Jump to content

Recommended Posts

But for the avoidance of doubt there were experts on both sides and so-called experts and 'experts' in abundance too. I thought there were more dodgy 'experts' trotted out on the Remain side (probably because of the vested interests they tend to have) but that is nothing whatsoever to do with whether I favoured Remain or Leave - just my view.


But to suggest (as you seem to) that I've taken a view against certain 'experts' because they were in favour of the Remain camp just underlines the fact that you have not read my post properly - had you done so it would have been pretty clear I voted to remain, otherwise I would not have said "I'm disappointed about the vote result"!

no, it's not.


>I thought there were more dodgy 'experts' trotted out on the Remain side

> (probably because of the vested interests they tend to have)


Define vested interest (V) amounts as follows:


RSCE - remain so-called experts V

LSCE - leave so-called experts V

RE - remain experts V

LE - leave experts V

R - remain opinion holders in general V

L - leave opinion holders in general V


Are you saying:

RSCE > LSCE

RE > LE

R > L


...or something else?

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> no, it's not.

>

> >I thought there were more dodgy 'experts' trotted

> out on the Remain side

> > (probably because of the vested interests they

> tend to have)

>

> Define vested interest (V) amounts as follows:

>

> RSCE - remain so-called experts V

> LSCE - leave so-called experts V

> RE - remain experts V

> LE - leave experts V

> R - remain opinion holders in general V

> L - leave opinion holders in general V

>

> Are you saying:

> RSCE > LSCE

> RE > LE

> R > L

>

> ...or something else?


Sorry but that's complete nonsense! Your time would have been better spent reading my clear and simple wording than writing all that guff!


To save you scrolling up - I said "I thought there were more dodgy 'experts' trotted out on the Remain side (probably because of the vested interests they tend to have).


What part of that sentence don't you understand? You ask "who is 'they'?" Seriously?

Many champagne socialists of the Corbynite camp use the Co-op....

I think the Archbishop of Canterbury summed it up when he said the poor suffer under mass immigration.

And the poor may also be poorly educated and unable to hold their own in this debate- which is dominated by the verbosity of the hysterical middle-classes, who, in the main, branded them racist- completely out of hand.

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you find that people are generally unpleasant

> towards you?



No. But then I'm pleased to say that in the real world neither do I come across people that deliberately try to pick an argument by setting up false constructs or by asking fatuous questions designed merely to provoke a response or to make a bad point.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I thoroughly recommend Jay from JK Electrical Contractors who is an NICEIC registered. NICEIC is the UK's leading certification body for the electrical contracting industry and conducts regular audits and assessments on all its members. It is the specialist trade body which certifies professional electricians.  Jay completed the installation of a 19 way consumer unit for us and works to the highest standards and our entire electrical installation is now fully compliant with 18th Edition of the electrical wiring regulations. Before installing the new CU he traced and corrected faults that had developed over the last 25 years -some of which were my DIY bodges that were non-compliant.  We now have an installation that is 100% safe and  reliable . His contact details are :- 0208 150 6450 [email protected] Here is what he installed for us.
    • I fully support this petition, however it will need to be shared far & wide to be effective. Also there is always a huge amount of interest / objection during the festival, but not so much when they start consulting for the next one, usually around January. It's crucial that everyone that has been impacted makes their voice heard then.  A couple of points which may be good to include in the wording (if it is still possible to amend?) - The total tickets sold are way more than 3000. The licence allows a capacity of up to 9,999, but this may include staff & performers etc. The published attendance for 2024 was:  Friday – 8,999 / Saturday – 9,512 / Sunday – 9,422 So that's c.28,000 people trampling & littering our park over three days - people who have no need or desire to take any care or consideration of our park.  - Gala claim for 2024 that "62% of all ticket holders were from Southeast London and 18% of these were from hyper-local postcode areas SE15 and SE22." So a bit of maths shows that means that around 89% of attendees were not what most people would term 'local'... - Gala have ambitions / plans to extend the number of event days to 6, over two weekends. They applied for a licence for this in 2024, but then withdrew it. Instead they added a "free" event, billed as a community day, to the existing 3 day festival, thereby increasing the event days to 4.  This would appear to be an attempt to set a precedent for increasing the number of event days, and it's inevitable that they will attempt to secure the 6 days they desire for 2026, to increase their profits further. Two weekends in a row of noise, disturbance & disruption would be unacceptable, plus an extra c.18,000 trampling & littering the park... - The site size has been increased. The claim is that it is to compensate for lost storage space due to recent flood alleviation works, but the area has increased by more than the area lost, and appears to have been used for attendee activity rather than site storage. Gala have often stated that the festival can only be located in the park because the footprint has been designed specifically for that area, and yet this year the footprint had been amended & extended without any apparent issues. Surely this proves that it could be relocated?  Apologies, I just can't help going into rant mode on this issue, but hopefully some of the above may be helpful in increasing the argument presented by the petition?
    • Best to just get in touch with the council. You need to see what works were approved and the scope.  It's probably advisable to get an independent legal survey (not a standard RICS) and look at current condition, what they said they'd fix, if they did what they said and what the problems are with what they did. Was it just your flat and the other flat mentioned? Asking in case there's any other leaseholder/ tenant involved  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...