rendelharris

Fair points Louisa - I must say that amongst the newly qualified to vote (friends' kids etc) there seems to be more enthusiasm for the concept of turning out than I've seen for decades. I think they saw last year that there's no such thing as a foregone conclusion and that's enthused them. If 2016 did anything it destroyed the concept that "voting makes no difference."

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/ Hadn't seen that before RRR, very interesting cheers.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And Borky- what is selfish about not wanting to > donate half your tax and national insurance money > to free-loaders and their dodgy families, instead > of entrepreneurs who actually create jobs? Total spending on benefits in the UK comes to 23% of all public spending. Of that 23%, 47% goes on pensions (I assume even you aren't going to call pensioners freeloaders?). So that leaves around 12% of total spending on everything else - child tax credits, disability benefits, unemployment benefits etc. Even judging by your standards of "everyone who's not been here since Magna Carta is a scrounging freeloader I know because I met one in a pub once and he told me he was" let's assume at least half of those are people genuinely in need of DLA, JSA etc. Which leaves us, even when calculating by your own myopically hateful standards, with 6% of your tax and national insurance money going to "freeloaders". Now go and look up the definition of "half." Or to pr?cis, you're talking bollocks.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 2. How treating service personnel buried in COC > identically with any other interment is 'poor' > treatment I don't know. I would also challenge > just how many of their families now visit (but of > course they couldn't in the scrub area) any graves > - indeed for WWI burials the only family visiting > would be people who have never met these war dead. Typical lies from FOCC SSW opponents: the 104-year-old son or daughter of a war hero who last met their parent when aged five in 1918 could easily be paying a visit. Can you prove they wouldn't be? Well it's no sillier than some of their other arguments.

http://i.imgur.com/9AmjFKM.png

Would it be worth (if the neighbour is amenable) trialling your air purifier in their flat - tackling the problem at source? Then perhaps they might be encouraged to get one of their own...

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting that there must be some Conservative > voters in London but they seem pretty much > invisible. We were just remarking on that yesterday when out cycling - nary a Tory poster to be seen (except one, for Zac Goldsmith, on a very, very expensive house near Richmond Park's Ham Gate). As you say, there must be plenty but for their own reasons they don't like to advertise their preference. Haven't I heard somewhere that this sometimes explains polling errors - Tory supporters are more reluctant to tell pollsters their intentions than supporters of other parties?

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At least, if JM becomes PM he will most most > likely lead a Labour government that will be > consistent with all the others in that every > previous Labour govt has ended with a financial > crisis caused by overspending and overborrowing. > Every single one. The Attlee government from 1945-51 oversaw a 40% reduction in national debt even while establishing the health service, launching a hugely ambitious programme of social improvement and maintaining a huge army of occupation in Germany and elsewhere. It did not end in a financial crisis.

Just happened to get a notification from Twitter that Lewis Schaffer had posted new material (he quotes you at length Joe, aren't you flattered?). Amongst other "gems" I noticed this, tweeted one day after the Manchester atrocity: "I don't blame the terrorists. I blame God for giving them 72 virgins." This from a man who helps head up an organisation which claims respect for the dead is one of its primary motivations.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you actually know how she died? Was she a > victim of enemy action? Do you actually know > ANYTHING about how the military works? You're > quite the Walter Mitty fantasist, dreaming that > you understand the services. A WRAF stores worker > is, shall we say, pretty unlikely to have been > anywhere near German troops. As poor Edith served at the 1st Stores Depot, RAF Kidbrooke, Greenwich for just three weeks prior to her death from "unknown causes" (also in London) I'd say the chances of her being a casualty of war are infinitesimally small. Her records can be seen here: https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/7154060 - further investigation reveals "Unsurprisingly, there are no changes of posting in her three week service career - she was enlisted as Immobile, i.e. living at home and attached to her local WRAF station."

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You don't have to call the police if there are no > injuries. Indeed so, but if you refuse to give your full details (there may be reasons for this, for example feeling the other driver is so aggressive that you don't want them to know your home address, though I'm sure that's not the case with the OP) then you must report the incident to the police within twenty-four hours (even if it's just a broken mirror or similar) or you can be charged with failure to stop and/or failure to report an accident; "stop" doesn't just mean physically stopping but providing the requisite details as well. ETA And sometimes it might be worth involving the police...I worked as a motorcycle courier for a year a long while back, after being side-swiped by a careless driver a passing patrol car stopped to check I was OK and to ask if I wanted them to be involved. As I wasn't too badly hurt and the driver was hugely apologetic I said no, we could sort it...when I tried to claim the ?1500 damage to my bike only to find that the driver was not only uninsured but had left the country I rather wished I'd said yes!

The brown leaves will have no flavour left in them unfortunately, it'll just amount to putting dead leaves in your cooking. Green-fingered Mrs H says compost loses its nutritional value over time so you should repot with fresh compost every spring if possible. Brown leaves may indicate it needs a bit more water than it's getting, apparently, and yes they should be removed to make way for new growth.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what exactly is the specialism of the company > May's husband owns? Tax avoidance? All sorts - Mr.May works in the pensions division, which obviously benefits from the firm's overall investment strategy. According to The Independent last year: [Capital Group's] portfolio also includes $20 billion of shares in Amazon and Starbucks, both of which were cited by the Prime Minister-designate in her pledge to crack down on tax avoidance yesterday. Latest filings to US authorities show that Los Angeles based Capital Group owns huge stakes in a variety of companies, including investment bank JP Morgan Chase, defence giant Lockheed Martin, tobacco company Philip Morris International, the pharmaceutical sector?s Merck & Co, and also Ryanair. So p'raps not the most ethics-driven outfit one could imagine.

RRB64 be interested to know what your platform is - do you have a webpage or blog detailing it?

I attached some to the wall with strong double-sided tape - they were still in situ six years later when we sold up! ETA Wickes double-sided carpet tape, if I remember rightly.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Peering out of the top deck of the 12 about 1930 > today 6 out of 7 cyclists (male, "fast" cycles) > pedalled over the pedestrian crossing at Peckham > library and cut the corner, despite there being > plenty of pedestrians. The one who didn't wasn't > entirely committed to using the (admittedly badly > designed) cycle path that skirts the corner and > finally joins up with the camouflaged and too-thin > cycle lane. No collisions but not right. I agree both that the cycle lane needs redesigning and that its poor design is no excuse to cut the corner, but it should be noted the "pedestrian crossing" there is in fact a Toucan crossing, meaning mounted cyclists are permitted to use it - that's why it has a green bicycle symbol as well as the green man.

I'm with your cat Jaywalker, the self justification of the inadequate and frothingly bilious is so utterly tedious. With reference to your cat, one of my mother's cats got a bit hefty and she slimmed her down with Purina obesity management cat food - I think it's available on Amazon.

Thank you, Foxy, for your response - you clearly saw my comment as the gentle joke it was intended to be. Although we have occasionally disagreed, I'm certain you won't accept GG's invitation to join his gang of virtual bullies - I know you're better than that, as are 99% of people on here. All the best, R

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Borky Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If you set yourself up as a one man EDF coconut > > shy, don't expect any sympathy when people > start > > throwing balls at you. > > Well said Borky. Join the club. > > He certainly is an odd one but what is apparent is > that he is an odious, self-opinionated, > intolerant, sanctimonious, judgmental bigot. > > Now just watch, he will respond within minutes > with a a bit of vitriol. Guaranteed. > GG Indeed, join the club of bullying trolls, you three certainly make a fine triumvirate of the species. Again, let me explain (I'll type very slowly for the hard of thinking): trolling is posting deliberately provocative and rude statements in order to get a reaction. Here are some examples: "edphstaff , you come across as a militant bunch of left wing whingers." "Stop whinging and get real." "Get a life" "typical derogatory response from an intolerant bigotted liberal who gets a daily fix from the Guardian." [NB no that wasn't said against me, but one of the many, many other people on here who have disagreed with you - have you ever wondered why you get dozens telling you to get lost and one or two of the uncleglen type agreeing with you?] "The islamophobic person would be conditioned through fear of islam. Probably he/she has experienced or has seen evidence of atrocities carried out in the name of Islam by extremists. People who have phobias ( and there are many of them) should be pitied and helped and not prosecuted and condemned." Just a few samples of the filth you spew out on here (haven't had time to check on your statements under your alterego of Villager). You see, that's trolling. Responding to, and disagreeing with, that sort of odious tripe, as dozens of people apart from myself have done, isn't trolling, it's responding to a troll. it's not difficult to understand if you really try.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm too busy during the day since I retired to sit > in the pub all day. Did you used to sit in the pub all day before you retired, and if so what was the job and how can I apply?

I still can't figure it out, people of intelligence and taste said your trolling was funny before you were thrown off previously, I worry about what must have happened to you for it to have become so clich?d and weak now. Never mind, keep plugging away, maybe it's just a temporary loss of form.

Borky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you set yourself up as a one man EDF coconut > shy, don't expect any sympathy when people start > throwing balls at you. The day I got any sympathy from such a noted, thrown off before for trolling and back under another name, troll as yourself would be the day I'd know I'd gone wrong. Good to see you standing up for your fellow troll though, you should form a club.

Thank you for that link, which defines a troll as: "One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument." Which rather fits the bill of one who posts on a thread about cats: "Yes life is tough- unnecessary death is tougher...." You're the troll I'm afraid, responding to your trolling is rather different.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And the days when people would much rather an ED > than Peckham address are probably long behind us > now. I suspect many younger (than me) people would > rather the Peckham address these days. Indeed - living in SE15 but being geographically closer to East Dulwich station than Peckham Rye we use a mate's description of East Peckwitch, which I think has a nice Dickensian ring to it (and is a damned sight better name than the ridiculous estate agent "Bellenden Village"!).

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > DuncanW Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Abe_froeman Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Some of SE22 is in Peckham! > > > > > > Is that right - what part? > > > > Half of Peckham Rye Park - to the southeast of > the > > lake - is in SE22, I assume that doesn't count > as > > ED? > > > If you mean where I think you mean it would be > Dulwich or Nunhead. Not Peckham. Moot, isn't it? I'd call it Peckham Rye, given that it's Peckham Rye park and runs alongside Rye Lane. I always think of Nunhead as starting to the east of Rye Lane. Could well be wrong - pretty sure it's not Dulwich though!