jaywalker

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can see it (the joke I mean not the thing about > it not being a joke) and thought it was funny - > and believe "who have you installed in the > tribunal of your own reason" is the basis for a > perfect dinner party game slash R4 panel show. glad you have such a great sense of humour maxxi. why is the quotation the basis for a perfect dinner party game? do we judge ourselves autonomously? my point was that we do not. the phrase 'tribunal of reason' is, I admit, derivative: but I guess you just think its a joke.

Not now, I fear, tapas.

Nice one Keano77, although of course they do not need to be handed a veto: they already, as a member of the 27, have one. The game theoretic reality is that this is 1 to 27: in this sense the EU does not exist in this negotiation. So what do we think the countries with large populations over here doing their excellent work will be insisting upon? Meanwhile, in fantasy land, I am greatly looking forward to our now imminent war with Spain (such a nice homology with The Falklands) - (irony emoticon - I fear this needs emphasis these days). I see on the BBC "have your say" website that Brexiters are arguing for this. We think we are a great imperial power, so we must keep strategic access to the Med and defend 'our' people. So lets see what some exocets will do to change the Spanish mind. I suspect the good people of Gibralter may have other ideas given how they voted in the referendum, as may the people of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and er ... London. It has all unravelled so fast: I wonder if the Brexit camp can face this. I doubt it. They will just get more strident and stupid.

I thought Otta's OP was quite a serious one. How does one approach it? Presumably, we all bring to bear what resources we can. No doubt I should try harder to make my points clearer. You have said before that the kind of language I used above is pretentious and vacuous (and this is certainly always a danger). But, for me, the OP raises a question that is both important and very difficult to get at. You can say my points make no sense, but I'm not sure that this is true (mainly because I have no new ideas and have to plunder them from elsewhere even if I do try to put them in my own words). I use ordinary and direct language when I'm posting about car parking, pheasants or pavements: not sure that will get us very far with the OP. But you are probably right, the tribunal of the EDF forum is a good place to come face to face with one's own pretentiousness: and at this time of year gardening suddenly looks more interesting.

Louisa is right. Except the pheasants are adopting us, like cats did 12,000 years ago. Feed them, they will make loyal and beautiful companions. I know someone to whom a pheasant comes each evening for a handful of grain. Gain to both. However, avoid peacocks: they are an evolutionary cul de sac (fine if you have a 1000 acre estate, not otherwise).

We are leaving, at great cost. Yet we will still be subject to the ECJ (to get any kind of a trade deal) take in several hundred thousand migrant workers each year (not to do so would close the NHS and care homes immediately, not to mention most of the businesses in London). And this in a general climate of increasing protectionism in which all trade opportunities that remain open will be incredibly precious. Do the Brexiters actually think they will get what they want? If the negotiations collapse then May will be out - the Repeal Acts will be defeated in both Lords and Commons. Update on BBC News tonight. Independence from ECJ promised by Davies. Well, then we cannot have a trade deal. If we have a trade deal it must be actionable in the courts with those countries we have the deal. In the EU this means the ECJ. So, the government are not planning a trade deal? Or anything much at all, actually?

Seabag, would being single mean that the pull of guilt "of all that we have done and been" is less? You don't have any cultural references for 'phantasm' in this context, right?

James, I voted for you, and actually will again (protest against BREXIT etc) and I truly appreciate and am thankful for your accessibility on the forum. I also (from other contexts) realise that answering all these criticisms takes a great deal of time and that the work of councillors is a hiding to nothing. However, if you make yourself present then the work will continue. At what point in your answer do you answer my question? I am struggling ... In all honesty, your justification for more money spent on a new Melbourne Grove survey (of the junction with Chesterfield) seems to be sliding all over the place. If the problem is actually parking (!) - btw, I routinely park in Melbourne because there are actually spaces available that are not in my own street - then perhaps the surveys/improvements should address that? But that would be a great waste of money as parking is much easier in Melbourne than in the surrounding streets. Are you planning to provide more spaces? I would like to note at this point that I used to live in Kennington. We went from free parking to CPZ. This was expensive, bureaucratic, and reduced the number of available spaces. PLEASE do not go down that route.

Thanks ianr, and quite. Hi James, I guess the question, as I've reiterated in numerous posts, is one of opportunity cost. ALL roads would benefit from some improvement. What is the value of the next best improvement for the money being spent on Melbourne Grove? Is it less or more than would be obtained here? Is your argument that speeding on Melbourne Grove is significantly worse than on other streets? If so, what is your data? I understand that the budget may be hypothecated (as set in advance) for Transport, so one can only compare transport projects; but that does not mean it should just be spent where some improvement can be obtained. One would have thought that the question of opportunity cost would be at the forefront of decision-making. btw, I stick religiously to the 20mph limit. As a result I am tailgated everywhere. PS, went back to the report. "The results of the speed surveys indicate that the mean speeds are near the 20mph speed limit ranging from 18.9 to 20.1mph. The 85% speed ranges from 23.9 to 24.8 mph approximately 4 to 5mph above the speed limit. Traffic flows are relatively low with a maximum two-way peak hour flow of 217 vehicles recorded during the AM peak hour at location 1 which equates to 3.6 vehicles per minute." Not entirely clear how speeding should be defined. The fastest driver? The average driver? The report appears to find that, on average, users of Melbourne Grove do not even exceed the 20 mph limit. Better then to look comparatively to rank potential projects?

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's always room to learn from personal > history. This thread came from the MM thread. > Political history, has often been years of trying > to find truths while the ordinary people whos > lives have been destroyed wewe submerged as > victims or casualties. Its important to know that > the truth is often hidden, and its admirable > people do not let the past lie, for much would still be hidden. but the empirical truth (who killed or tortured whom) is of no interest as such. Nor is the will to find completeness: uncovering the "hidden". It is precisely this truth that demands retribution, revenge (or its flip-side; tolerance, forgiveness), which counters the empirical on its own level - action to make right. Such action is the nightmare of the soul.

womanofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Haven't we all made mistakes? > I don't mean murder, but as we get older and > worldlier don't we all realise we treated people > badly/misinterpreted others actions? > I would not make the mistakes again-but I am > guilty - the list is long... The sentiment is admirable. But who have you installed in the tribunal of your own reason to find yourself guilty? Did you think that this phantasm was of your own devising?

Dear Deputy Mayor, Thank you for your post. Please could you advise how I might go about being 'informally consulted'? If I am not eligible for this consultation (I do not live in Melbourne Grove, but use it frequently), then I would like to record my opposition, as a council tax payer, to money being spent on what is, in the light of my daily use of this street both as a pedestrian and a car driver, an ordinary street with little speeding (council's own survey report). All streets could no doubt be improved (including the one in which I live). However, there have been severe issues (clearly reported on this site) at specific pinch points in East Dulwich (both road traffic junctions and pavement maintenance). In the light of this, I am surprised (to put it mildly) that Melbourne Grove has risen to such prominence in the council's decision making. I have seen my council tax rise by 5% this year, and now hear that many thousands of pounds are being spent on Melbourne Grove, when other transport (and indeed social care issues) would seem to me to deserve greater priority. Regards and best wishes, Jaywalker

But Monica last night at that hotel with the wobbly swimming pool that cost more than Trump owns was brilliant. She should be given a show immediately: now there is someone who knows how to gut a fish.

The past is like the real, not accessible. There is no particular reason to believe it is linear or even single, or even that it flows as our experience does. This is true of the present too, of course, which is really the proof of the inaccessibility. If this is true, then what we call the past is always-already interpretation. Then the question is how that interpretation is composed. I am reading the excellent Fredric Jameson at the moment (The Political Unconscious). He makes the Nietzsche-inspired argument that ressentiment is the master trope of remembering in our late-Christian-fragmented-by-capitalism world. Thus a past remembered as one containing (the trope is significant) good and evil. No shortage of that going on in our national newspapers or courts currently. This allows a vicious calling-to-account, and outpouring of moralic acid (as Nietzsche put it) that expresses the broken person in that world (their ressentiment). If Jameson is right then we should think much more carefully about a kind of forgetting. But forgetting is itself a political act. Our question should be the purpose we would put that forgetting to.

With inflation going the way it is, the only use for it will be the same as the 3d bit - in an xmas pudding. For this reason I already like it. What is beyond belief is why the govt thought it necessary to change the design. They are printing billions in 'quantitative easing' yet suddenly got worried by a few million fake coins. Against the cost of changing all the slot machines? But perhaps it will persuade those still demanding you use one for supermarket trolleys to stop.

his pumpkin soup on the Royal Hospital Road was to die for: an epiphany. and there was more to come. very nearly broke my credit card though (sure, I was out to impress). if he can make pumpkin soup he must be able to host a tv show. or so it was thought.

he cooks quite well - although it is a bit pricey.

he is a chef.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Large amounts of > money sent out of the UK every month to fund their > property in another European capital city. > No wonder they are crying ..... uncleglen, do you not understand that it doesn't matter at all how many Europeans you know? That is, the many you judge are abusing the UK benefits system? That this is not evidence of any kind? Or do you seriously think that casual empiricism adds to the truth of a proposition (the kind of nonsense propagated by the 'freedom of speech' exemplified by our national newspapers)? if you do think your own observations, as such, count towards truth you are simply ill-educated. this is because you base your self-certainty on an inappropriate metaphor. It is basically the Mercantilist one: money is 'sent out' (with the implication that somehow this means we are consequently poorer) so the container of our nationalism is emptied of wealth. Suggest go to the Science Museum and look at the Phillips Engine. A different metaphor.

I drive frequently at this junction. I simply do not understand the need to spend money here. It is open, with very good lines of sight. Speeding is rarer here than elsewhere according to the council's own survey. There are countless projects and people in real need who are seeing their funding squeezed, yet thousands of pounds are being put towards this?? Who are the people who make this sort of decision? Do they have any contact at all with those they claim they represent? Local government is beyond parody. Ridiculous.

That is exceptionally helpful Alice, thank you.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, but Juncker is a deluded old geezer who is > way past his sell by date. suggest read interview with him in FT today - think you may change your mind.

Jennys Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suspect the doctor would not speak to family > members only to their named patient. But worth a > try. You are correct Jennys, and we did try. I do not blame the GP: they rightly have their own ethical code and (to be clear) I do not want my GP sharing my own medical info with anyone - that is, unless it is a matter of law (as it is, for example, with infectious diseases for the sake of the wider community). That it is not in this case makes matters very difficult. And no, Lowlander, my experience (of course this may not be a general rule) is that they will not notify DVLA on their own initiative, on the same principle. I take the point about the anonymous notification. However, the obvious problem is that then the question will arise as to who did the notification. It will not have been the GP under the current law ...

This is what that 'society' believes, of course. We are just average English people, more empiricist, practical and level-headed than those Europeans, and certainly more so than those 'educated' cosmopolitan liberals who would tie us to them. I do wonder if you have simply taken the values expressed by those for whom you have contempt ('shit', 'shit', 'hideous' etc) and are now projecting them against them, as if it is you who are the more enlightened, cosmopolitan, rational, and so on. The Europeans in tears that their life here is threatened, those (and many, in the confusion, not from the EU) who have been spat on and abused, the peril in which the United Kingdom has been put, the present danger of stagflation - all just scaremongering. Those cities you glorify in your post all voted remain. Those areas that did not, do not have the same characteristics you describe. Well, what a surprise.

"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved with mankind" (Donne)