rendelharris

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apparently one of them lived in Barking and had > been an upstanding and useful member of his > community for three years according to one of his > neighbours... So? Are we to be surprised that suicide attackers don't live in houses with "Beware of the suicide attacker" signs on the front gate? Clearly what you're trying to imply is that "they" can't be trusted even if "they" appear to be normal members of the community. You really are a hateful and hate-stirring person, with your incessant whining about immigrants, "skivers," "lefties" in general - a sort of Daily Mail in human form without the class or the grammar.

D&S is a beauty (only played there once) but with joining fees of ?2K plus ?1,700 per year membership - or ?50 a round as a guest - not sure it would fall into many people's definitions of "affordable"!

I hope/presume Gatland has yet to split his squad into the traditional Saturday/Wednesday teams (if he's going to at all, at least during the buildup phase) as there are at least nine players in that team who probably ought to be in the test twenty-three, and five who should be nailed on selections.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please Teacher, but didn't you promise not to > respond to any of my posts just two days ago. > Never mind, many politicos break promises, so > welcome back. Not at all, I said I'd decided to ignore you when you went in for trolling and personal attacks, I said when you wanted to actually debate properly - in public, rather than by personal message - I'd be happy to engage. As indeed you are now doing, so...but I've slaughtered myself riding into headwinds down in Sussex today so you'll excuse me if I leave it for tonight. Just one thing before I say goodnight: "But the Left see that wealth (however it is achieved) should be heavily taxed, as the solution to all society's ills and to assuage their own ingrained resentments." Without giving away too much about myself (as I'm already slightly creeped out that, from your previous posts, you seem to know more about me and my profession than I'd like - the perils of trying to be honest by using my real name and only maintaining one account on the EDF, I suppose), I had a reasonably privileged upbringing, lead what I regard as a very comfortable and lucky life, yet I'd be happy to pay more tax than I currently do if (a big if with governments of any hue) it were to be spent wisely. So what are my ingrained resentments? I'd definitely be personally better off under a Tory government. As per the above about philanthropy, it does seem difficult for the right to imagine that anyone can be prepared willingly to give up a little of what they have for the benefit of society as a whole. Just to aid your reply, here's a "sanctimonious" and a "holier-than-thou" - you can cut and paste them!

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Your last sentence seems a bit muddled. This from a chap who gave us the sentence "Altruisma and philanthropy are nor often the prime motivation." OK. Happy to explain: I meant I would assume that those of you on the right would see rich philanthropists as justifying a position that the wealthy can be relied on to do their bit for humanity. Clear now? Was Al Capone a leftie then? Your choice of him as an example is particularly ignorant as he supported the Republican party not only with cash but with a campaign of violence and murder against those who didn't support his choice. It's true, the rich tend to be rightwing as that political side tend to favour them, and so proportionately one would expect those in a position to be philanthropists on a notable scale to be more of the right. Amongst current "mega-philanthropists" Bill Gates is notable for his Democratic party leanings, as is the vehemently anti-Trump Warren Buffet.

Thanks for the heads-up - I have friends who commute from Beckenham, Horsham and Caterham and have let them know - only one of the four had heard about this (I guess as the attack didn't encompass the station it was natural to assume it wouldn't be affected) so they appreciated the info.

It never fails to amuse that those on the right refuse to believe that there is such a thing as philanthropy which is undertaken for no ulterior motive. Judging everyone by their own "what's mine is mine and I shouldn't have to share and I don't think I should even have to pay a reasonable amount of tax" standard I guess. One would have thought that rich philanthropists would be a justification of their worldview rather than otherwise, but it seems not.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > just goes to prove- if you can afford it you can > be 'green' too It cost six grand second hand and she got a grand trade-in on our previous Smart we'd had for ten years - I do count myself very lucky but it's not exactly a new Porsche Carerra now is it?

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > By the way, in response to your nonsense above, > I > > cycled and walked everywhere I needed to go > today, > > I don't have a TV, I have a wind-up alarm clock, > I > > use a broom not a vacuum cleaner, > > What about the car that you mentioned in a > previous post? Or is it a magic carpet that is > carbon-neutral? Not mine, it's my wife's (a Smart ForFour which does 70MPG and has auto stop-start, not quite a magic carpet but getting there) - I don't drive and ride in it once a week to help take her mother her shopping at weekends.

Chapter 5 can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223667/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-05.pdf and the diagram you want is on page 97. Not sure it's that helpful though as (I assume, anyway) the Rye Lane cycle provision presumably counts as either a shared pavement or off-road cycle lane, so the mandatory markings don't apply.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Wow, that is an incredibly naive post. > > OK, elucidate! Counter the logic. I'd love to hear > it. Vague assertions of blatantly dubious propositions (GB is a complete meritocracy, the USA is totally classless) without any supporting evidence do not constitute logic.

Well that was bloody insipid. I know they're jetlagged, haven't had much prep etc but really, the cream of four nations should be able to put up a better performance against a pickup team from New Zealand's second tier. Anyone spot any positives today? The Blues will slaughter them Wednesday without a 200% improvement.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well then, perhaps the recipient will have an > incentive to work more hours since there are > complaints from some quarters that people only > want to work a certain number of hours as they can > top up their income with tax credits. > People in general are receiving more of their own > income as the threshold has risen....why should I > work to support other people who choose to skive A single parent working forty hours a week for minimum wage will receive tax credits, presumably they should buck up and work more hours?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't agree with him that it's a hoax. It's a > very serious problem. The Paris agreement is a > well intentioned step in the right direction but > is not the solution. Glad to hear it. But the Paris accord is the only step in the right direction - however flawed it might be - the world's managed to currently agree on, and the Donald has pulled out of it, and he clearly has no intention of putting a better agreement in place, so I don't see how anyone can view it as anything but a retrogade step, can you? Glad to continue debating this tomorrow, for now goodnight and sleep well.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To answer your question whether I think Trump will > put in place a better agreement than the Paris > Accord my answer is no. How can he? Group think > has ganged up against him. So you seriously believe that the man who is on record as stating that he thinks man-made global climate change is a hoax made up by China really wants to do something about global carbon emissions, but he can't because of "group think", whatever that may be? Seriously?

But very easy to be a foolish rightwing libertarian, clearly. Do you actually think that President Trump is going to put in place a better agreement than the Paris accord or not? Don't give me some old guff about whether I had a shower today or not, answer a grownup question. By the way, in response to your nonsense above, I cycled and walked everywhere I needed to go today, I don't have a TV, I have a wind-up alarm clock, I use a broom not a vacuum cleaner, I don't have a dishwasher, I get my electricity (which I use sparingly) from the greenest supplier possible despite the fact that it's not the cheapest - don't judge everyone by your own standards. Of course, to you that's being sanctimonious - a cheap and stupid word used by people who don't like the idea that other people might make more effort to be environmentally sound than them. Ooh aren't I holier than thou - damn' right I am.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- If Trump can > negotiate a better agreement he will be doing the > planet a favour. Yes, that's exactly what the great man is doing, withdrawing from a globally agreed programme to reduce carbon emissions in order to impose a better one. Not to allow US industry free rein to pollute to its heart's content without regard for the consequences. You seriously believe that's his motive? Get oop t'street lad.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It amuses me that Facebook and Apple are > pretending to be outraged. Between them they have > probably been responsible or more electricity > consumption (in the West at least) manufacturing > tablets and phones, constantly recharging them, to > engage in social media. Oh, and what utter nonsense. Yeah, global warming is down to people using mobile telephones for social media, not two centuries of carbon belching factories and petrol engines. "More electricity consumption..." Than what?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not necessarily. It's generally accepted that the > Paris Accord, while being the best international > agreement we have so far, will do very little to > solve climate change. What's your definition of "generally accepted"? Every nation in the world has signed up to it except (now) the USA, Syria and Nicaragua. That's pretty general, really.

It has been covered many times before but it's worth saying again, it's utterly useless, makes pedestrians hate cyclists and cyclists hate pedestrians because nobody knows what's going on - it's absurd. I always go round via Bellenden, it makes for a longer journey but worth it to avoid one of the most idiot bits of infrastructure in London.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A decent Labour leader would wipe the floor with > May and a decent Conservative leader would wipe > the floor with Corbyn......that's where we are > folks. I think that's as good a summary as one could find - it's like watching two one-legged men in an arse-kicking contest.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be fair - and demonstrate humanity - she is in > an unenviable position. She has momentous > political changes to control and the consequences > are enormous. It literally is history in the > making and she's getting jeered at left right and > centre. > > Who would really want to be in her place? For ?150K a year and a free flat in the centre of town? I'd give it a go. Seriously, as RD notes, it's difficult to feel sympathy for someone who chose to be in this position and has given up on her principles in order to grab it. Although I'm by no means a monarchist I do see the "they didn't choose it" argument - politicians, no. Remember we didn't have to have an election now, she chose to call it in the belief that she could consolidate her power for at least the next lustrum and if it's biting back at her, that's tough. Your humanity does you credit but it's a bit misplaced in this instance, I feel.

Green Goose Wrote: > You just can't resist the urge to scratch that > itch you have ,can you? Or is pouring salt in your > own wounds? Just to save you time and trolling energy, after this message I've decided to ignore your childish attempts at provocation in the same way I'm now deleting your tedious private messages unread - do stop sending them, even you must have better things to do with your life than to harass people who couldn't care less about your opinions via private message. If you ever have anything to say which is actually relevant to discussion, do post it - in public - and I'll be glad to debate. Until then, your drivel will be ignored, both publicly and privately.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Way back in the 1970s the WRP had a manifesto > which included setting up a workers' militia > instead of the police, locking everyone up who was > a drug addict or alcoholic- because apparently in > their 'utopia' people would not need these escapes > - some of the members I met were teachers, Vanessa > Redgrave and her late brother, Robert Powell > popped up at a spring fair fund raiser, and Mungo > Jerry (the band) played at the conference. > These ideas do not go away- their adherents are > just better than they used to be at hiding them... Way back in the 1960s some Tory candidates campaigned with the slogan "If you want a nigger neighbour, vote Labour." These ideas don't go away, and their adherents don't even bother trying to hide them.

Nice one Alan, I'm in.