Dogkennelhillbilly

Well, that's encouraging!

I believe, Nigello, that that clothes bin is operated by Tvind, a bizarre Danish religious cult. However I haven't checked the label to see if the site has changed hands recently so perhaps I am wrong. But beware of Tvind, Gaia, Humana or anything with a Danish connection or website.

Every few months I sign back in to the forum and see it's the same 2-3 nobbers dominating conversation with their bonkers opinions, quixotic punctuation and chronic desire to make themselves the centre of attention. It's such a shame as it drags down the quality of the forum as a whole. Rye Lane is a bit of a dump. It's dirty (the plastic hair extensions blowing like tumbleweed outside the line of hair shops is particularly rough), with bad street furniture, and the buildings are for the most part grotty. However, it's got some useful shops, some nice coffee places etc, and good transport. The newly reopened Iceland is great- presumably.ably those who moaned at great length about the Lordship Lane Iceland closing will be heading there now. It seems like there's a cluster of buildings near the Nags Head (by the Afghan kitchen and the big fish shop) that are getting ready for redevelopment. If that's done well, it would change the whole street. Equally, TfL should imho knock down the crappy arcade that fronts Peckham Rye station and replace it with a plaza that could still have market stalls. Equally the shopping centre could be knocked down and rebuilt with far more retail and housing - if we don't get density on sites like that, then where are all these new homes going to be built? It's inevitable that fashionable and innovative start ups (cafes, arts, small businesses) are usually going to locate in low rent neighbourhoods - you don't try stuff out at Mayfair rents. It's also inevitable that when the majority of real property is controlled by the private sector, when a neighbourhood improves, rents will go up, and poorer people and less profitable businesses will end up leaving. I don't know what the answer there is - rent controls? Nationalising shopping centres? Deliberately leaving some areas to be shitty so they're cheap? Trying to make sure none of the areas of London are shitty?

Frank Furedi buying childproofing socket covers in Dulwich DIY.

"Note to youth ... when you start paying your own phone bills, your college accommodation and living expenses then tell us where society is going wrong" Note to oldies ... when you start paying your own heating costs, transport costs, living costs and care expenses then tell us where society is going wrong. Note to sick people ... when you start paying your own healthcare costs and living expenses then tell us where society is going wrong. ...etc etc.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > judges have a > very narrow view of the 'real' world and the > general public is often outraged at too lenient > sentences. This is an argument made by people who have very little experience of the criminal justice system. Criminal judges spend thousands of hours a year listening and reading about the most depressing, harrowing crimes, depraved people, people horribly abused, people at the absolute lowest points of their lives, and their circumstances, and addiction, and poverty, and illness, and evil...and you think they don't know what the real world is like? You think the social media consultants, shopkeepers, stockbrokers and scaffolders know more than they do about this stuff? I know a judge that spent a year and a half doing nothing but child sexual assault trials. She is not Oxbridge, white or male. She started out as a duty solicitor not a million miles from East Dulwich. There is a huge shortage of judges in England and Wales. And of course 90% of criminal trials are dealt with at magistrates courts. Magistrates rarely oxbridge lawyers, and usually not lawyers at all. In fact you could apply. And finally it's a myth that judges are more lenient than the public - there have been loads of studies in which real life fact matrices were given to members of the public along with sentencing guidelines, and the public almost always gave a more lenient sentence than was actually handed down.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > quoting that particular statistic > about London, completely misses the point that not > everyone in London is part of the (sneering) > liberal elite. It is therefore a very bad point. It's a very good point. Sneering and suggesting Bremainers are a metropolitan elite is a bad point (in fact, a bunch of cockwaffle). You can't make out that the elite consists of 48% of the UK population or 60% of the London population, especially when it was the poorest parts of London that disproportionately voted remain. You're just going to have to get over yourself and realise that plenty of people disagreed with you, and you can't paint all of them as "teh elite". Why do you care anyway? You won and you're getting your way - shouldn't you be pleased? Saying "a lot of people are saying the same thing as I believe" is simply Trumpian and just shows there are other people talking rubbish.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what is selfish about not wanting to > donate half your tax and national insurance money > to free-loaders and their dodgy families Which families were you thinking of? The Barclays, the Candys, the Hindujas, the Bransons, the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas, the Thatchers, the Kalanicks, the Bezoses...?

"unfairness: the predispositions and world-views of judges, the pantomime of the trial, the ill-educated nature of juries, the refusal to see social determination of crime (ressentiment and revenge, all the time)." Why do you think those prejudices only lead to unduly harsh sentences? Why do you think it harms the independence of the judiciary when one part of the judiciary reviews the conduct of another part? Why do you think juries are inferior to you?

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "The Brexiteers can then be sent back to the > periphery of politics where they belong." > > Ah, the pompous metropolitan bubble's sneering...It > was 52% of the population that voted to leave, you > numpty. I dunno how you get to the conclusion there's a metropolitan remain bubble when 48% of the UK voted remain and 40% of London voted leave. (You numpty).

I am strangely gripped by his thread.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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: > > 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. Not that I've got a brief to defend him, but global capitalism is inherently interconnected. You can't just work in the "nice department". If you're not working for Starbucks, you're certainly connected in a chain to them (or someone of equal stature) somehow.

it's just providing a way for a higher court to review a sentence to see if it's ridiculously lenient. The sentencing power remains with the judiciary and not the executive, and the courts are perfectly happy to tell the prosecutors to sod off.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Corbyn has made a speech on Security - and it > wasn't bad. > > The old guy thrives in this type of campaign - May > (probably will still win) but she made a mistake > here. As someone who always voted (with one regrettable exception) for Labour: I believe strongly in Labour's ability to take this bump in popularity and somehow mess it all up.

"If drugs affect someone so much that they pick up a knife and hurt someone, then personally i think it's extremely stupid to let it go so lightly." What exactly do you want to happen? Imprisonment? Kicked out of university? Barred from ever working as a surgeon if she ever actually applied to do so (bearing in mind "James Sturman QC said his client's dreams of becoming a surgeon were 'almost impossible' as her conviction would have to be disclosed")? Be specific. "Her behaviour is extremely unsettling. Out of control...there is definately something wrong with someone who makes the choices this woman has." No shit. Hence the criminal conviction and the requirement to stay abstinent from drugs. PS trust the Daily Mail to find a way to illustrate this story with a woman in a swimsuit.

It was all mead when I started boozing...

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > it's a different level when your dabbling becomes > a habit where you are using it as mitigating > evidence for physically injuring someone. It wasn't mitigating evidence for physically injuring someone. She pled guilty. "I'm not a fan of 'promising career' being the reason for leniency" It wasn't the reason for leniency. It was one of a number of factors the court considered before handing down the sentence.

" I do appreciate the fact he makes a point of separating his personal beliefs from legislation/governance" He didn't vote for gay marriage to become law because of his religious objections. It is Lib Dem codswallop that Farron separates his religious beliefs from his voting.

I know, I linked to them on the previous page ;)

You're not suggesting anyone reads anything more than the headline and the first two sentences of the Daily Mail's article, are you? But I have so many strong opinions already!!!

bgw Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 0801 the morning after 22+ people are murdered in > Manchester and the Crown and Greyhound tweets: > "It's official! We'll be waking up with a brand > new pub June 19th! So put it in your diary & let > the countdown begin!" > > Great to know that some combination of that pub's > management/ Mitchells and Butler have such > humanity. Come off it, you plonker. Even you don't actually believe this twaddle.

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > interesting to read some 'readers' letters' > agreeing with the stealth tax if there is enough > money in the estate and why people should expect > to hand down their property to their children. > > Is this based on envy? It could be based on the perfectly reasonable belief that - the care has to be paid for, the money has to come from somewhere, and big wodges of unearned inheritances are a good enough place to start.

That's very sweet. Est 1978 (on the sign in the photo) - putting that is a tradition that should be brought back.

I've never gone back to the carpet shop since they sold me a bit of Axminster and it was terrible in a fondue. (Just kidding - they've been perfectly nice and helpful to me the two times I went in. And I'm a surly old git to begin with).

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > An > uneducated public who mirror a 'she's just like > me' misrecognition. Not really much different from > what secures Erdogan, Putin, or other reactionary > types. Your judgment on British, Russia and Turkish politics is very poor.