Mick Mac

fool proof?

Presumably M&B as the previous tenant of the pub made a planning request to DE, rather than there being any other bidders or proposals for the site or any choice for DE to make. But yes, they could have perhaps had a tender process, although that might have depended upon the existing M&B lease if they had one. In general though I'd be interested to know the cost of a lease of a retail unit in the Village as compared to a similar one in Lordship Lane. Its often quoted as the reason why the Village only has chains, as only they can afford the lease costs, but it might be that the Village is just a bit sh1t, sleepy, elderly, lack of footfall, lack of life, atmosphere etc - I mean I suspect most of the locals come to the Palmerston, Franklins, Yama Momo or even Le Chardon when they want to have a good meal and leave the M&B food to Dulwich Park visitors and hangers on.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yup, reminds me of Lennon's debut......... you b1tch....

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It must hark back to when Sunday was traditionally > a day of rest, the Sabbath, no one worked, shops > were closed etc... And it's hard to "rest" with some bloke and a kangol operating next door. I think its to protect our weekends as time to relax and enjoy the garden etc - noise free preferably. Personally I don't care about the Sabbath - but it is good for society if we coordinate our down time.

7.47am and thinking about beer already Jah. :) Its a shame its an M&B - true - the village is chain hell.

We do my son, we do.

I already did on FB. Sorry. But I genuinely feel for them tonight.

I went to see Ireland lose to Scotland a year ago at Celtic Park and I'd have said they had no chance of qualifying based on their performance that night. I was wrong and they have played very well since that night. Many here (Otta?) said the O Neill Keane combo would end in tears but to be fair they have managed to get an limited pool of players to the final.

Racially aggravated rather than racially motivated would be the appellants argument presumably... And sorry RD but your view is out of date.

Some Irish bloke. http://littleatoms.com/society/jeremy-clarkson-and-being-lazy-irish-britain

Written March 2015 The Top Gear presenter's reported tirade against producer Oisin Tymon is a reminder that anti-Irish prejudice still runs deep It has been a good week for the Irish in Britain. Or at least this Irishman in Britain. On Wednesday, in a pub in North London, I saw one of our (and the world?s) greatest living poets, Eavan Boland, give a brilliant interview to journalist JP O?Malley covering swathes of Irish identity, gender, art, and politics. On Friday, I managed to come out of the Cheltenham Gold Cup 50p up , using my time-tested strategy of ?bet on whatever Ruby Walsh is riding?. It?s Saturday morning now, so I?m not going to jinx our rugby and cricket teams by suggesting this enjoyable run will continue. Meanwhile, Saint Patrick?s Day celebrations will take place across Irish diaspora communities in Britain right up until the day itself on Tuesday. The sun is shining in my London Irish neighbourhood, where I can buy every Irish food I can imagine, read every Irish regional paper, and listen to live traditional music in welcoming pubs most nights of the week. I like being Irish in London. But as always, the silver lining carries its cloud. According to the Daily Mirror this morning, the Jeremy Clarkson controversy at the BBC has escalated considerably. The paper reports that the BBC investigation into Clarkson?s ?fracas? with Top Gear producer Oisin Tymon will be told that: ?[Clarkson] called Oisin a ?lazy, Irish c***? before splitting his lip with a punch that left the 36-year-old with blood running down his face and needing treatment in A&E.? If this account is true (Clarkson is said to deny it, it should be noted), then this is racially aggravated assault, no different than if Clarkson had abused a black, Asian or Jewish colleague. This does not seem to deter the hundreds of thousands of Clarkson fans who will, presumably, condone racism as classic banter, just as they have condoned violence. The queer thing about anti-Irish racism (and its partner, anti-Catholicism), is that a hell of a lot of British people are in denial about its existence (trust me, Irish people are not). It was, certainly, worse during the ?Troubles?, but there is a mistaken belief that the Troubles was the sole reason for anti-Irish feeling. In truth, of course, it is a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Ireland was one of the first colonies: justification for all colonisation, then as now, is partly found in the dehumanisation of the conquered. The Irish, with their distinct laws, customs and language, were not really fit to rule themselves (how often is that sentiment echoed today?); we were not diligent, we were not to be trusted: they were, as Mr Clarkson would have it, ?lazy Irish cunts?. Every so often, a well-meaning British liberal friend will either a) declare matily that ?we?re all the same? and what the hell was all that fighting about, eh? or b) inquire archly about whether, considering the decades of quasi-theocracy the Irish republic endured, and the apparent corruption of the political system, was the whole independence thing really worth it? And every time, you remind them: yes. We were a colony. We were stripped of land, language, identity. We were routinely demonised and patronised. Of course, there is complexity in this: over 800 years, things are bound to get complicated. People moved back and forth, some colonists became ?more Irish than the Irish themselves?, some Irish people took enthusiastically to Britishness and the British empire. Many more joined the civil service, the police, the army out of simple economic necessity. But the fight for freedom was worth it, because at least most people in Ireland now have some control of the country?s future. No revolution was ever perfect: the idyllic republic has never been achieved. But at least we can make some attempt to achieve it on our terms. And it needed to be on our terms because we were not, and never would be viewed as equals by the British establishment. Every Irish person in Britain knows the little nod, the little wink. More often now it is disguised as affection, or indulgence (?Oh, you funny people? is always implied). But the undertones are the same: feckless, violent, drunken. And occasionally, someone like Clarkson, who, as better writers than I have pointed out, is simultaneously at the very heart of the Establishment while feigning to rail against it, will let it all spill out, in full vitriol. And we?re back with an image that easily resonates with Irish people: an English toff assaulting a ?lazy? Irish lackey for not doing his bidding. What we hoped we?d be able to leave behind.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He's been off on full pay until he turned down a > chance to return to the new Chris Evans version of > Top Gear, so any claim of lost earnings would be > surprising. ah - didn't know that.

Your point was already clear, but conjecture. The racism angle becomes relevant as it's the basis of the claim. This is indisputable and to state that it's irrelevant is clearly wrong. His personal reasons for doing it will also be relevant if he can show loss of earnings. This loss of earnings and the impact of the incident on his life will have become more apparent over time and easier to ascertain. Hence he's perfectly entitled to wait and make the claim now that he knows the full impact on his life. The racism is not all he has left. He didn't make a previous claim and thetfore has claimed for the asssault and the racism now. The interesting bit is obviously whether there was or wasn't any racism.

It's not irrelevant if it's the basis of the claim is it. In fact it becomes everything - and whether he's crap becomes irrelevant by virtue of Clarksons choice of words.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What does that 'definition' actually mean in legal > terms Mick? Is it just some sort of > edict/directive, or is it legally binding in some > way?... I refer my learned friend to the answer above I am interested in this case as it will be potentially high profile. If he's after the money, then it will settle out of court. If he is interested in defending the principle then it will go to court and will be the subject of interesting legal debate. The basis of the war against racism is that people are treated equally irrespective of "background". This is putting it in focus.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mick. I am not sure you are clear on the > difference between being charged with a criminal > offence and being sued in a private action True. I shouldnt have in haste used the word crime. So putting that aside I'm trying to focus the discussion on the current definition of racism, which is very different from the very narrow understanding of it that some people seem to have and is now outdated.

Ok I'll refer you modern day dinosaurs to the United Nations definition: the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.[22]

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Lazy Irish c***" was, I believe, the phrase. > While it's not exactly nice, it's not really any > worse than stuff that was directed at others on > Top Gear on a regular basis. Surely this makes him > a bit of a hypocrite? Combine these words with a violent assault... I have been consistent in ny comments on this from the time it happened. I couldn't believe it was allowed to escape proper censure at the time.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > How many times has this guy shrugged off verbal in > his life You can't possibly be serious! Are you saying, keep taking it. Even better if you accept a punch on the nose at the same time. Wake up..

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > maxxi Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Are you serious?! The Irish are a 'race'??!? > > > > Under the Race Relations Act, yes. It covers > any > > discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, > > nationality, ethnic and/or national origin. > > > > Though, as far as I know, 'colour' does not > > include 'ginger'. > > > I looked it up as I couldn't quite believe it and > changed my post accordingly - yes you're right - > but it is ridiculous and dilutes the real problem > of racism to equate white middle class europeans > as suffering racism from other white middle class > europeans (what does their class have to do with > it one may squeal? well, I haven't read that far > yet...) The real problem of racism ? Since when did the English refer to the Irish as white middle class Europeans No blacks No dogs No Irish In that order

Ok but it makes the assault a racist crime A racist or religious hate crime is: ?Any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person?s race or perceived race? or ?Any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person?s religion or perceived religion?

Are you asking questions that you know the answers to again Loz?

Soft "liberal" politicians are only ever taken advantage of.

Sorry Quids, disagree. There should be no difference between forms of racism. Technically they are the same crime. I'm glad this case is being pursued as racism and it's absolutely beyond belief that the BBC continued to engage him. I don't recall Ron Atkinson getting work again.

Indeed - it was anti labour paranoia at the time.