pk

at 17 if he should be able to get a week's bus pass for ?8.30 with an appropriate oyster

i might be wrong but thought that there was a late collection at nine elms too

danmaitland Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree re online poker -0 very difficult for > decent players to get ahead - as the software > seems slanted to action and to the guy with trhe > worst hand i am not sure that i get this - are you saying that 'the software' doesn't deliver cards in a truly random way? i know (and know of) a good number of very decent players who do consistently well, so i am surprised to hear some of these gripes

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does everyone really think that he had > his account deactivated because he's incapable of > juggling a child and occasionally surfing the > internet? > > yeah it's odd, there's passively not posting and then there's actively not posting i thought that he was (probably, never met him) a decent bloke

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think you're being blindingly daft if you > imagine that freely distributing weapons amongst > mortgage holders won't fill the arsenals of > criminals who are far more likely to pull the > trigger. > but i don't think that he does think that though does he? in his own words he's being 'controversial'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12634907

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And funnier. > And more knowledgeable. may be funnier than your average edl monkey (but still not funny from the little i have seen) and may be more knowledgeable that your average edl monkey, certainly way more pompous, but the average edl sets the bar very low. and the use of the 'knowledge' is illogical in the way that it makes prejudiced generalisations and therefore is irresponsible in my eyes - as many people have said over the years 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' (or words to that effect)

his views are pretty much those of the EDL aren't they? he's just a whole lot more smug than the average monkey that you hear talk on their behalf

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course there are, I'd never realized, how silly > of me... and how noble....I bow to them........ if you're trying to say something here, i've no idea what it is

carclubresearch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ? Is it possible to manage with young kids with > car club as your only access to a car? i believe that there are some people who for various reasons manage to have children without owning a car or being a member of a car club!

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bibaradcliffe - the employer paid out for tying > him up, kidnapping him and beating him up. they settled out of court so i'd say no-one knows why they paid out. the employer certainly doesn't admit tying him up, kidnapping him and beating him up and no court has ruled that to be true, even on a balance of probability

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > With any law there should be a reasonable > degree > > > of understanding whether you are contravening > it > > > or not. > > > > it's not an excuse not to know the law - i > can't > > say that i am not guilty of speeding because i > > didn't know the speed limit and in this instance > i > > think that if the guy did know the law then > he'd > > realise that what he did was likely to infringe > it > > That's sort of the point I was (badly) trying to > make. Good law: don't exceed the posted speed > limit. Bad law: don't travel at such a speed as > to worry any nearby person. In the second case, > knowing the law isn't likely to be of much use > because it entirely depends who is nearby. Same > with this other Public Order Act law. so e.g. having an offence of 'dangerous driving' that doesn't list in objective detail every possible thing that could be seen as 'dangerous driving' is 'bad law'? whilst it might be nice for everything to be everything to be written down it's not possible (fact) or proportionate to try to do so and if it was it wouldn't be possible to read it all anyway

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That may work, but you would have to have your day > in court to see if that works - you would still > have been arrested by then, with all the issues > that entails. but in fact that's not the case - because i have written what i've written and i haven't ended up in court and i pretty much knew that i wouldn't > And since this guy was arrested for 'making aircraft gestures', do you think you > really have a chance? there's a lot of history around the gestures and football fans are clear what they refer to, as they are when e.g. idiots make a hissing sound (of gas chambers) to 'have fun' against tottenham > With any law there should be a reasonable degree > of understanding whether you are contravening it > or not. it's not an excuse not to know the law - i can't say that i am not guilty of speeding because i didn't know the speed limit and in this instance i think that if the guy did know the law then he'd realise that what he did was likely to infringe it

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > does that sound very wrong to you all? > > So very, very wrong. That law is written in such > a way that pretty much everyone, every day could > transgress it. Which means that the decision as to > whether this law is upheld is in the subjective > opinion of the police, which is a VERY bad thing. > Laws should be upheld or not be on the statute > book. Not upheld when someone feels like it. > > For instance, I just had a quick look through your > posting history, looking for a possible example. > It didn't take long. On Feb 10, you posted the > line "and why do you keep making excuses for the > racists?". Someone may have found that > "insulting", whatever your intentions, and felt > "alarm or distress". If they did, should you be > arrested? no, because i would rely on one of the statutory defences: 'it was reasonable'

ruffers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ridiculous. How is being offensive a crime? This is how: The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986: "(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he: (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby." does that sound very wrong to you all?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do not make excuses for racists but nor do I > tolerate every mention of 'black teenager' as > being labled as racist. > and not every mention is, is it? just some of them - generally ones that make invalid sweeping generalisations or misrepresent 'facts' no-one's denying that there are issues either, are they?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > PK you are referring to the Bow group survey (did > you read the telegraph for that one?). there are loads of studies - some references were provided on the link i offered you last time to higlight that what you presented as fact probably isn't, but you don't care what's the telegraph got to do with anything > Even that report, and it's one of many, shows that more than > half of working class black boys can not read and > write properly by the age of 14, some 54% of > them, and the same can be said for white boys at > 63%. Other reports show the difference to be the > other way round but just as close. so why say that black boys are the lowest achievers? and why do you keep making excuses for the racists?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >> Something that is a fact is that there is a > problem with the education of teenage black boys > in schools (accross the board). They have the > lowest levels of achievemnt and highest levels of > illiteracy (usually because of truancy). you're not that fussed about checking your 'facts' are you? many recent reports say that the most underachieving group are white working class boys, by way of several credible examples: http://www.forwardpartnership.org.uk/node/318

jimmyay Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes but it does seem to be pretty much all black > teenagers who are stabbing and killing each other. > what an a**ehole

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > nashoi, > > Trying to appeal to as wide an audience as > possible must, inevitably, mean a dilution of the > current offering. If Radios 3 & 4 are diluted they > are no longer Radios 3 & 4 - but something else. > So we lose a radio station that attracts over 10m > listeners a week to listen to a service that > provides mixed speech service, offering in-depth > news and current affairs and a wide range of other > speech output including drama, readings, comedy, > factual and magazine programmes. > > Radio 4 is providing, in accordance with its > current remit, a service that appeals to listeners > seeking intelligent programmes in many genres > which inform, educate and entertain. Which bit of > that service needs diluting? why would providing intelligent programmes which educate, inform and entertain with topics of more appeal/relevance to e.g. younger people or ethinic minorities be 'diluting'? may be even the existing listeners would enjoy (and learn from) a broader range of programming too?

zeban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are Hackney cabs a company? If so what were they > doing in Victoria? Did they tell you how much it > was going to be before they asked for a deposit? hackney cab = black cab

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't want to sound like a broken record but the > number of people on here highlighting how > unpleasant meat is from supermarkets, often due to > excessive packaging or vacuum packs, and yet > elsewhere there is a clamour for an M&S or > Waitrose selling more of the same. Not necessarily > the same people of course. But still.... > > Bizarre. yeah, it's almost as if most people get what they pay for and want from supermarkets time and time again, don't generally find the meat there unpleasant and that the (small) number of people (or instances) on here aren't representative of the typical supermarket experience

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > once they've made that investment ensure it gets closed down if > any breaches of its license - fights, attacks etc > occur in our neighbourhood. That seems rather > harsh suggestion. it seems a bit harsh that a licensee would be expected to ensure that no fights occur in 'our neighbourhood', i agree

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the suggestion of buying at an > 'aspirational' supermarket eg M&S at London Bridge > or Liverpool St en route back to ED was to counter > those city workers who say they get home late.... but why do they need to be countered? - they want to shop close to home rather than at a station with less stock at higher prices and may be don't want/can't afford to e.g. go out to eat on LL everyday or order food for delivery from Firezza (with associated avoidable pollution), what's the problem?

i don't get why people want other people to justify how and where they want to shop - if people want to be able to shop on their way home why does that bother others? particularly when most of the recent suggestions aren't to use local shops (as they're shut) but to use M&S elsewhere or Sainsburys so the whole 'it's bad for independent local traders' doesn't really run - it's no better for local traders if people spend their money at M&S London Bridge or on DKH (with it's station-inflated pricing)