the other way round though, with the Greyhound site being the C&G site today (a recent issue of Southwark News said it was), this is the old Greyhound: http://i.imgur.com/PaiXzsv.jpg Not only does it seem to have retained the portico pretty much intact, but the arches on the "Ices" shop to the side seem to correspond exactly with the arches on the modern day Rocca: http://i.imgur.com/TBcL4Jb.jpg (ETA though Wiki says it's built on the Crown site so there appears to be plenty of confusion.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I would guess (and this is neither supporting > nor > > criticising anyone concerned) that doctors have > to > > be quite proactive in situations which will > > involve withdrawing life support: once they've > > determined that brain death has occurred, > > presumably "we've got to turn it off now" > causes > > fewer problems than "we'd like to turn it off, > > however we can keep the patient breathing and > keep > > their heart beating artificially and in one in > > fifty thousand cases there can be an > inexplicable > > recovery"; grieving people will often leap at > the > > smallest chance and you could end up with wards > > full of people being kept "alive" when they are > in > > fact, to all intents and purposes, dead. > > > Maybe it was the way they said it? I'm sure, I wasn't wanting to comment on anyone's specific case, and obviously not all doctors behave in the ideal manner towards the bereaved at all times.

I would guess (and this is neither supporting nor criticising anyone concerned) that doctors have to be quite proactive in situations which will involve withdrawing life support: once they've determined that brain death has occurred, presumably "we've got to turn it off now" causes fewer problems than "we'd like to turn it off, however we can keep the patient breathing and keep their heart beating artificially and in one in fifty thousand cases there can be an inexplicable recovery"; grieving people will often leap at the smallest chance and you could end up with wards full of people being kept "alive" when they are in fact, to all intents and purposes, dead.

jacks09 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In that example it is clear that harm will be > caused to the child, that doesn't appear to be the > case in the CG example, if i am mistaken please do > say. I guess there are no right answers in this > horrible case. As far as I understand it (which is not far) the doctors' contention is that in keeping Charlie on life support they are keeping him alive in pain for no purpose and without hope of any improvement, so in their view harm is being caused. His mother, to her immense credit, admitted in court that she would not have him kept alive in his current state, but she and the father believe treatment elsewhere would lead to an improvement. Obviously the example I gave is a far more clearcut case for state/medical intervention, I was just asking if it sitting uncomfortably with you that any one but parents should have the final say in issues regarding a child should be applied in all cases.

jacks09 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What sits uncomfortably for me is that anyone > apart from the parents can have the final say on > issues relating to the child. It just doesn't sit > right with me that a hospital/judge/state can > determine a course of action that the parents > don't agree with. What would you say if the position were reversed and parents were trying to block treatment which would keep a child alive - for example a Jehovah's Witness trying to prevent a life-saving blood transfusion? Would it still be acceptable for the parents to have the final say, even if it meant the death of the child? The wishes of the parents must be taken into consideration, but they cannot always be paramount, for they may not always (often for the most understandable of reasons, as in this case) be in the best interests of the child.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would rather change the law that put the onus on > the rider that, if they are not wearing a helmet, > any injury from a crash in a chase is presumed to > be their fault, not the police. > > Major part of the problem solved. Agree 100%, the current approach is ludicrous - though actually I'd say whether they're wearing a helmet or not, you crash in a police pursuit, totally your fault; you had a choice to stop or run, once you choose to run any mistakes you make are totally down to you. But I think also encouraging owners to make it more difficult for the scrotes to get their grubby mitts on the bikes is well worthwhile.

In the case of the acid crimes, no there's nothing the owners could have done. But as the article makes clear, most of these thefts are of mopeds which can have their steering lock broken by twisting the bars then pushing them away. Chaining them up means the thieves have to carry boltcutters and angle grinders - something most of them are reluctant to do as they're then going equipped. Chaining a bike up with a good chain will be enough to deter many and send them off in search of easy pickings (talking about those looking to pinch mopeds to use in crime, not professional bike thieves looking to sell on what they steal). By all means increase the sentences for riding on stolen bikes, as suggested in the article, but more prevention has to play a part.

An interesting read given the prevalence of this sort of thing in our neck of the woods: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/22/moped-menace-muggers-vehicle-of-choice-scooters-acid-attacks-phone-robberies The idea of tickets for not securing a moped properly seems worth considering: doubtless it would draw outraged wails of "criminalising the victims" but if one owns a shotgun, for example, one will be sanctioned for making it too easy for criminals to obtain, why shouldn't it be the same with mopeds? Also it might make people think a bit more about their own best interests, can't believe people still leave their 'peds unchained all day - given their poor security, one might as well leave a bicycle unlocked on the street.

I respectfully suggest you're mistaken, Loz: the "however" in the final line clearly links it to the preceding line, as does the "first": we will buy the rent-controlled houses and turn them into council houses, but first the tenant will be offered the chance to buy. It's offering tenants of rent-controlled properties the right to buy, not all council tenants. ETA and "all Council tenants in future will enjoy the same security of tenure as rent-restricted tenants." clearly shows it's still talking about council-requisitioned rent-controlled properties.