rendelharris

mima08 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The various lego magazine versions should be fun, > most magazines for that age are full of tat, but > kids love it and it hopefully keeps her > entertained a little... Many thanks will be visiting again soon so will keep an eye out.

It's an odd one as the Highway Code has MUST NOT for legislation and SHOULD NOT for suggested best behaviour, this comes in a list under DO NOT. As I understand it parking withing ten metres of a junction is not an offence per se (if there are no yellow lines) but one can still be ticketed for causing an obstruction. As Sally Eva notes above, all Southwark are doing is formalising that which it says in the Highway Code one ought not to do. Personally I'd say 7.5m or even 5m would be sufficient, though I do agree that selfish parking too close to junctions is a serious problem, but the idea, which some seem to have, that Southwark have just come up with this off the top of their heads is ridiculous, it's formalising what's in the Highway Code. As for revenue raising, if you don't park on the yellow lines, you won't have to give Southwark any revenue.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 33% for an opposition at this stage is > embarrassingly bad Rendel. Most of those people > are voting Labour in spite of him - not voting for > him, as you say. > > Jeez - the vast majority of his own MPs recently > voted that they did not have any confidence in > him! You may think he's good Rendel, but > suggesting somehow that he has a lot of support > (based on that 33% figure) flies in the face of > reality and seems rather out of character for you. I don't think he's good - I'd rather he wasn't Labour leader - but tell me, on what opinion poll do you base the assertion that most are planning to vote for Labour in spite of him? I'm not aware of polls asking that sort of question...

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, to be fair, most people do consider him to > be a laughing stock! Well, according to the latest opinion poll, 33% of the electorate are planning to vote for him, which is quite a number considering he's portrayed as a laughing stock by most of the media.

Off to hospital this afternoon to see a friend's child who's been taken in with suspected appendicitis. Haven't time to get to a bookshop, obviously sweets not appropriate; I'm a bit out of touch with these things, could anyone suggest magazines (preferably stocked by DKH Sainsbury's as passing it on the way) that would be a hit with a bright, literate six-year-old girl? Any tips gratefully received! Thanks, Rendel

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Firstly, people who go private will tend not to > > care about the NHS, so they're not going to > vote > > for policies to improve it (please don't tell > me > > everyone's so lovely and caring they'll gladly > > vote for tax rises to improve a service they > don't > > use, because 99% won't) > > I think you're wrong there. Lots of people have > private cover - it's almost the norm if you're in > a professional private sector job. But we still > rely on NHS for GPs, A&E, maternity, etc. We ALL > need an effective public health service. > > Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of affluent > voters who have an interest in at least a degree > of social justice.. certainly more than 1% anyway. > But yes, clearly they're in the minority. Yes you're right - obviously 99% was somewhat hyperbolic. I entirely agree that we all need the NHS, but a lot of richer people simply don't seem to believe that - or at best pay lipservice to the idea but squeal the second it's suggested taxes will have to go up to pay for it.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > By hiring the builder, rather than waiting for the > council, one would expect the service to be faster > and better, otherwise why would you pay for it? So > ideologically, if you charge VAT on private > education, then labour would also have to conceded > that pvt education is faster/better than the > public system, and the 'value added' tax should > mean that it is a value added service; therefore > should have no problem with pvt educated kids > having a 'leg up' on public school kids. Somehow i > doubt they'd accept that! I don't understand what this means. Private school pupils getting ahead of public school pupils? Are you using "public school" in the American sense? I'm not sure Value Added Tax actually makes a judgement on the value of a service...and yes, private education is (in many cases) going to be better than state education, due to smaller class sizes, better facilities, better working conditions and salaries for teachers etc etc. I've no problem with people paying for that for their children (provided suitable weighting is applied at, for example, university admissions stage), provided they pay appropriate tax on it as they would for any other private service. > > > "Politics of envy" is a tired old phrase which > > really means "I've got lots and I'm buggered if > I > > see why I should share, and if anyone objects > it's > > not because they want to improve things for > others > > it's because I'm so great they're jealous." > > > Just because its tired and old, doesn't make it > untrue (David Attenbourgh still draws a crowd:)). > I could also flip your description to "You've got > lots and I'm buggered if I see why you shouldn't > share" Yes, I do think those who are lucky enough to have a lot (including, relatively speaking, myself) should have to share. As George Orwell said (from memory so forgive inaccuracies), "The planet is a raft sailing through space with a finite amount of provisions on it, it's only fair that everyone should do a fair share of the work in exchange for a fair share of the provisions."

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, the cemeteries are becoming less beautiful. > > BTW It?s a bit cheeky to slag off Lewis when he's > not allowed to reply. Oh no, they're making the cemeteries ugly by burying people in them! When will this madness cease? I think Lewis lost any rights to consideration when he started asking people on Twitter to "expose" posters' identities.

Your mate whose account you use to post on here as well as your own, you mean?

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Even if you're ideologically opposed to > the privatisation of the NHS, why would you > begrudge someone who can afford to go elsewhere, > doing just that and freeing up pressure on the > public system? It's very much not a zero-sum equation: if people paying to go private simply dropped out of the waiting lists with no adverse effect on the NHS any sensible person would be all for it. However, any sensible person knows this is not the case. Firstly, people who go private will tend not to care about the NHS, so they're not going to vote for policies to improve it (please don't tell me everyone's so lovely and caring they'll gladly vote for tax rises to improve a service they don't use, because 99% won't). As these people start to withdraw support, the NHS gets weaker, more people are forced to seek private care, it gets weaker still until ultimately it withers and dies through lack of support. Secondly, nearly all private consultants work in the NHS as well, but in their private work they offer longer consultations, more rigorous testing etc, all of which take them away from their NHS work (bearing in mind these are generally people we have trained at enormous expense). A doctor once put it rather neatly to me: "People who use private healthcare like to say 'Well it's like a group of people waiting for a bus, if occasionally a taxi goes by and one of them takes it, that makes the bus queue shorter for everyone else.' What they're forgetting is that every taxi is driven by a bus driver." But don't believe me, ask a doctor: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/05/ban-nhs-doctors-from-private-work-hospital-consultant-says As for private schools having to pay VAT, why shouldn't they? If I choose to pay a private security guard for my house rather than rely on the police, I have to pay VAT, if a council tenant wants to get a builder to make improvements to their property rather than waiting for the council, they have to pay VAT, why should others offering a private service be any different? "Politics of envy" is a tired old phrase which really means "I've got lots and I'm buggered if I see why I should share, and if anyone objects it's not because they want to improve things for others it's because I'm so great they're jealous."

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RH, > > Sounds like you are developing more of conspiracy > theories. As pointed out above, you wrote a post under the handle of Villager but signed it as GG - are you going to claim it's not you and that you're not using two user names? Come on, if you're not a simple denial would be more powerful than accusing me of conspiracy theorising.

Thank you Villager.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ah yes, a quarter of a trillion. No problem, I'll > just get my cheque book... ?250BN over ten years, to build 100,000 social housing units per year, providing employment for how many? Equates to 3.5% of current annual tax revenue. You might not like what they propose spending the money on, as is your right, but let's not act as if it's an insane sum - if we can find ?200+BN for Trident...

I was once told - and I have no idea how true this is - by a (motorcycle) copper that one of the big reasons for letting bikes in and not cars is that a broken-down car can't always be moved (e.g. one with a locked transmission) without heavy machinery whereas a motorbike (assuming it's not a Goldwing!) can always be lifted out by two or three strong people if there's a problem. Also you're looking at width, but being able to overtake bikes is not a problem - no biker is going to be going slower than a bus, with all its stops - it's length of space taken up that causes jams. Fifteen bikes, say, can line up three abreast in a lane and not take up more than about fifty feet or so at traffic lights. Add that to their ability to pull away much, much faster and they're not going to be holding up a bus behind. Fifteen cars are going to occupy about 240 feet and pull away slower, much more likely, for example, to prevent a bus making the light while still on green. Anecdotally in many, many years of cycling and motorcycling in London (ETA and riding on buses) I don't think I've ever seen a motorcycle holding up a bus.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > As for your assessment of my Green credentials > and > > political inclinations, all I can say is you > are > > very wide of the mark. > > GG > > Well, if you are Villager as well, then weren't > you voting UKIP at the last GE? Looking back, both Green Goose and Villager were 'kippers in 2014 - what a coincidence!

Villager Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Somebody who believes that saying "get a life" > is > > a valid response to another's argument accusing > > other people of being boring and infantile is > > definitely a matter for the pot and kettle > > department. > > Not quite up to your usual sanctimonious, > judgmental offerings. You really must try harder. > GG Oh dear. You appear to have just given away the fact that you operate under two different usernames! Assuming I'm addressing the signatory of the above, you took a perfectly reasonable if somewhat off topic comment by jaywalker and told him/her to "get a life" and that they were "infantile and boring" - yet you accuse others of being sanctimonious and judgemental. Excellent. Perhaps it's the strain of maintaining two different personalities that gets you so confused? ETA Villager joined the forum 26/12/2008. Green Goose joined forum 27/12/2008!

It may surprise you to know, DL, that as a cyclist I'm completely happy to share bus lanes with motorcylists and agree that they should be opened up London-wide. The nature of motorcycling means that riders are aware that any incident with a cyclist is likely to cause as much (more expensive) damage to their machine and themselves as to the cyclist and act with according caution, I can count the problems I've had with poor motorcylist behaviour in nearly four decades of London cycling on the fingers of one hand. Let 'em in!

Somebody who believes that saying "get a life" is a valid response to another's argument accusing other people of being boring and infantile is definitely a matter for the pot and kettle department.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > can you judge a man on what he eats? If his behaviour at the dining table is completely hatstand, I think yes!

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I like to look at connections between people. > Thatcher's > mentor was Sir Keith Joseph IIRC. The men > Thatcher surrounded > herself with were rather strange. My dad worked in and around Downing Street and the Cabinet Office in the '80s and '90s (as a civil servant, he's not a Tory!). At one time he found himself sat near Joseph at a formal dinner. Joseph waved away the offered dishes and said, "What I'd really like is a piece of cake, you know the sort wrapped in cellophane you get on train buffets?" The waiter said fine, we've got cake on the menu, I'll bring you some. "No, I want some of that cake wrapped in cellophane you get on train buffets." In the end they sent a porter out to the nearest station to get him some, and while everyone else tucked into the pheasant and what have you he sat there nibbling his British Rail buffet cake. Strange doesn't begin to cover it.

stringvest Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello. Im not angry at all. I am not very pleased > at being called a liar though. I am happily > corrected, or will admit to being wrong, unlike > some people. > Here is another article .... saying it was delayed > ... perhaps its "fake news" ??? > > How sentencing of Rigby's killers WAS DELAYED > until British judges defied European court to > declare 'life means life' > ECHR had said whole-life tariffs with no right of > review were unlawful > But senior British judges defied this last week, > opening decision to judge > Michael Adebolajo, 29, was given whole-life term > for Lee Rigby's murder > But Michael Adebowale, 22, was jailed for life > with minimum of 45 years > By MARK DUELL > PUBLISHED: 19:47, 26 February 2014 | UPDATED: > 19:34, 27 February 2014 > The sentencing of Lee Rigby?s murderers WAS > DELAYED until today after Strasbourg judges had > said that whole-life tariffs with no right of > review were unlawful. > > THANKS AGAIN. PEACE TO ALL ! You need to read what you post, sentencing was delayed while the British Court of Appeal ruled on the legality of whole life tarrifs and their compatibility with human rights legislation. Sentencing was not delayed by "waiting on a directive from Europe" which is what you claimed - as I said, didn't happen. ETA by the way you do know the ECHR is not run by the EU and that the UK will remain a member of it after we leave?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Malambu can you remember what it was like trying > to get a phone installed or repaired before > privatisation? ? weeks on wednesday 3pm and they > they didn't show 50% of the time - the railways > were sh1t too, crappy timetables that were > ignored, rude staff was the general default, awful > rolling stock, don't even mention flying when > there were only publicly owned choices . I think a > whole generation who weren't there seem to think > nationalised industries were great (they were not > at all) or some older posters have some very > selected memories. Definitely right about the railways, they were bloody awful, but that doesn't mean they have to be awful when nationalised, just run by better people. I've never understood why we can't nationalise things and pay the going rate for experts - I wouldn't object to the head of a nationalised rail service getting ?2M a year or whatever if s/he made them work properly. As for the telephones, I'm willing to stand corrected but I think a lot of the problem back then was just inherent to the nature of the pre-digital age, wasn't it? Everything had to be mechanically set up...I remember in the '70s we were the first on our street to get an extension put in upstairs and visitors would actually go out of their way to look at it!

Thread calls to mind the always superb Half Man Half Biscuit and their song "Breaking News"; included in their list of people arrested for "annoying the nation": A woman who described herself as ?A little bit Bridget, a little bit Ally, a little bit Sex And The City? and chose to call her baby boy Fred as a childishly rebellious attempt at a clever reaction to those who might have expected her to call him Julian or Rupert. Bit of advice: call him Rupert, it fits, and besides it?s a good name. Don?t be calling him Fred or Archie, with all its cheeky but lovable working class scamp connotations, unless you really do have plans for him to spend his life in William Hill?s waiting for them to weigh in at Newton Abbot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBM_MIT9EOM

stringvest Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A friend in the Judiciary waiting to sentence the > men who decapitated the soldier, waiting for a > directive on sentencing from Europe because a > "whole life sentence without parole" is inhumane > ?????? .... Didn't happen. Adebolajo had his appeal against his whole life term rejected by the court of appeal, never went to Europe. In other appeals against whole life terms the ECHR upheld the UK's right to impose them. The sentencing judge in the Lee Rigsby case certainly didn't wait for a directive on sentencing from Europe, as no judge in the land ever has. If you're going to make stuff up try to make it at least vaguely believable.

pinkladybird Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally, if all the surrounding cats > disappeared overnight I would open a bottle - for > me and the wildlife. I suggest you look up some of the research on cat predation, its damage and advantages. The first thing that would happen if cats disappeared would be an explosion of the rat population, with associated disease and bird egg predation. Can you produce any evidence that cats harm bird population levels? Be interested to see it if so as even the RSPB say they don't.