rendelharris

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > As it happens- and I have pointed this out before > somewhere on the Forum, the Right To Buy was first > proposed in the Labour Party Manifesto of 1959 but > Labour lost that election. The policy was then > rolled out by Mrs T and is now extended to housing > association tenants. > http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab59 > .htm > > see the final line under the Housing paragraph Wrong. You need to read the final four lines (how unlike you to cherrypick): "Labour's plan is that, with reasonable exceptions, local councils shall take over houses which were rent-controlled before 1 January, 1956, and are still tenanted. They will repair and modernise these houses and let them at fair rents. This is a big job which will take time and its speed will vary according to local conditions. Every tenant, however, will have a chance first to buy from the Council the house he lives in; and all Council tenants in future will enjoy the same security of tenure as rent-restricted tenants." So what Labour was proposing was that they would take over all privately-owned rent controlled properties from their landlords; they would then offer the sitting tenant the chance to buy the property, if that was declined it would be turned into a council property. Nothing to do with offering a right-to-buy regarding existing council homes.

Glad it was of use, my pleasure!

There were indeed, the Crown one side of the street and the Greyhound the other. In 1900 or thereabouts they were both knocked down and the current Dog was put up. Don't know which site was used though, enlighten us EDH if you would!

binkylilyput Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you part of this initiative? Wondering if you > know where the other ?6.25 goes. Does it go to the > Evening Standard? "The remainder will go to Everpress to cover the cost of production."

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What about the radio 'stars'. Hardly a competitive > market there (BBC are dominate). With an almost > limitless supply of talented young people looking > to get a foot in the door, it's hard to see how > some of these people are genuinely being paid a > market rate. It's an interesting question, one has to in that case consider the relative ability of the "stars" to do their job. That depends entirely on one's subjective taste, doesn't it. Personally I've never heard a current affairs broadcaster on any medium do such a good job of entertaining, informing and courteously and intelligently pressurizing interviewees as Eddie Mair on PM - conversely I find John Humphrys, paid twice as much, to be an arrogant vacuous gobshite who has no talent beyond shouting rudely. I can't imagine any talented young person being able to step in and do what Mair does with such skill and class, on the other hand if the BBC want a belligerent gobshite to step in and be rude to people let the record show I'll do it for a tenth of Humphrys' salary.

pato Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Best of all we are also paying somehow for her > holidays.. For sure, given that a significant security detail and secure communications unit, plus various secretaries and aides, will have to accompany her at our expense. A staycation would have been rather less selfish and more economical for the taxpayer - particularly as she won't be in post more than another year or so, plenty of time for holidays at her own expense after that.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'n not debating. I'm giving my views which are > correct and you should all adopt. Yes sir. It is strange that people will pay many hundreds of pounds a year for Sky sports, but don't make a fuss about the obscene salaries of footballers who are benefiting from their subscription, and hundreds of pounds a year going to the movies or streaming films, but they don't object to the big stars amassing a fortune, yet paying ?154 per year for the BBC they are outraged if someone earns anything like what their counterparts in other sections of the same industry receive. Funnily enough those complaining are often the same ones who will say we should mind our own business when we enquire about the salaries and tax affairs of business people, the royal family etc.

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you really don't like what someone is saying > how about trying the grown up approach and > ignoring them? Just a suggestion :) So when a subject is being debated and someone says something with which one disagrees, one should just ignore it? What's the point of the debate then? Sticking one's fingers in one's ears and singing "la la la I can't hear you" is not a "grown up approach." ETA: If you don't like me calling someone out, by your own suggestion shouldn't you just be ignoring me?

I call you out on here because I find your opinions extraordinarily unpleasant, bigoted and based on falsehoods, some parroted from the usual right/far right sources of misinformation and some blatantly created by yourself (one still recalls with relish the Russian bloke you met in a pub who went into great detail for you about how he was fiddling the benefits system). Your posts frequently disparage immigrants, Muslims, minorities, the working class, "lefties" and basically anyone who isn't you. I don't care if you find my challenging you rude, people like you should be challenged forcefully at every opportunity.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > *Louisa licks finger and makes imaginary '1' mark > in the air* Comment du jour.

You are Viscount Rothermere and I claim my ?10...seriously, do you ever stop and think ooh, I might just be parroting rightwing clich?s here, I'm going to stop and think about what I say instead of jerking my knee the second I see the words BBC, or Muslims, or immigrants, or Labour, or unemployment benefit, or EU, or Polish builders, or any of the other countless groups your bitter hatred towards whom appears to consume you?

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If stations are to be "closed" where will fast > response officers be based? Will they all be > mobile in cars and vans or parked up in places > waiting to respond to incidents taking place. > > IMO another short sighted idea of this new > policing method. As above, it's only the front desk that's closing, the stations (except Camberwell) will still have the same roster of officers. Obviously ideally government cuts wouldn't have made this necessary, but given a choice between an underused counter service and 170 extra constables it's a no-brainer.

On the rare occasions I've had to go in (producers etc) I've always spoken to a desk sergeant - but the last time was some years ago so maybe things have changed.

I've felt so much happier since giving it up (arthritis in many times broken wrists from motorcycle and rugby incidents)...but conversely I loved playing it for twenty odd years - the frustration of never being able to get below a 16 handicap got to me in the end. Just be warned, once you start it's the crack cocaine of sports! The World of Golf places (there's one in Croydon and one down the A3 in New Malden) are good places for lessons, and you can rent clubs inexpensively to have a whack on the driving range. If you do get into it the one piece of advice I'd give as a mediocre player is buy the best clubs you can afford, they're daft expensive but good kit does make a massive difference.

bob Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Our local Police station Peckham is to close > along with catford and many more this will leave > one Police Station per Borough the one for > Southwark is the small one at Carter st so even > less chance of seeing a copper. > Bob S I believe the plan is only to close the front counter service, which was only dealing with, on average, 2.1 crime reports per day; the plan being to free up counter staff for more on-street duties, so possibly more chance of seeing a copper rather than less. Not entirely desirable, but not quite a closure of the entire station. https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-lose-three-police-station-front-counters-cost-cutting-measures/

Thanks for the heads up!

Ha! Actually I do have a bit of the Clint Eastwood about me...well alright, when younger I had a hat and a long black coat like his, looked a right tit (in retrospect, thought I looked the mutt's at the time). One is forced to assume Mr.Toffee's rather rash and inappropriate challenge was the beer talking, given the hour and its impetuous bellicosity. If you're still reading old chap, feel free to call in any time, 177 Peckham High Street. If I'm not in tell the concierge why you're there and you'll be well taken care of.

Toffee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > First of all, don't you ever correct my English. > We all have word search on our phones, sometimes > it goes bossiness. Secondly, you are a total snob. > You won't even relate to this...snobs never do. > Look back on your previous posts and comments. If > you would like to discuss your manner in some kind > of elf group meeting, I'm up for it. I'm guessing > you're not. Don't you ever try to belittle me on > this forum again. Do it face to face. Looking > forward to your pm with a suggestion of a meeting > place.. I presume this is some form of threat or challenge? As such it reminds one irresistibly of Dennis Healey's immortal description of Geoffrey Howe - like being savaged by a dead sheep. Pull yourself together and stop being such a silly person. It's most amusing that you're throwing your teddy from the pram about being "belittled" (no need for anyone to do that, your words and opinions do it most adequately by themselves) when you've been calling others "liberal luvvies" and saying they're/we're responsible for these attacks. You may wish to note, once your frothing red mist has subsided, that I said nothing on this thread, nor did I intend to, until you decided to mention me by name. We could have an "elf group meeting" but should we invite the goblins and the pixies as well?

Toffee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm with KidKruger all the way on this. Why do you > keep being so nasty JoeLeg? Look, since the 1960s > our justice system has gone downhill. Other > countries used to admire our justice system, but > not now. We are the laughingstock of the world. > Thanks to all you liberal luvvies, this crime wave > has escalated. Ok at the moment it's acid attacks, > what next? Dousing people with petrol and throwing > a match at them? Oh sorry, I forgot, mustn't dare > say that. The perpetrators were 14 and 15 years of > age. Put the parents in prison,I've always known > where my son was when he was that age, es 30 now > by the way, has a good job and, yes, I was a > single parent, although thank the lord nota > liberal one. Back off and get rid of the chip on > your shoulder. KidKruger is right. At least he > didn't swear at you. Just waiting for your,at > rendelharris to put his two penny worth in. Rendel Harris has had a lovely day out cycling in the Surrey hills and is too knackered to put more than a ha'penny's worth in, which is to say first of all, as Sherlock Holmes advised Lestrade, some reading in the annals of crime would be instructive for you: things haven't in fact been getting worse in relation to violent crimes against the person, in fact statistically they're improving if anything. There was a great spate of acid throwing in Victorian times, was it their wussy liberal justice system that caused it? I don't have any solutions, but I'm pretty damned sure pandering to mob desires to string 'em up or lock'em up and throw away the key does sod all apart from costing the taxpayer a fortune and brutalises society as a whole. Suggest you have a look at the US, where states with the most punitive penal systems, including capital punishment, don't fare any better in bringing crime down than the most liberal ones. Then perhaps have a look at some of the Scandanavian systems...or just rant on about liberal luvvies to your heart's content. I don't know what "your, at rendelharris" is supposed to mean because it's y'know, gibberish. I assume you mean I tend to support Joe's posts, which I do generally because I consider he speaks a good deal of sense. I'm quite happy to be called a liberal luvvie, very much water off a duck's back - though it would have been interesting if we'd ever met on the rugby field - but calling a chap who has evidently served the country diligently, proudly and well as a soldier the same is pretty pathetic.

Good points there Loz.

Well old 'Enry was quite keen on a united Europe - just united with him as king of it! Local boy too - born in South London...

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, if you are totally paranoid and think that > Brexiteers are died -in -the -wool fascists then I > expect you would be scared Loz. > But if you believe that the EU are a bunch of > died-in-the-wool lefty fascist dictators who don't > know the meaning of the word democracy and cannot > manage its own budget then you would be glad that > we are going to regain our self-determination. > Don't forget - if it wasn't for Henry VIII we > would still be in the grip of the insidious church > of Rome My God, lefties, Muslims, immigrants, feckless unemployed and now dem der bloody Catholics. It's a wonder we manage to function at all. Three cheers for syphilitic adulterous murderer Henry VIII!

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No of course those powers ought only to be used > for minor matters and I don't see why Parliament > shouldn't be kept abreast of those changes in case > there is anything that might be contentious for > Parliament to vote on. And if there is anything contentious - in the many thousands of pages of legislation to which this applies - what is there to stop the government simply saying we have the power, get over it.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The purpose of using so-called 'Henry VIII' > clauses is so as not to trouble Parliament with > minor or trivial amendments. For example, hundreds > if not thousands of pieces of EU legislation, > directives and regulations will have the words > European Union in them. As these matters will now > be Incorporated into British Law those words need > removing. > > However I can see why Remainers might want > Parliament to do this as it would delay Brexit for > several hundred years. Cue new court case from > Gina Miller under the guise of 'Constitutional' > concerns. And I'm sure we can rely on politicians not to abuse the power to amend once it's been given to them, can't we? I haven't noticed anything in the clauses which says "this is only for the little things, all substantial changes must go back to parliament."

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I've not read it but I've heard about the Henry > VIII clauses and not impressed with that. > > Have a look at what the "Henry VIII clauses" are. > > You might change your mind. Parliament website: The Government sometimes adds this provision to a Bill to enable the Government to repeal or amend it after it has become an Act of Parliament. The provision enables primary legislation to be amended or repealed by subordinate legislation with or without further parliamentary scrutiny. Such provisions are known as Henry VIII clauses, so named from the Statute of Proclamations 1539 which gave King Henry VIII power to legislate by proclamation. So the government can repeal or amend legislation without having to have it passed by parliament - in effect government by decree. Why would this be seen as desirable?