pk

Renata Hamvas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark Guy Fawkes night > 5 November 2011 > Time: 6pm - 7.30pm > > Location: Bermondsey Park > > Cost: Free > > Southwark Council's traditional firework display > in Bermondsey Park. > > Set in the stunning 63 acre Bermondsey Park at the > south end near the running track. > > As well as the much-loved rockets, roman candles > and sparklers the council is also set to provide > food and novelty stalls, a mulled wine and spiced > cider bar and children's funfair rides. > > Renata is 'bermondsey park' really southwark park or is it somewhere else?

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Crystal Palace, Brockwell Park, Beckenham, > Battersea etc all on Saturday 5 November, hooray! > > South London firework displays > and southwark park too, if the link's right

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'll second that. > With more Sam behaviour we wouldn't have anywhere > near as much fear of crime. but Sam was a private security guard defending the property of his employer, and i doubt that those who have a 'fear of crime' are particularly scared about people stealing stuff from Sainsbury's i agree that Sam was brave, but also a little bit foolish - getting a serious kicking defending someone's person may well be worth it, but getting one that could be avoided whilst defending sainsbury's property seems to me to be not worth it - i wonder what Sam thinks now?

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > It really won't make a blind bit of difference, > > except to make them look good and get them some > > attractive publicity. Warren Buffet is worth > > (according to Wiki) about ?62bn. If he was to, > > say, throw half a billion into the pot it would > > hardly dent his fortune (less than 1%) and do > > squat all for the US deficit. But wow, look at > > the publicity. > > but isn't much of the publicity that he's courting > around the fact that he's publicly pledged to give > away 99% of his wealth? > > > > > The guy is a genius. i guess that you think it's pretty clever to just post the same as you've said before, but i can think of a number of points that someone could think that they're making in doing so, but i'm not sure which one you think you're making - what is it you're saying?

i'm pretty sure that i've seen a small selection in toys r us on old kent road

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > It really won't make a blind bit of difference, > except to make them look good and get them some > attractive publicity. Warren Buffet is worth > (according to Wiki) about ?62bn. If he was to, > say, throw half a billion into the pot it would > hardly dent his fortune (less than 1%) and do > squat all for the US deficit. But wow, look at > the publicity. but isn't much of the publicity that he's courting around the fact that he's publicly pledged to give away 99% of his wealth? > > The guy is a genius.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think you'd have to go to unreasonable lengths > to suggest the type of man who totes a gun on > minicab journeys was a pillar of the community. > is anyone suggesting he was? do pillars of the community get special rights around not being shot?

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh I see....it's all a conspiracy against these > poor gun-carrying criminals is it? And their > criminal families (ever heard of aiding and > abetting - you should have as a lawyer). > so what facts have you got re the family's actions? or even the dead man? how do you know he was a drug dealer? (you might have some, but i haven't seen them) don't you have any sympathy for e.g. the children who have lost their father (assuming that they're not guilty of aiding and abetting too)?

seems like the IPCC have found no evidence that Duggan fired shots at police http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14459516

i think that tesco old kent road does pay at the pump and may be a little closer than lewisham

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If we're all getting pedantic then that was really > just a bugbear rather than anything to do with > trends. > I'm pretty sure you'll find instances of that > vernacular grammatical horror, characteristic of > the underclass, in Dickens. are you trying to start an argument or something? i've said nothing to suggest 'horror' or 'underclass' associations, i've said it's a personal bugbear and i'm 100% sure that i won't find any examples in Dickens, as i won't be looking

David Mc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or make three mistakes in a sentence criticising > someone else's errors? isn't this thread about commenting on trends in the use of language that irk you, sometimes irrationally? my comment wasn't personal criticism, it was commenting on a personal bugbear of mine (in line with the rest of the thread) if you don't like people failing to e.g. use a capital letter at the start of an informal comment on a web forum why don't you just say so? it's not something that bugs me personally

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As much as I despise those sorts of papers, > chances are the folks who were there 10 years ago > are not there now. > you might think that but the fact is that the then editor of the NOTW is now the chief exec of News International

paphio Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How come so many people confuse "was" and "were" > as in "we was doing..." how can it be that so many > brits cannot conjugate the simplest of verbs.... > appalling and how come so many people don't use questions marks when asking questions anymore?

i liked the bit about those not outraged by this being the ones with mundane lives, shame you edited it Loxley

Mr.Edwards Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's always one..... > there's at least two, as i'm not outraged either

some people really do seem to have too much time on their hands - what's the big deal? why should this end up in court? and why would you want to give up your time to go? and 'dangerous obstruction'? down a dead end with no other cars about? all seems like a case of moaning for the sake of it to me

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > where I live we do everything we can as > a community with regular liasion with the Police, > Council and youth offending services to prevent > gang activity taking any kind of hold on our > neighbourhood. what is it that you do? does it work?

what's the point of this kind of virtual curtain twitching? the attendence of all the vehicles suggests that the matter was probably quite serious to those involved and if it was me i wouldn't really want everyone gossiping about it on the internet

to check out on this one i think i've said that i don't think that clarke was right to identify 'serious rape' and in doing so imply that there was another type (may be 'petty' rape?) i said that he was in doing so (in my view) insensitive (he's upset many, it was foreseeable and even he's apologised for this) and/or ignorant (he appears not to know what 'date rape' is) i stand by this to all those saying 'but you're saying the same' - of course in some areas i agree with Clarke (e.g. that different individual offences should be dealt with differently depending on the facts, i would've thought this was fairly uncontroversial (although you could argue that Loz's now edited statement suggesting that all of a category should be considered with the level of seriousness might suggest s/he thinks otherwise)). i've not suggested that i disagree with every word (though i do think the delivery's very confusing) it is possible (even in a short interview) to agree with some areas and think others unwise - so to say that all Ken's saying in the interview is something about 15 year olds having sex is wrong some of you can't see the trees because of what you've decided the woods look like sorry if this bemuses you

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pk. You are being weird now. You are simply > stating the same as Clarke but denying it you're not one for considered thinking you are? but funnily enough i do agree more with Clarke today than yesterday, when he's said stuff like: "All rape is serious. It's one of the gravest crimes. My choice of words was wrong" "As a politician I made a mistake...". "I phased [sic] it very, very badly" edited to add the 'sic' - i'm guessing it should read 'phrased' but that's not what the quote i read said

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Loz Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > > So are you implying that all statutory rape > should > > > be considered on the same level of seriousness > as > > > all violent rape? > > > > that doesn't follow at all from what i've > written > >So are you implying that all statutory rape should NOT be considered on the same level of seriousness as all violent >rape, then? > I mean, it must be one of the two. Which do you believe, pk? your logic is warped - it needn't be one of the two (why would all of one category be the same, let alone all of two?) i don't really know what 'considered on the same level of seriousness' means, but if you're talking about sentences of course i don't think that all cases (even within a category) should receive the same sentences

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > So are you implying that all statutory rape should > be considered on the same level of seriousness as > all violent rape? that doesn't follow at all from what i've written

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So even tho Loz has shown you the transcript where > it's obvious he didn't imply that at all, you are > ignoring that as well as ignoring teh wider point > Clarke was trying to make about being helpful to > rape victims? guess what, i managed to read a transcript even before Loz showed it to me! so by way of further example: "a serious rape where, you know, violence and an unwilling woman" rape by definition has an unwilling women (in the eyes of the law, i believe) so the above implies no violence = not serious even on the distinction that you lot seem to think makes it all ok i'd say he's wrong to suggest that statutory rape isn't necessarily serious - bearing in mind it is an adult (not necessarily an 18 year) having sex with a minor who is unable to consent (not necessarily a 15 year old) what's odd to me is that Clarke clearly hasn't said what he means (as he doesn't e.g. know the distinction between date rape and stat rape) but you all seem to know exactly what he meant

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you trying to demonstrate how to entrap a > politician. > I think more to the point, so to speak, what point > are you making? Jeremy said in some respects Clarke is 'right' and that he feels 'very sorry for him' (may be i missed some sarcasm here?) so i asked if Jeremy thought it was right to imply that some rapes are not 'serious' i think that Clarke was wrong to imply this and should know that was likely to (and has in fact) caused offence by doing so i also feel no sorrow for Clarke and consider his comments to be at least one of insensitive and ignorant - guess that's my point