rendelharris

pinkladybird Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To all those people insulting Uncleglen,he clearly > did not codone the cat killing - he called it > 'horrible'. Yeah...what he said was: "I must admit when all that horrible cat killing > and maiming was going on I felt it was some > retribution for the carnage they cause." That's absolutely saying that he's cool with it. Whether you like cats or not, there's no way you can say that isn't a filthy statement from a deeply unpleasant person.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I quite agree- cats are the pet of choice for the > lazy, irresponsible person imo. Apparently Lion > Dung works but will wash away in the rain. > I must admit when all that horrible cat killing > and maiming was going on I felt it was some > retribution for the carnage they cause. Charming.

I'm glad to see I've provided a useful outlet for everyone to get it off their chests about how much they hate vaping (something I don't even do!)!

Borky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When I wish to talk to you, i will address you by > name. QED. Low quality, pointless, sad.

Borky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now we have access to the internet,we are all > economists. Everybody is an expert and can back it > up with someone elses numbers. gaze upon the > wonder of my google search and bow down before my > obvious expertise. Sickening . Economics was SO > last century grandad, move on. > > At least some posters have opened the discussion > that focuses on ideas. Visionaries. As opposed to flapping your gums about how superior you are to other people of course. Your trolling really is so low quality, others say that before you were thrown off here under another name you were quite funny, what went wrong?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > You do know that Cameron/Osborne borrowed ?555 > billion between 2010 and 2016, while Labour > > borrowed ?430 billion in the previous thirteen > years? > > This is true, though it is also worth noting that > Labour borrowed ?230m of that ?430m in the last > two years of their term. Indeed (billions you mean, obviously), though a lot of that was for bank bailouts post-2008 crash. So in their first eleven years they borrowed less than ?20bn per year, while the austerity belt-tightening Tories borrowed nearly ?100bn a year in their first six years.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Feels like they want to take the country back a > few decades and bust the country as a result. Some > people will be taken in by all Corbyn wants to > achieve but ignore the even greater debt that will > result. but by then they would have become ousted > and someone else will have to clear up his mess. > By then he'll be long gone. You do know that Cameron/Osborne borrowed ?555 billion between 2010 and 2016, while Labour borrowed ?430 billion in the previous thirteen years? The current Labour plans involve ?250 billion of investment over ten years, not all of which will come from borrowing. So less than half the borrowing over ten years than the Tories managed in six while imposing austerity.

Telegraph Hill park?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well yes.. of course they're "nice" ideas! > > But they might as well promise a Hyperloop tunnel > to New York. Or replacing polluting cars with > unicorn-pulled carriages. They're never going to > have to worry about actually implementing or > funding any of it. But they're not promising anything pie in the sky. What they're offering (bearing in mind all we've seen thus far is a leaked draft) is enhanced spending on public services and infrastructure paid for by tax increases for the wealthy and an increase in corporation tax (one which, incidentally, would only put us on a par with Japan and Germany and still way lower than the USA). Maybe the costings will add up, maybe they won't, let's wait and see. But the way the rightwing media have torn into this one would imagine Labour have decided to invest our entire revenue into a mission to send the first manned mission to Mars rather than propose a relatively modest increase in NHS spending etc. I haven't seen people tearing into Mrs.May asking her how the devil she expects to fufil any of her promises while pulling the UK out of the single market, but Labour propose a set of policies which are generally in line with what the public support and it's portrayed as the introduction of communism to the UK. I'm no Corybinista - I wish he'd never happened - but he could have come up with the most genius set of policies for the country ever and the press would still have torn him a new one as they are doing at present. It stinks.

omgwtfpwn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The link refers to a PSPO which Southwark doesn't > currently have. Currently, in Southwark, dog > fouling is unenforceable. Were that the case why does the PSPO section refer to being fined ?100 on the spot, while the dog fouling section refers to councils fining ?50 to ?80? ETA and why does Southwark's website say it can fine offenders ?50 if it can't? http://www.southwark.gov.uk/street-care/dog-fouling

https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/dog-fouling

treehugger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agreed, a fantastic legacy for Ingrid, I'm so glad > the walks are continuing. I seem to remember there > was a book about the street art. Does anyone know > the name of it? Street Art Fine Art https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Street-Art-Fine-Ingrid-Beazley/0956404197

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I actually like the manifesto - but as Sky said > this morning - costings. > > and if the Tories feel threatened wait for the > personal attacks. We'll see, they have promised they'll release cost. The press reaction (particularly that of the Murdoch press) can be explained by one line: ?We will implement the recommendations of part one of the Leveson inquiry and commence part two.?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd ask what they intend to do with the > photographs. If they plan to post on social media, > print, etc. then they'd need your consent. Equally > you could take their photo. Is that right James? I'm just thinking when the newspapers post a picture of a football crowd or a demo, they don't get everyone in the picture's consent, do they?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've just read the 'leaked' manifesto. I think > Corbyn has actually given up. > > He seems to have gone for the old 90's Lib Dem > strategy of 'let's just chuck any old s*** in - > we're not going to get elected so we'll never have > to actually implement any of crap anyway'. What's the "crap" you object to? More police officers, no tuition fees, investment in public housing, increased spending on NHS, more spending on social care? Why not wait to see the promised costed figures before just dismissing it?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you do call the police, they will (or, at > least, should) only tell you that people > photographing you in a public place is entirely > legal. While taking pictures of others in a public place is perfectly legal, a photographer could be charged with harassment if their conduct can be reasonably judged as such, so if this person is taking pictures with the intention, for example, of putting them on a "name and shame dog owners" message board that could be classed as harassment. Alternatively if he's getting in people's faces and/or impeding their progress to take pictures of them he could be charged with behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. I agree that it is unlikely the police would bother with it - if he's bothering you why not try taking a camera or 'phone yourself and start taking pictures of him to see how he reacts?

Ah, I'm over it, honest...well I've stopped crying in public at least...

I trust you know I was not being entirely serious, MM...

Well you you were never going to get NZ or Aus, being in Band 1, but still a pretty nice draw. We are the second best team in the world, the numbers say so so it must be true...the fact that in our last match we lost to No.4...

Absolutely exactly what they said they didn't want...but England aren't there for second place, you want to win you've got to beat them all! I'd say the biggest worry is having to play the Pumas, not so much for the result as how much injury damage they could do, especially up front - also it looks like either Samoa or Tonga will fill out the group, same applies. Hopefully when they draw up the fixtures one of those matches could be the last with England already qualified so some key players could be rested. I'm thinking Messrs Mick Mac and Medic must be pleased!

This from yesterday might be of interest: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/09/police-in-london-consider-tougher-tactics-against-moped-gangs

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If that's your argument, there's no point > discussing this any more. That's the first time I've seen you actually directly respond to a point that's been put to you - and it's only to say you're not discussing "any more" (sic)! Brilliant.

No - one plastic bag, basically.

We've just started using Local Greens https://www.localgreens.org.uk/ and are very happy with them so far: not-for-profit, sourced as locally as possible and excellent produce. To cut down on the delivery footprint they have collection points outside pubs and shops, as a customer one gets the combination to the box and takes one's order. We collect from the Cherry Tree, which is an added bonus as rude not to have a quick couple of pints at the same time... Disclaimer: no connection with Local Greens beyond being a satisfied customer.

Mallard Von Hannover Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was thinking more in terms of rules and regs > affecting current owners of cars not equipped with > this technology. Of course stop-start negates all > the issues, especially since the car is designed > to be constantly stopping and starting the engine. Well I think what I said still pretty much applies to cars without the tech - obviously (I hope) you're not going to get nicked for having the engine running for repairs, one's obliged by law to turn the engine off when taking a 'phone call, and having the engine running to defrost is just lazy and wasteful (IMO). I see the point about the battery though, possibly some mods might be required, which hopefully could be paid for with the savings made on fuel and/or subsidised by the authorities.