rendelharris

johnie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually RH I think that just reinforces Jeremy's > point. There is a big difference between > occasionally doing it and doing it relentlessly > day after day, when kids are about to go into > meltdown, you haven't had a decent sleep for > months etc. etc. Well yes, point taken (though personally I've done my share of longterm care, like looking after my sister's baby as she completed her bar finals). But at the risk of being slapped down (as I'm sure I will be) by parents, this highlights a particular circular argument which always comes up if the question of preferential treatment for parents with children arises: immediately one is told that one can't understand it unless one is a parent with children, ergo only parents with children are entitled to comment on it, and they're obviously not going to be against it, so the debate is shut down. I adore children and fully support measures to give parents help, but that isn't unconditional. Parents of young children will by definition almost always be relatively young and healthy, so I wouldn't regard it as a great imposition to ask them to walk an extra thirty yards or so with their children if that meant spaces nearer the door were freed up for elderly people for whom every step is a challenge.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep.. FFS babies and little kids are bloody hard > work. There's no way of saying this without > sounding like a prat, but if you don't have kids > then you simply won't get it. That does actually make you sound a bit of a prat Jeremy, presupposing as it does that none of us who are childless ever look after friends' or relatives' children (and that non-parents are incapable of empathy). I've taken up to three under-fives (15 months, two and four years) shopping together, I've also, in the past, taken a pair of mildly confused 80+ relatives, and from my personal experience I'd far sooner have a space nearer the door with the olds than the young 'uns, especially one with extra space - without being crocked enough to qualify for a disabled badge, old folk often find it difficult to get out of cars when there's a narrow gap.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think most reasonable people (parents of young > children included) would have empathised with the > OP's situation, and allowed him to carry on > without comment. > > Perhaps though the reason why this is a touchy > subject is that there's no doubt that the > children/parents parking spaces are abused at > Sainsbury's dkh. There's often people who don't > need to use them, parking in them. As has been > pointed out above, the issue is mainly the fact > that one can open the doors properly to get young > kids in and out. Personally, I don't really care > how close they are to the supermarket, and would > be quite happy to see them moved further away, > this would then stop them being abused, and > silence anyone suggested parents are favoured > above the disabled..... This is very good sense: while I see the need for parent and child spaces for the extra access room, I've never seen why they need to be so near the door, and as per the above, if they were located further away people wouldn't abuse them (not that I think the OP was) and stop any resentment... As for the person who recently had a go at my little sister for parking in a Sainsbury's disabled bay (with her blue badge) on the grounds that she didn't look disabled, and who on being told she has multiple sclerosis said "why aren't you walking with a stick then?" well, it's a good job I wasn't there...

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dark Star's fine 3.8% Hophead for ?3.70 in the > EDT. Probably not the cheapest, but very good > value. That sounds good and am looking for lower strength beers, will have to give that a try - cheers!

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?5.30 for a pint of bitter? No, I've never seen > prices like that. It should be more like ?4, > surely? They may have some at that price Jeremy but we're heading towards it everywhere: in the Cherry Tree on Tuesday a mate and I discovered Sambrooks Session, a very nice 4% IPA for the summer; I was handing over my card without really listening to the price, as you do, it wasn't until I looked at my bank account yesterday that I realised I'd been paying ?10.40 for each two pint round! Perhaps there should be a "cheapest pint in East Dulwich" thread.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What's the price of a pint? I think somewhere > on > > here a while back I posited that a pint of > average > > 4% bitter would be about ?5.30, close? > > > > (Looked online for an idea of prices only to > find > > its website says it's relaunching with a big > party > > June 22nd!) > > Does it reall matter how much a pint of 4% costs > RH? > > 30p more, 50p more, whatever. Is that going to > make or break your decision? > > I don't have you down as much of a drinker, so > it's negligible to the amount of joy you'll > extract on your visit/s. > > Come on, stop with the film-flam. I don't know why you assume I'm not much of a drinker, I can assure you as a former rugby player (something else you probably assume I'm not?) and general enjoyer of the good things in life that I'm very fond of my ale (and wine, and malt whisky, and cigars, and...God I hope my GP's not a member of this forum). Being not particularly well off I am interested in how much a pint costs, especially when it goes through the psychological barrier of not being able to get four pints out of a ?20 note. I'm really quite curious as to how you can make assumptions about who I am and what's "flim-flam" on the basis of what I post on a discussion board. I could make all sorts of assumptions about you, particularly about your regular habit - as evinced here - of ticking people off, but I think it would be rather impertinent.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Sorry, banging on a bit but one thing more: had > Mrs.May, herself a diabetic, made slips on > figures > > due to mismanaging her medication, one suspects > the majority of the press would have said poor > > woman, what a heroine for sacrificing herself > for the country, hats off to her - they would > > definitely have looked for a reason rather than > immediately starting with "Cor what a thickie" > > headlines. > > I think we can safely say it would depend on the > leaning of the press in question. I think both > the left and the right would happily stick the > boot into the other side, and complain > vociferously when it happens to one of their own. I'm sure - that's why I said the majority of the press. I don't think the most one-eyed Tory would deny that the press in this country is somewhat dominated by the right.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But why force a driver to slam on the brakes with > almost no notice? Yes the driver should be able to > stop in time, but why would you risk your own > safety like that? > > Makes absolutely no sense at all, and I'm amazed > some people apparently believe there's a case to > be argued. > > I think we're at cross purposes Jeremy (and I agree that it's foolish to step out assuming a driver will stop): KK was talking about a second car running into the back of the car which has stopped for the pedestrian - that was what I was referring to when I mentioned the two second rule, that the second car shouldn't be following so close that this scenario would arise.

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68: So you personally condemn the faith > practices of many Southwark residents of Muslim > and other faiths. This explains why you are able > to support Southwark Council's religious > discrimination. That's all. Oh get oop the street Blanche, Penguin gave you a very clear and articulate exposition of his point of view, a perfectly reasonable position which stated that different faiths should be accommodated as much as possible but that if they required more than the council could reasonably offer they would have to look elsewhere. And anyway, you don't want anyone of any faith buried in the cemeteries, so all this alleged concern on your part about burial equality is so much elephant gravy and you know it, you just see religion as another card for you to bluff with. I can just imagine you getting people of faith to sign your petition by telling them Southwark discriminate against them, never mentioning that if you have your way they won't be able to be buried there anyway.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendell your partisanship is without waver and > shines through like a huge red rosette - are you > in fact Helen Hayes? Not last time I looked, though I wouldn't mind her wages...yes, I support the Labour party, that doesn't necessarily make me wrong (well it may in your eyes) - what do you disagree with in what I said about May?

May's simmering in a soup of her own making. Firstly there was her extraordinary behaviour over Brexit, where she decided, despite apparently being a remainer herself, to go for the hardest possible stance instead of seeking the best possible deal, boasting about being a bloody difficult woman etc. Then calling an election she didn't need to call solely in order to solidify her own position. Then releasing a manifesto which had no costings and little in the way of policy. Then running a shocking campaign, dodging debates, refusing interviews etc etc. And now putting the final hole in her sinking ship by desperately forging an alliance with a deeply hateful political grouping. No sympathy I'm afraid.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even at 20mph or less, accidents can happen in > this way - including the driver correctly stopping > but car behind not realising the pedestrian was > intending to cross and ging into back of lead car > (seen this). If they can't stop then they're driving badly - only a fool breaks the two second rule etc.

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark must carry out a full Borough burial > needs assessment to find out what kind of burials > residents actually require instead of destroying > acres of woods and graves for a discrimatory > burial service. All councils are required to > provide services without religious discrimination. If it were found that the service is discriminatory and the rules are changed, they're still going to need places to bury people, no?

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Those closest to her, family/friends/colleagues > need to ask themselves could they have done more, > especially those who were aware of her condition, > instead she was allowed to carry on... Totally agree - as I said above, given the almost matching vote percentages, who knows what effect her performances had on the election? Had she been pulled straight after the Ferrari interview and explained then about the diabetes it certainly would have made a difference I think - the Tories certainly saw her as a major target, a lot of interviews and speeches made far more reference to "do you want Home Secretary Dianne Abbott?" than "do you want Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn?" Big tactical blunder and one which does call JC's tactical nous into question, I think.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > you don't get things > > that spectacularly wrong if you're in a normal > > healthy state. > > Of course you do/could. A lack of intelligence or > a lack of attention to detail can result in many > unprofessional mistakes. Of course it can - but to the extent of saying 10,000 extra police officers would cost ?300,000? As I said above, I'm no cheerleader for Abbott, but that seems to me to go far beyond stupidity or laziness and into seriously confused territory.

Well the thread didn't start until evening of June 6th! Certainly a lot of people elsewhere, both online and people I spoke to, were saying directly after the Ferrari interview that there must be something wrong with her, you don't get things that spectacularly wrong if you're in a normal healthy state.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't see how you can ask the interviewers to > have a word with themselves,it's part of their job > to pick up on errors/cock-ups etc, and like the > rest of us they didn't know about her condition... Indeed, but it needn't be part of their jobs to act sneeringly and aggressively when these errors are made - why not politely say, "I think you may want to correct yourself there," not "What? Are you seriously telling me...?" a la Nick Ferrari. Why did he have to start pretty much shouting at her with derision, clearly relishing her confusion? Perhaps if he wasn't so consumed with his own ego he might have thought something's wrong here, she's very confused, let's give her a chance to recover without putting the boot in. I'm not asking that we go back to the 1950s style of "Prime Minister, perhaps you'd like to tell us which of your successes you think are most notable..." but the way many interviewers now set themselves up as the opposition is tiresome and militates against getting the best out of the subject and the most valuable information for the viewers/listeners. Eddie Mair on PM on Radio 4 is a prime example of how an interviewer can be affable, courteous, witty and still hard hitting - he gets much more out of his interviewees than, for example, John Humphries or Nick Robinson on Today, who interrupt sneeringly at every opportunity and who take up 75% of any interview with the sound of their own voice. ETA - no, they didn't know about her condition, but if many of us on here guessed there was something physically and/or mentally wrong with her, to someone sitting opposite her in a radio booth that must have been quite obvious and a reason to back off, not relish her confusion and try to trip her up even more.

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > hmmm it's not as if she's only just been diagnosed > with it... To be fair (and I speak as one who's not a great fan and would rather Corbyn kept her out of the shadow cabinet) she admits she failed to manage it properly in the hurly-burly of the election, and I think most people who've had to manage a long term chronic illness will recognise the difficulties of keeping on top of it at times of great stress. It was clear that there was something wrong - someone with a Cambridge degree might well get figures wrong but they don't start spouting rubbish like we'll have half a million policemen for ten grand or whatever it was unless there's something badly wrong. Some of the interviewers who so relished using her as a coconut shy might want to have a word with themselves, and the social media bullying has been beneath contempt - the Tories also didn't exactly cover themselves with glory by raising the prospect of her in power at every opportunity. I do also feel though that Corbyn and his team must take some responsibility and should have pulled her out earlier when it was clear she was struggling - not only for her own sake but in an election where they lost 42%-40% who knows how many votes her "car crash" performances cost. Sorry, banging on a bit but one thing more: had Mrs.May, herself a diabetic, made slips on figures due to mismanaging her medication, one suspects the majority of the press would have said poor woman, what a heroine for sacrificing herself for the country, hats off to her - they would definitely have looked for a reason rather than immediately starting with "Cor what a thickie" headlines.

What's the price of a pint? I think somewhere on here a while back I posited that a pint of average 4% bitter would be about ?5.30, close? (Looked online for an idea of prices only to find its website says it's relaunching with a big party June 22nd!)

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > I assume Lordship means, and I agree, that she > > should apologise for calling an entirely > > unnecessary general election > > Nice try, Rendel, but looks like you were a bit > off the mark! Really? I look to Lordship to correct me, but I see nothing in his or her posts which contradicts my opinions...

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you really want to catch it here is one way > that does work and is based on the fact that rats > and mice feel most comfortable when moving about > if they have contact with a vertical surface. > Thats why they run along. walls and love tunnels. > > The bits you need are... > > 1. A six foot length of plastic down pipe. > 2. A pair of latex gloves. > 3. A roll of gaffer tape > 4. A glue trap for rats or mice. > 5. Hacksaw. Sorry, coming late to this thread but please don't use glue traps, they're absurdly cruel. Rodents (and sometimes domestic pets etc when they're used outside) get stuck to them but they don't get killed. They remain stuck in increasing distress, dehydrating and starving (remember the smaller the animal the more often it has to eat). They will often chew off large lumps of their hair, skin and even limbs in a desperate attempt to get free. Good for you Foxy for calling in experts to kill or remove your visitor. I find Green Goose's relish in matters of animal cruelty, evinced by his asking for photographs and updates here, as well as suggesting just about the cruellest possible method of trapping - and his suggestion on another thread that foxes should be kept away with boards with nails for them to step on and be injured - somewhat disturbing.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lordship 516 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > She has apologized many many times to the > > conservatives but she has yet to apologize to > the > > electorate for her shambles... > > You want her to apologise to the electorate for > them not voting for her enough to give her a > majority? She got more votes than Corbyn - does > he have to apologise as well? > > You have a really weird viewpoint of the world. I assume Lordship means, and I agree, that she should apologise for calling an entirely unnecessary general election (what do these things cost, by the way? I bet it's some quite horrendous sum) which has left the political system and the Brexit process in chaos, simply because she wanted a) to boost her own ego by becoming an elected rather than unelected prime minister and b) to grab power for another five years instead of the three she had left and guard against losing in 2020 should Brexit go wrong. Well deserving of an apology I'd say. ETA The election will have cost around ?150M, including, extraordinarily, ?9M given to MPs who've lost their seats as "winding up expenses." Certainly winds me up!

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think they don't really remember the 70s, the > IRA, what nationalised industries were actually > like, pre-Berlin Wall falling politics I don't really see how the IRA and the Cold War can be blamed on the Labour government of the '70s!

Well, and the Tories doubtless did pretty well with the pensioner vote, and I bet some of them believe some pretty risible things as well. If we're going to start taking the vote away from everyone that someone thinks are numpties we'll be able to hold the elections in a telephone booth. It's a democracy, everyone's entitled to a vote and to use it or not as they choose, no matter how stupid one may think they are or how much one disagrees with their opinions! It's not ideal, but as Sir Winston said, it's the worst form of government apart from all the others.

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > A) I very much doubt Corbyn would betray his > > principles, much as I'm sure the right, having > > seen their own leader totally kick the idea of > any > > principle beyond staying in power into touch, > > would like to think all others would do the > same, > > What is Corbyn's principled viewpoint on Trident? > And what's in the Labour manifesto? > > What is Corbyn's principled viewpoint on Brexit? > Which side did he campaign for? > > I was really impressed with Corbyn's campaigning > despite disagreeing with a large number of his > proposals. But the idea that he won't betray his > principles in order to get into power is wrong. > Corbyn finally seems to have accepted that in > order to act upon his principles, firstly he needs > to be in a position of power to do so. And if he > has to pledge to keep Trident in order to get into > power, despite wanting to scrap the whole thing, > then that's what he'll do. Even if it is through > gritted teeth and with his fingers crossed. Corbyn has agreed to renew Trident as that's what the Labour party conference voted for. Nothing to do with betraying his principles, it's accepting the democratic decision of his party. Similarly, with Brexit, whatever his principles, he's agreed to abide by the democratic choice of the people. Nice try, but you can't equate accepting a democratic vote, whether in the party or the country, with the sordid grubbing around and cosying up to a bunch of rightwing homophobic creationist terrorist-supporting whackadoodles to try to stay in power by any possible means in which Mrs.May is currently engaging.