Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Marcus Wrote:

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

> Anyone going?


Thought about it then I looked at this "Austerity" thing. Soon realised that it's like having over-binged on a credit card and then having to pay off the debt later.


Brown and Balls binged on borrowing from 2002 to 2010. This debt doesn't even start to get paid off until the budget balances. So more austerity to come whether we whinge or not.


One way to reduce the effects of austerity is to slash overseas aid and spend the money here in the UK instead.


The UK will spend ?11.4 billion in overseas aid this year! Now that is real money.


I'd much rather protest about that.

philosophie Wrote:

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

> It was brilliant, such a warm and positive vibe.

> This is about where the cuts are targeted. 120

> billion in corporate tax avoidance and yet the

> poor and vulnerable always incur the penalty.


Can you name and shame some of them with the amounts they avoid/evade. That way I can target my protesting.

Loz Wrote:

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

> Was it crowded? Organisers have claimed that 478

> trillion billion squazillion people attended. The

> police counted 18 people and a budgerigar.


The police always understate on these occasions; it was actually a hyacinthine macaw. ;)


I can't do marches but other day to day activism in support of social justice is incredibly important (remember this government only has a tiny majority) and can have the same or an even greater effect.

philosophie Wrote:

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

> It was brilliant, such a warm and positive vibe.

> This is about where the cuts are targeted. 120

> billion in corporate tax avoidance and yet the

> poor and vulnerable always incur the penalty.



So glad it was such a warm and positive vibe, it's only cost us all a couple of million, still, if you feel warm and fuzzy it must have been worth it....

I was there yesterday and it was a great day but I agree with Otta. The government don't care.


The only good thing is that the majority is so silm. They were actually better off under coalition (70 seat majority I think? ish). The way to fight back will be to lobby tory backbenchers bill by bill (Cameron already lost the first vote re EU referendum).

I agree with Green Goose...and Mr Micawber ("Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery." )

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> I agree with Green Goose...and Mr Micawber

> ("Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure

> nineteen nineteen and six , result happiness.

> Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure

> twenty pounds ought and six, result misery." )


This countries been miserable for a long time then.

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 was surprised to learn that East Dulwich Picturehouse now only screens PG-rated films for their baby-friendly showings, unlike other Picturehouse branches. Apparently, this change happened after a complaint to the council about showing films above a PG rating to infants. Afaik, this policy only applies to this  branch. As a local parent, I find this frustrating. It limits our options, especially when many of us would love the chance to watch a wider range of films while caring for our little ones. For example, during Oscar Week, only one vintage film is being shown. Are we really expected to only consume toddler-focused content, like Cocomelon? I also worry about the precedent this sets. If other institutions, like the Tate or the National Portrait Gallery, applied similar restrictions, parents could be left with only child-oriented content. Babies under one don’t fully comprehend adult themes, so shouldn’t there be more flexibility? I’d love to hear what others think—should this policy be reconsidered?
    • I am a secondary teacher in the local area and totally agree that it’s so important for teenagers to be given a space to connect and learn skills. I think it’s lovely that they’ve been able to do this organically due to the carpark being derelict but it defeats the very concept of dynamic urban living to use this as a reason to block the development of the space into something that could benefit the whole community. I would really welcome an entrepreneur bringing a proposal forward that thinks about how we could best make the space work for everyone. I’d also love to see the council engage with the kids themselves on how and where to make the skate park permanent, perhaps in Dulwich Park itself. Give them some funding to make it nicer than a space by such a busy traffic route. I also agree we shouldn’t romanticise the skate park - they’re not principals in the Royal Ballet Company. I don’t think it’s hugely affecting the community, but let’s not pretend there isn’t some underage drinking and drug use going on there. But mainly the building itself is a waste of space and it’s often depressing to see the private security company vans parked out there late at night. Let’s use it as an opportunity to engage in conversations about what this part of Lordship Lane really needs. 
    • This kind of thing? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/286379655798?  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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