clive3300

What size grounds is it going to have? Cant imagine how so many kids will fit in what looks a tiny space.

mightyroar Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'looking and sounding managerial' > > Brilliant. I'm going to add that one to my CV > should I ever get off my middle class arse and > stop deprioritising my career and attempt to get > back in the level playing field which is the > mainstream work-place these days. > > Noone in that work place wasting the education > they were lucky enough to get I should hope? > No? Great Wow - I reread this twice and I am still not sure of what you are trying to say. Too much wit for me - sorry. If you were trying to write some management double talk, you left off 'paradigm', 'going forward' amongst others. Regarding education - its a sine qua non for entry level into most professions, generally irrelevant thereafter in light of performance and perceived value (in my experience).

The apparently well-meaning welfare state has distorted society to the point where this sort of rolling disaster is actually a viable economic unit.

Ms B Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I shall refrain from punishing James given that > his credibility on all gender/discrimination > matters is now utterly and forever f*cked. Its funny how most people who feel discriminated against are happy to discriminate against others without any worry of hypocracy (not saying that James is one of these necessarily). Its a very irritating habit, but very human. Regarding discrimination at work - I believe this happens very little these days - far less than people believe. Its very easy to just blame lack of success on it, when overwelmingly its so obvious why most people dont get ahead. Invariably its because people arent some of all: smart, hard working, networking, enthusiastic, clearly adding value and looking and sounding managerial. Even then with most people like this at top firms even people like this get overlooked.

VeryBerryCherry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But above and beyond all > of that we are all different people, with > indiviudal thoughts, beliefs, styles, attitudes > etc... Why pigeon-hole people when you can invest > a little more time getting to know them and see > how interesting and different people's live are. Of course you are right, and any thinking person should reject prejuidice as immoral and stupid. Unfortunately the reality is most people have quite a number of prejudices against all sorts of things and people. Education goes some of the way, but will never eliminate this very human failing. However groups with particular prejuidices against them by the wider population (mostly attitude and behaviour) that rankle could often make more active effort to defuse them. My moment of deciding to make an effort was at the end of a job interview (in London) where 2 company directors actually laughingly sang a mildly rude song to me about my general background and how its not nice. Apparently it is/was a real song. Rather than freak out I decided there might be a grain of truth and have thereafter made a little extra effort to counteract the stereotype. Clearly the comment in the original topic of this thread is just abhorent and no action should be considered!

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just because it's made up doesn't stop it from > being very interesting. > Agreed. I find these sorts of things quite facinating from a cultural / historical perspective, but it certainly doesnt "hang together" enough for me to base my morality on it. These apparent anomolies is what help indicate how and when it was written, and (in the case of Adam's "first wife") how it was edited.

I think aggressive begging can be close to mugging. Myself and 2 friends had a couple of guys walk up to us in Brixton and "ask" for ?2. Initially we said No, but after they blocked our path and indicated that they would have some additional people there very quickly we just handed over. I think this sort of thing was still a mugging and a crime (the threat, even if verbal), but not quite the same as being robbed at close quarters with 10 inch kitchen knife: Which also happned to me in Brixton.

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ms B wrote:one of the things I like about working > for an investment bank > > Does this mean you are naturally quick at > figures? > > Did you come top of the class in maths? > > Are you a very calculating female;-) I guess one could ask, what this line of questions was in aid of?

There are lots of anomolies in even later biblical texts indicating they were written significantly more recently than when originally presumed and therefore no guarantee they represent any original idea. E.g. the detailed description of Goliath sounds very similar to the equipment and tactics of a greek hoplite (which was the foremost heavy infantry afterthe 600s BC) however it is describing events that took place some 600 years earlier. In fact much of this text is very similar to part of the Iliad and is quite possibly borrowed! So clearly this story was transfered as oral tradition during this gap and "sexed up" when written down. And clearly many other things could have been easily altered.

Ms B Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For instance, > one of the things I like about working for an > investment bank (apart from the mad adrenaline > rushes) is that no one really cares about the > colour of your skin, your sexual preferences or > who your parents are - it's results that count. Quite right! :). I am sure some of my coworkers are aliens - no one cares.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Now is there any need for that, JUST as people > were beginning to get along? Only because James was unbelievably understanding to some excessively aggressive posts saying essentially he couldnt ask nor have an opinion. Reminds me of the "dodgy peckham rye" thread.

citizenED Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Totally agree with you, I hate that side-effect of > the changes in society but the attempt to crack > down on the whole population of young people with > measures such as conscription is a regressive and > counterproductive move. Its odd that society seems unable to bring itself to crack down with strong and sensible penalties on the very obvious offenders who ARE identiable and culpable. Because most cannot imagine any effective punishment for younger people, society flails around trying to blame history, parents (though in a lot of cases, but not all they share responsibility), racism, etc and looks for ludicrous responses like general conscription. General conscription is an overkill, however it isnt completely mad. I saw some real "tearaway" (ie violent nasty pieces of work) kids go through conscription and come out sweet as pie 12 months later. I would say it should be considered as a sentencing option. Boys are naturally aggressive and some need to get it out their system.

James Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't see what is so controversial about this. > Please expand Muffin, I am interested to know your > thoughts. > > For the reasons I described earlier, far fewer > black people have broken into the middle and > upper-middle classes. This is a historical factor. > Privilege and wealth are entrenched and handed > down in this country - just as poverty and social > exclusion is, irrespective of race. The relatively > small black middle class in Britain show this > country up for its lack of social mobility in > general. Put simply, if you're born into poverty > in Britain you'll probably stay poor, whether > you're white or black. Sad but true. > > Secondly, young black males' lack of role models. > I think it's really sad that people won't address > the cultural issues here for fear of being seen as > un-pc. For as long as we ignore the elephant in > the drawing room, too many black boys will > continue to be drawn into a miserable life of > crime. This is not racist; it is the very opposite > in fact. We are talking about cultural and > historical factors here that have their root in > the evils of colonialism and slavery. James, what you say seems to make perfect sense to me. However as you are white you may never have any opinions, ask any questions nor in fact talk about black people except to apologise. Regarding racism and homophobia at school - yes its wrong. However so is kids picking on other kids for being ugly, foreign, short, fat, skinny, ginger, smart or stupid. Kids can be nasty.

citizenED Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Changes for the better sometimes come at a price > and the increasing freedom in society, the > increasingly equal treatment of women and ethnic > minorities, the acknowledgement that children are > human beings deserving of their own rights and the > general move towards opportunity for all and > social mobility, benefit us all. We have to manage > the change and there is some fallout over it. Some > impoverished, disenfranchised people often suffer > from the increases in freedom but as sad and > worrying as that is, it should not be used to halt > the progress. Knee-jerk reactions regarding youth > crime, suggestions that we go back to national > service and the such like, are such a retrograde > step. All suffer for the crimes of the few, > without any guarantee that those solutions will > work. Smoothly written, but is it really knee-jerk that society draw a limit on some "freedoms"? I resent the apparent "freedom" of people to stab me or otherwise attack me. I am really, really not ok with it. In fact I am quite ok with them being severly punished for even attempting to kill those close to me, or innocent bystanders. Writing them a nicely worded letter signed by a caring social worker saying we hope they dont abuse their freedoms in the future and wishing them to "be well" is not quite going to hack it a practical response.

I recently got the Nokia 6500 slide which is like the baby bro of the N95. I have to admit I am very impressed - virtually flawless (certainly compared to all other phones from last 5 years). Only thing that isnt excellent is video recorder which is jerky (where the N95 is smooth).

MelbourneGr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Take Clive for example - he goes off on > one when challenged, clearly annoyed by this, the > man is probably getting into a lather in front of > his LCD PC screen. I usually link that kind of > behaviour to bratty kids... Well fair enough. :)-D Its not every day I get called a racist and a liar because I dont go to some of the shops in the area I live in...

Us = everyone else who has commented in this thread, except you really. Other people have opinions you know. Essentially almost all people said they wouldnt buy things from Rye Lane. You said its because we are all racists. I, personally believe people can make their own decisions based on personal choice. The vast majority of shops there specifically cater for african customers. You, youself have indicated that people in east dulwich are "all" white (the great dividing line). So why MUST these citizens buy from these shops. In fact why arent all shop owners in Rye Lane not racists for not making shops that white middleclass people would choose to shop at? SUrely this evil must be stamped out immediately. OMG I cant believe I am wasting my time on this worthless discussion. Give me a white pointy hat too please.

muffintop Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What a coincidence then eh Clive! I randomly pick > 2 areas I have lived in, and you have lived there > too Lived near the Hammersmith and city tube for a few months, and in Plaistow for 6months. Take your suggestion of lying and shove it.

muffintop Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and bascially say it is a crime ridden, > unhygienic, e-coli ridden, smelly, decrepit > cesspool of a place to live in isnt kind. Not > saying you said all of those things personally, > but thats what feedback I am getting. Of course I actually said NONE of those things and I dont think anyone else did either. In fact a page back I posted some posts SPECIFICALLY stating that it is NOT threatening. Fanatical "anti-racists" do their cause no good by actively pissing off every normal person they get in contact with. Also in my experience "anti-racists" only hate any whiff of racism when directed at their specific ethnic group, but invariably arnt in the least bit worried about actively hating every other indigenous or immigrant group. However I dont need to defend my views to you. My view (as stated) is it I dont think its threatening, but mostly it isnt particularly nice, and basically anyone with a modicum of sense would agree. If your only viewpoint is a comparison with some godawful council estate, then your viewpoint is to skewed to really be of much assistance to Chantelle

muffintop Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > By the way, I am of mixed racial heritage > (afro-carribean and european) FFS this is has nothing to do with race/racism. Rye Lane IS scruffy. I lived in East London and Shepherds bush and it is scruffier than both. There ARE relatively very few shops I would buy things from (although Cottage Chicken on Choumert and Rye is best chicken shop in the area). There could be black, white, mixed race or even aliens living there and my opinion and those of most forumers here would be the same.

snoozequeen1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > >Like Holland and Barrett, the large Boots, > Dixons, Woolworths, Argos, Clarks, the Nationwide > and the Halifax, which are found in every high > street in the land, and on Rye Lane, but not on > Lordship Lane? > > I have never noticed rubbish as any worse outside > these places than anywhere else in London. > > Yet this busy shopping street is characterised as > "dangerous" and "smelly" and "stinks", leading to > the repeat chorus of "I wouldn't go there"? > > Humbug. > are you blind or just insane? how do you quote "dangerous", "smelly" and "stinks" from my post when i said exactly none of these terms? there is a fair bit more rubbish than the average London IMO, but its mostly the condition of the shop signs that looks scruffy. The sidewalks ARE dirtier, but maybe that endemic racism in southwark council? anyway 2 years ago in LL about 1/2 were also scruffy. Now relatively few, e.g Chener books look awful. And yes it has those big high street stores, but (as you quite well know) they are overwelmingly outnumbered by stores selling stuff that few of us would buy. most of the shops are ethinic beauty salons, food shops and ?1 electronics etc shops. In fact from the bottom of Rye lane to peckham rye trainstation (a fair distance) i believe there are about zero "normal" highstreet shops.

snoozequeen1 is obsessed by race, when in fact there has been nothing racist at all in the simple, objective observations made that Rye Lane is mostly a very scruffy road with shops that for the most part, the members of this forum would not be interested in buying anything from. If Rye Lane has become more black over the years, that is due to many factors, NONE of which is some sort of apartheid. Chill out for gods sake.

snoozequeen1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...........we > should all be totally ashamed that this division > has happened. And it has happened in the last 20 > years, a time when SE15 and SE22 were both > inclusive areas, until you can now draw a line on > a map between worlds. > > It is not all right to have a white middle class > enclave with mock Victorian sweetie shops, > trinketry and frippery food, 400 yards from an > immigrant/under class reservation where you can go > for, as you describe them, less "dull" and > "comfortable" things. As long as your own hildren > don't have to grow up somehow through the less > "dull" and "comfortable" things? > > ... > .... > > Do we really think that the people living in > Peckham and eating "smelly" food wanted to leave > their own homes, culture, language, families, > country, everything that they knew and made them > who they were, to come and clean your house (cash > in hand, obviously) and be sneered at for doing > it, on the other side of the world? > > It's our government policies that have forced and > are forcing huge numbers of people off the > land/out of work across eg Latin America, and that > is getting a whole lot worse as entire countries > are being turned over to producing biofuel and > animal feed crops for export to the rich, rather > than feeding their own people. > > Did you see the ad in the Evening Standard, > guaranteeing 10-20% returns on "Green Gold", ie, > crops from Argentina/Brazil/Paraguay - the "united > republics of soya". What do you think was > happening on that land before UK speculators > bought it? How do you think, exactly, that your > 10-20% guaranteed return gets screwed out of the > country and its people? > > And once people have been shoved off/forced out of > what was their family's home for generations, they > may as well come to London as the totally lawless > squalid city in their own country. > the same people need to shop and eat after > working for 14 hours. They do have to eat you > know. What a depressingly negative view you have of Britain and the entire world! The immigrants I know (and I know lots) are generally positive, upbeat, practical people prepared to take a chance for a new life and IMO are generally happy with the great improvement in life and opportunity they have got in the UK. This includes the Caribbean and Asian immigrants from the 50s right up to african and eastern European immigrants from today. It seems only following generations (if they feel they cannot assimilate) and native british who have this sort of angsty, beating one's breast-viewpoint and unable to see the possibilities available here compared to other countries.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Macroban - Was thinking of the houses on holly > grove, the lyndhursts, denman, talfourd; > mid-Victorian and earlier. Nothing in east > Dulwich to compare. I agree. These houses are visible to the north as you come into PR rail station from the west (e.g. from Blackfriars). They are beautiful large early victorians. They are larger and prettier than pretty much anything in ED (which is overwelmingly small 2 story houses). Lyndhurst has some lovely houses. Pity it degenerates into a council /industrial wasteland a few hundred metres up the road.

Just took a walk along Rye Lane an hour ago and made an interesting observation, which I have before - there are very few to no young males hanging around apparently "looking for trouble". I passed hundreds of people up and down the street and there were almost no young males, and I saw not one group standing around. I have noticed this before. It was overwelmingly middle aged to old people or young mothers with kids under 10. Maybe its not "cool" enough to hang out in (at least up to PR rail station) at any rate. Anyone else notice this? Also I believe, listening to accents, the population is more African rather than Caribbean (e.g. I saw no one dressed in Rastafarian), which somehow seems to make people generally quieter spoken and more relaxed than Brixton which seem to have the harsher Jamaican accents and seems comparitively full of large, yelling people and with plenty of huge young men in black bomber jackets, which some people might find menacing.