Chippy Minton

Whatever. I'm not going down this road with you again. The fact remains you recognise the EDL and BNP's "legitimate concerns" and you think it is appropriate to post links to EDL videos to support your argument.

From this thread: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,736932,740068#msg-740068 and Followed by a link to a Youtube video which was uploaded by a user called EDLraw.

MM - please re-read this page. I haven't quoted any report. I got the figures from last week's lefty spouting, deficit denying Evening Standard - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-24015553-myth-of-public-pension-sir-humphreys.do

In 2007-08 = the most recent year for which figures are available - private-sector pension relief cost the taxpayer ?37.6 billion. During the same period, the net cost of public sector pensions was ?4 billion.

"Those that have to pay bill" - what, you mean the taxpayer? Let's not forget, the taxpayer subsidises private sector pensions far, far more than is paid to public sector pensions.

It is a fact that the cost of public pensions is going down and that the Institute of Fiscal Studies has concluded "public sector pensions in the UK are affordable in the long run" Factcheck

Certainly have run my own business MM - I employ three people P/T now - and I'm not disputing any of the obvious facts that it's incredibly hard. I just found it funny he still manages to make room for 4OD and 60+ posts a week on here, a large number of which require a considerable amount of Googling beforehand, as well!

>:D< 80 hours a week = 16 hour working days without lunch, based on a five day week. No doubt he'll say he doesn't do a five day week, but even based on a seven day week it is nearly a 12 hour day without lunch everyday. What with all the 4od and physical demands such as taking on food and water, then sleeping, I'm sure he must have to sacrifice taking a dump so he can fit in his 60+ posts on the EDF ;-)

???? - yeah, perhaps I gilded the lily a bit there :-$ But I was trying to get at your point that as a significant number aren't British, a good chunk of the American amongst them have actually moved to London to get way from NYC.

Last year, the coalition government laid out its plans to cut public services, benefits, pay and jobs by ?145bn over the next 6 years - that's about 10% of our GDP. At the time, The Treasury predicted these cuts will lead to at least 500,000 public sector jobs and 600,000-700,000 jobs in the private sector being lost by the end of this parliament. However, the Charted Institute of Personnel and Development estimated that government spending cuts could lead to up to 750,000 public sector workers losing their jobs. That was then, this is now. Six weeks ago, because things have gone from bad to worse, the Office of Budget Responsibility stated that the public sector has actually shed twice as many jobs as it first predicted - 240,000 people have lost their jobs in the public sector in the first year of the coalition. It remains to be seen how many now stand to lose their jobs over the next five years. There are plenty of people on this thread and this forum that I disagree with regarding this and other issues, but at least I can comprehend their arguments. You on the other hand.... Finally, I'd love to see you have the guts to say to one of the teachers, nurses, doctors, ambulance staff etc that were on strike on Wednesday they work "laughably short hours" to their face.

IMHO it's a myth that the big buck earners are ready to ship out at the drop of a hat if we had 60%. They are here, London, because they want to live in London with all it has to offer. The vast majority I know and have come across, and I've come across a lot, are young (35 and under) and just wouldn't have any interest in a place as dull as Geneva or Singapore, regardless of tax rates. I mean, where else would they go? Frankfurt! Yeah right, even duller than Geneva! New York? Possibly, but a lot have been there and done that and most of the Americans I've come across in London would do whatever was necessary to avoid that.

Yes it should, to the extent that if you want to keep the NHS?s founding ethos - free at the point of use; based on need, not ability to pay - it needs to be publicly funded. I certainly don't want to see a "state insurance provider" rather than a "state deliverer" and a two-tier NHS. No one, especially health professionals, deny the enormous pressures that are mounting on the NHS budget, not least because of the aging population and the increasing prices of drugs, and that there needs to be change. The taxpayer also does have every right to expect efficiency and value for money, but that doesn't mean they are going to get it with the Tories' new Health and Social Care Bill. The Bill is a gamble and the effects of competition are currently unknown. The Health Service Journal calculates that the new system as outlined in the Bill could cost ?1.2bn more than the current one and York University has conducted research that suggests the internal market has increased administrative and management costs to 14 per cent of the NHS budget and that the restructuring itself will cost up to ?3bn. If the Bill isn't stopped I really hope that gamble pays-off. However, I'm not convinced it will and I'll be left hoping my GP will do the best for me rather than their budget. BTW, as many of the services LuLu2 lists are provided by the private sector does that mean your beloved private service providers are "dull [with] doing nothing all day" and are "wasting the country's productivity" ? ;-)

They also provide a walk in service when you want your child to be seen by a doctor. Isn't that right NM?

We find the Nitty Gritty comb works best http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nitty-Gritty-Nit-Comb-1/dp/B001PML6Y6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322778903&sr=8-1 Much better than the free ones you get with the treatments because it is made of steel and has the grooves in it. With regard to prevention, get their hair in as tight a bunch as possible as soon as you hear of an outbreak (we seem to get the "outbreak in your class" letter about every six weeks!)

We brought a 10ft garden because we've got a pretty reasonablely sized garden (for ED). However, when we put it up it totally dominated the garden and we actually thought about getting rid of it. However, we did keep it and although we're pleased we did, I'm sure the 8ft one would have been just as good. I'd also second with Bellenden Jo says - best buy ever. We were worried that we'd be spending ?150+ on something that would be another fad, but not at all. We've had it for a year and they still want to go on it all the time!

Spot on Huguenot - it is comment from a naturalist. Also, just because you're a "tourist" it doesn't mean your comment/opinion/analysis is incorrect.

NM - are you Clarkson's wife? For clarity - private school teachers, or anyone else for that matter, can't simply go on strike because they are a member of a public sector union. There were millions of members of the striking unions that couldn't, and didn't, take any legal strike action yesterday.

Anyone one else see the Dulwich College tutors out supporting the strike yesterday? Another great example of the strength of feeling amongst people never normally associated with a hotbed of Bolshevism!

Shame Cameron didn't say the "whole strike has been a damp squib, expect of course in schools, where it's been really severe" just to make it clear then.

The government don't know which stick to try and beat them with - Cameron describes it as a "damp squib," Gove says it's had a "severe impact" :-S

It?s illegal for a picket to consist of more than six people so no surprise that they don?t ?look? well supported, but I think the unions are genuinely pleased with the turnout at marches and rallies ? tens of thousands marched in all the major cities and there were 100s of rallies all over the country. However, they will be furious with the actions of the egotistical idiots at UKUncut in the Haymarket in the past hour.

You just go on Facebook and the East Dulwich Forum all day.

And even when you do, you don't actually have to do any work when you get there.

Your "facts" are a joke! Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) accounted for 59.1 per cent of employment last year - source Department for Business Innovation and Skills http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/statistics/docs/b/bpe_2010_-_statistical_release.pdf

There will be even more money there soon once they've cut the final salary pension ;-) http://www.unitetheunion.org/news__events/latest_news/unilever_told__hands_off_our_p.aspx