Loz

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I doubt the journalists who write the stories see much of this though - they just see further cost > cutting along with all the back office workers who lose their jobs as the big newspapers all merge > and have "economies of scale". Maybe, though as you kind of point out - perhaps they know their jobs depend on it. If you are a campaigner against off shore banking, as these journos seem to be, wouldn't it be more that a touch galling to know your employer was up to their eyeballs in it themselves? And if you knew that your job was directly financed from off shore tax wheezes, how does that impact your credibility? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Theresa May gets to live another few weeks as PM - > It's premier league manager stuff :) > > > I assume this deal will be either (1) Take the > deal or (2) Exit with no deal > > We now want to make sure it becomes more like (1) > Take the deal (2) go back and re-negotiate (3) > Remain (4) Exit with no deal If there is enough support, a bill can always be amended...

Have you noticed something about every story in the Guardian about the Paradise Papers? None of them are open to comment. Why? Because they know that many commentators will point out the Guardian Media Group's own off-shore shenanigans. The stories over the years have been, unsurprisingly, covered in other media outlets, including the Forbes and The Spectator. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-corporation-tax/#2c2084065969 https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/ The Guardian were forced to defend themselves, which basically came down to "yeah, we push lots of money offshore, but that shouldn't stop us complaining that others do it". https://www.theguardian.com/money/tax-gap-blog/2009/feb/02/tax-gap-guardian I think Forbes' description of 'insufferable hypocrisy' pretty much sums it up.

The Beeb is still the best, even if its standards have dropped lately. You just have to pick your stories carefully. The Guardian lost the plot a while ago when it blurred the wall it had between its previously excellent news coverage and the abject lunacy of its opinion writers. And it is another that creates whole articles based on people's tweets like they are news. The Indy is quite good, but it's website design is just so plain revolting it is unreadable, even with an adblocker on full attack mode. You'd think that going internet only they'd have fixed this, but no. And the Indy100 bit is just plain awful - it reads like they get a bunch of unpaid interns to write it and it reads like Twitter on steroids. The Times' paywall makes it irrelevant. The Telegraph is going the same way. Interesting, though, how the Guardian seems to have convinced many thousands of gullible suckers to part with five quid a month. The worst paper by far (yes, even considering the Sun and the Mail) is the Express. Shameless buzz-feed style headlines hyping up nothing stories.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > But I have never actually said that I "believe that more people using bikes instead of cars won't > > reduce the number of car journeys". No one has ever said that. And we know that I never said it > > because if I had, you would have directly quoted me. > > "cyclists do little for the environment. Most will not be car drivers, so few car journeys will have > been saved, so where exactly have do your figures have to do with any lowering of pollution levels? > How many vehicle journeys have actually been saved? Just because there are more cyclists, it > does not actually follow that there is a commensurate drop in vehicle journeys." > > It seems you've realised your original assertion is somewhat idiotic, so now you try to deny making > it. The quote above is (surprisingly for you) correct and I do not in any way deny making it, but that still doesn't match up to the fake 'quote' you made up that I apparently said I "believe that more people using bikes instead of cars won't reduce the number of car journeys". But, I see that from other posts you have made, with the help of others like red devil you are finally starting to comprehend the argument. Hooray! Even if you do need more help on understanding the words 'commensurate' and 'most'...

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ermmm ... I think there's more to come out on Carl Sargeant Loz Quite possibly, but you say that like you already know he is guilty - and that is the exact danger I am referring to. He may be guilty; he may not be. I certainly don't know. But don't you think it should have been fairly investigated before he was sacked? There is a massive, crucial difference between being "suspended subject to an investigation" and "sacked", as the latter implies guilt. Plus it seems that they refused to tell him of what he was being accused. How is that fair? As I said, it is completely right that something must change from where it was before. People should be confident that is they think they have been harassed or worse, they will be listened to and their allegations investigated.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > Goodness me, he's accidentally stumbled upon the problem. How many of these bike journeys are > > actually directly replacing a car journey? > > A question to which you have no answer, and yet you try to impose it on others. Find some > statistics, or even a vaguely supportable argument, and the debate can continue. Have a > word with yourself squire - apparently you believe that more people using bikes instead of cars won't > reduce the number of car journeys. Surely even with your apparently tangential connections to > logic and reality you can see you're making rather a fool of yourself? Goodnight. But I have never actually said that I "believe that more people using bikes instead of cars won't reduce the number of car journeys". No one has ever said that. And we know that I never said it because if I had, you would have directly quoted me. Yet the question I did ask, you actually did quote. But you chose not to answer it.

McCarthyism is not the right term. But there is something worrying going on. We seem have staggered wildly from dismissing allegations without investigation to treating everyone as guilty without investigation. The question now is whether the tragic suicide of Carl Sargeant will calm things down a bit, as it does seem he was treated very poorly and unfairly. In other words, we need to get to a place where allegations are taken seriously and the accused are treated fairly.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I need road transport to deliver commodities and goods. Build housing and infrastructure. But > don't see it as a right to harm others in selfish/wasteful use of the tin boxes. Now that > is my moral high ground. What is your moral high ground Loz? (I've had my speeding points, and not > born a tree hugger) I can't argue with any of that. But I was actually questioning is there was actually significantly less "tin box" use because of cycle use. Not taking a bus or a train, but cycling instead actually makes no difference whatsoever. As I've tried to get through to RH, how many cycle journeys therefore actually make a difference? And anyway, how does that actually relate to your claim that cyclists are 'chuffing heroes'? Because to me heroes run into burning buildings to pull people out. Or they leap into a freezing river to save a drowning child. Somehow, someone cycling around just doesn't cut it on the hero scale. Six years ago I sold my car. Now it wasn't in any way for altruistic reasons at the time, as I was going out of the country. But, when a couple of years later I returned, I decided not to buy a new one. So, I would argue that I have made much more of a difference than any of Rendell's car-owning friends that hop onto their bikes some of the time - possibly all of them put together. Because it is not just in direct pollution, but also the actual carbon footprint of actually buying a car. Does that make me a 'chuffing hero'?? Of course it doesn't. That would be silly, and hyperbole in the extreme.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz, here's a tip to save your typing fingers: in answer to the question "Do you have any evidence > for this lofty assertion beyond your oft-demonstrated dislike of cyclists?" you could > have simple answered "no I haven't," Actually, the answer is "Rendell, your question not only contained a complete inaccuracy, but the more interesting question is why you didn't ask that of malumbu as well". It went a bit like this... malumbu: "Here's an assertion without any stats". Loz: "I think that is completely wrong" Angry of Mayfair: "WHERE ARE YOUR STATS LOZ. GAAAH!! HOW CAN YOU MAKE SUCH AN A LOFTY ASSERTION?". You are, at least, consistent in your inconsistencies. > The idea that more people using their bikes instead of cars for work, > shopping and socializing won't reduce pollution is absurd. Goodness me, he's accidentally stumbled upon the problem. How many of these bike journeys are actually directly replacing a car journey? And how many have resulted in fewer buses and trains travelling?? (Clue for that second question: none). And, to go back to malumbu's post, do these few actual direct car replacements actually add up to the cyclists being 'chuffing heroes"?? > Try arguments, backed with figures, instead of insults, it would make for a more interesting debate. Oh, please say you actually understand the irony of you actually typing that. You have chutzpah, Ill give you that much.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > cyclists do very little for the environment. Most cyclists > > would not be driving instead, so the effect on the > > environment is negligible, if anything. > > Do you have any evidence for this lofty assertion > beyond your oft-demonstrated dislike of cyclists? > Anecdotally, of the eleven friends I know who > cycle to work, three have always cycled, four are > former public transport commuters and four used to > drive. Factually, in the year 2000, motorists > outnumbered cyclists in Zone 1 at rush hour by a > ratio of 11:1. By 2014, the ratio had dropped to > 1.7:1. Are you going to claim that this has > nothing to do with commuters switching cars for > bikes? Your claim is utterly risible and clearly > based on nothing but your desire to denigrate > cycling at every opportunity. Except you forget (quite conveniently) I am a cyclist. So I don't hate cyclists, but I do rather object to anyone overstating a case, as maklumbu did. But good try Mr Rendell the Angry Car Hater. And you have used entirely irrelevant statistics - my assertion is that cyclists do little for the environment. Most will not be car drivers, so few car journeys will have been saved, so where exactly have do your figures have to do with any lowering of pollution levels? How many vehicle journeys have actually been saved? Just because there are more cyclists, it does not actually follow that there is a commensurate drop in vehicle journeys. If two people get off a bus at peak hour, the bus still runs. But nice try at using a smolescreen of irrelevant statistics. Anyway, malumbu made the original assertion. Perhaps he/she has better statistics to back the statement?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Most of us are chuffin heroes doing our bit for > the environment, and probably very nice people > too. Forgive me if this was satire, but cyclists do very little for the environment. Most cyclists would not be driving instead, so the effect on the environment is negligible, if anything.

bargee99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HI KK, > There is a thread about the Southwark Spine open > now about two threads below this one. It directs > you to > https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichtopeckham/. Sometimes it is rather difficult to out-satire councils. From the document... "A focus group with people who currently do not cycle was held on Saturday, 7 February 2015 at the Rockingham Centre, Elephant and Castle. The participants were all Bengali first or second generation residents living in the Elephant & Castle neighbourhood."

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I disagree - I don't own a car and hold no brief for the motor industry, indeed I've long believed > the 'law of the sea' (big gives way to small) should apply on roads At sea, it's generally seen that 'might has right'. In reality, power gives way to sail and small gives way to large and there are rules as to which applies when. Obvious, really, as smaller and/or powered vessels are more manoeuvrable - if a small outboard is approaching a cruise liner, which do you think can change course or stop quickest?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Boris talking his usual stuff - but seems someone > got hurt this time - reprimand incoming no doubt. There is a theory going around that Boris is trying to get fired as Foreign Sec. It says that he's spotted he's totally embroiled in the Brexit fiasco and if he gets out now, he can come riding to the rescue when it all goes tits up in 18 months time. This will, of course, require that the party - and the public - forget he was actually completely responsible for the Brexit fiasco in the first place.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Harriet doesn't do so well here too > > https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-harriet-harman-labour-conference-leader-jeremy-corbyn-feminism-not-a-sister-asset-a7330586.html%3famp Gotta love Grace Dent. A long underrated columnist. I think that stint she did covering the early days of Big Brother hurt her cv.

Newbie question: do players get paid in the off-season?

One foot in the rage thread, the other in the Bah Humbug thread? Sit yourself down and crack open a bottle of wine RPC. I think you need it.

About six months ago I saw at peak hour a guy cycle off the side street, straight across Earls Court Road (the cars braking and narrowly missing him), straight over the pavement (narrowly missing - and rather startling - the pedestrians) and cycle at speed directly into the tube station. It was a tour de force of stupidity.

The irrational rage characteristics of Kenneth Branagh's moustache pales into insignificance when you consider the rest of Kenneth Branagh.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > seenbeen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > here it is- next to a 1p > > OMG that's the size of SEVERAL 1p pieces! The penny itself looks potentially lethal as well.

Gaynor, I'm sure you need no validation from me, but I have to say you are indeed an angel. It's easy to be cynical and either blame the government or blame the system or even blame the person themselves, but you are getting up, doing something and going out of your way to help someone who needs it. I take my virtual hat off to you. I wish there were more in the world like you. I even wish I were more like you.

tomdhu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > eddeal1 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > not one person has said i have room in my house i > > will take this human in.and try to help him. > > Have you made the offer? He/She is far too busy selling their 2012 Alfa Romeo Mito 1.4 16v Sprint.

> Is East Dulwich the poor part of Dulwich?? Nope - it's the rich part of Peckham Rye.

Meanwhile, the Guardian is using the opportunity to print as many brazenly sexist articles as they can get their hands on. E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/nov/04/evidence-mounting-mans-place-in-home