DaveR

Emerson, if you read the thread you will see that I have consistently agreed with you. The point I am making is that the fact that a cyclists who rides on the pavement might injure/kill someone does not support the assertion that they should be treated like 'any other vehicle'. Which is wot Loz said.

"Anyway, the point is, [because] a cyclist moves fast enough to seriously injure and/or kill pedestrians. [then] They should have the same onus of the law upon them as any other vehicle on the road." = b*llocks It's a bit like because a cricket ball, if thrown hard enough, could hit and kill someone, it should be licensed as if it were a firearm You think I'm talking rubbish - try looking up the stats for fatalities caused by cricket balls. It's comparative risk, innit.

No Loz, what I was saying is the argument you advanced i.e. because of x, then y, is b*llocks. And it is, for the reasons given. Nashoi said; "I've always thought the best option for cyclists is to treat red lights the same way the emergency services do ie as giveway rather than stop signals" which may or not may mean that he thinks red-light jumping should be legitimised for cyclists, but doesn't affect the b*llocks-ness of your proposition. And introducing a new offence for the purpose of catching maybe one person every three to five years is a waste of time and effort.

"Anyway, the point is, a cyclist moves fast enough to seriously injure and/or kill pedestrians. They should have the same onus of the law upon them as any other vehicle on the road." This is just b*llocks. It is already against the law to cycle on the pavement and to jump red lights, and nobody is seriously arguing that it shouldn't be. The issue is enforcement, and tbh that applies equally to cars - how many times does a car running a red light result in a ticket? As to compulsory registration etc., quite apart from the practical problems e.g. where do you put the reg plate, it would be both disproportionate and unlikely to result in any significant improvement. Everybody has an anecdote about a terrible bit of cycling behaviour, but the stats don't lie - the risk to pedestrians and other users presented by cyclists is very small, and infinitesmal compared to the risk to both pedestrians and cyclists from cars, trucks etc. I have complete sympathy for anybody who is put in fear by idiots riding on the pavement when there is no need, and too fast, or who is using a crossing and finds a cyclist bearing down on them, unwilling to stop. But it doesn't help anybody to make sweeping generalisations about 'over-adrenalized cyclists' and then argue that cyclists are 'the same' as any other road user. They're not, just like your car isn't the same as a bus. Unless you drive a bus, and are allowed to take it home at the weekends (which would be kind of cool, but you'd have to have a massive garage).

"Sadly hardly anyone now seems to support our local teams - it would be good to have a guess on the percentage in East Dulwich who go down the Den (pretty easy to get to), Palace or Charlton." On this forum, at least, that's more of a reflection of people's roots being elsewhere rather than an unwillingness to support their local club. I've been to Millwall, Palace and Charlton plenty of times, but only when they're playing Ipswich.

I agree with Pearson. More cyclists on the road = safer cycling for all, more incentive for cycle-friendly roads etc. Cyclists on the pavement = undue risk to pedestrians and annoyance to everyone. I would be interested to know what age people start taking their kids on the road, though.

"A cyclist that knocks down a person can be as equally fatal as a motor car" It can. But 99% of the time it isn't, for obvious reasons associated with speed, weight of vehicle etc. Which is (one of the reasons) why bikes aren't subject to licensing/registration etc. Which in turn makes enforcing the rules against cyclists who are dangerous more difficult. Which is what the OP was complaining about. Phew. There have been a lot of threads on here that have descended into motorist vs cyclist rants. With my cycling hat (metaphorically) on I'd say that lots of complaints about cyclists do relate to stuff which is annoying but not dangerous. But that is no excuse for either riding on the pavement (other than very slowly and only when necessary) or jumping red lights when pedestrians are crossing, both of which are obviously dangerous, and stupid.

Having found some stats, I decided to have a look. These are for the UK for 2009. Incidents of pedestrian injured by cyclist - 271 Incidents of pedestrian injured by motorbike - 899 Incidents of pedestrian injured by car - 18,856

There's no direct recourse but you can inform the 'authorities' i.e. the local police and the council, both of whom collect data about complaints etc. and use it to prioritise future activities. The stats for pedestrians injured by cyclists (and other road traffic accident data) are available in various forms from various sources and show that it is thankfully rare, although I wouldn't be surprised if it on the increase. Dept for Transport

To add another economics 101 factor - 'the UK property market' or even 'the London property market' in facts consist of a very large number of tiny and quite distinct local markets with limited substitutability between them. In practice this means that many people continue to buy (if they can) when it might make more sense to rent, and many people continue to buy in 'desirable' areas when it might make more sense to go somewhere cheaper. London itself is a highly desirable area (people choose to buy in the city when it would be cheaper to commute, for example) and ED (for the time being at least) is a comparatively desirable neighbourhood (it still seems to command a price premium over Nunhead and Forest Hill). When you add to that the fact that London is likely to suffer less than almost anywhere else in the UK from unemployment and falling incomes it tends to suggest unexciting but not disastrous prospects for ED homeowners.

I've just read this thread and I'm crossing my legs for the rest of the day

"Solutions to crime involve complex and expensive work to rebuild our societies, change our aspirations, create more inclusive aspirational values, build up communities and invest in a more humane environment." This sounds attractive and aspirational, and over 50-100 years or so may even be true, but it ignores the rather more pressing and prosaic question of how to stop individual who are now committing crimes from committing any more. There are lots of answers to that question too, but a good starting point would be: - more pro-active policing - stiffer sentences for some apparently less serious but in truth high-impact crime (simple bag snatching, for example) - more intensive drug rehab facilities - better education and employment support for ex-cons Arming mortgage holders sounds a leading contender for stupidest idea in the world. When interest rates jump they're probably either going to shoot the bank manager or turn the gun on themselves.

"I'm not arguing about a point of law. I'm pointing out that it is disappointing that you personally, as an educated and bright adult, seem to think it's okay to call policemen c***s. For the esteemed and capable lawyer that you so clearly are, it consequently seems somewhat disappointing that the pinnacle of your achievement is to now start calling me names? Your clients would be both proud and impressed I'm sure. Their girlfriends must swoon at your presence." At the risk of descending into more name-calling (by default), this is just too juvenile to require a response.

"BTW, I don't think it's okay for people to call policemen c***s either. You didn't deny this, you just claimed the policemen should get used to it. You're obviously proud of this sleight of hand, in a way that is beyond your legal responsibility. What a shame that people with these beliefs should have an influence on the law in the UK" Wrong on all counts. The issue is not whether it's "OK" but whether it's a crime, and in particular whether in that case it was a crime. You clearly know f*** all about the responsibility in this situation so why pontificate as if you do? And the outcome of a trial has no influence on the law in the UK - it just determines whether someone is convicted or not. As for football fans vs police, if your point is that they are not the same, well done. However, the point is that context is all in determining whether conduct is likely to cause harassment alarm and distress - as was famously observed by a very eminent judge, something may be an actionable nuisance if it happens in Grosvenor Square, but not in Smithfield Market. There is an ass here, H, and (yet again( it's you.

"Too many muggings" Any muggings are too many, and I don't know if the current spate of reports is a result of more muggings or just more reporting. However, as has been observed, this type of crime often has 'spikes' so it is plausible that we are experiencing one. A large proportion of crimes are committed by a small number of prolific offenders and there are any number of reasons why there may be more of them in the neighbourhood than before. Ths might include muggers from other parts attracted by the high number of iPhone toting potential victims, but is equally likely to be, for example, that a prolific local mugger has just been released from his last sentence. "what can we do?" Report every incident to the police. In addition to reactive stuff they will gather intelligence on these types of crimes and factor it into their priorities. They also know, for example, if there is a local mugger back on the streets and whether it might be worth paying them a visit. It also makes sense to be aware of the risk and, for example, to try and avoid walking down a dark street on your own with an iPhone visible in your hand. The tracking software is an interesting one. Anything that enables you to give the police more info can only be good, but i wouldn't expect them to race round there and get it back.

s.5 Public Order Act is a provision that if applied properly is OK, but in my experience is often used by the police to justify an arrest inappropriately, and reasonably often pursued to prosecution when it really shouldn't be. To be guilty the behaviour has to cause 'alarm or distress' - not merely offence. The fine for the T shirt guy is IMHO unlawful and contrary to ECHR (and just stupid). It's also right that it is used completely inconsistently - most frequently when people challenge police authority but haven't committed any obvious other offence. A long time ago I defended a guy charged with s.5 for calling a police officer a c***. The officer admitted that this wasn't an unusual occurrence. Acquitted.

The current obssession with teaching kids Chinese seems a little odd to me. Learning to speak basic Chinese phonetically may not be that hard, but learning to read/write Chinese to any kind of level is a pretty mammoth task. Also, the rise of Chinese economic power has no correlation with a rise in the use of Chinese as a world language. The German economy is pretty strong but German businesses (like all other businesses the world over) regard English as the primary global language. I read recently that over 30% of science research papers from internationally recognised institutions are now published only in English, i.e. many scientists now decide not to bother publishing their research in their native language. To anser the OP's question, I'm more interested in teaching my kids European languages, tbh.

People will pay it (for now) and therefore it's worth it. Enough people, at least, to make a functioning market and to reassure each of them that if they buy a house in ED they will not lose their money when they come to sell it. They may turn out to be wrong but it won't be because you can get a house cheaper in Nunhead.

Creeping gentrification is always like this - huge differences in prices either side of seemingly arbitrary lines dividing up neighbourhoods and postcodes. Some bits of SE23 are essentially the same price as ED i.e. decent size 4 bed period house = ?600k and up, other bits (nearer to Catford) are half the price.

The two sides of the argument: The fur trade PETA I think it's difficult to be completely anti-fur without being hypocritical unless you are equally opposed to any exploitation of animals, whether for food or otherwise. I suspect the reason fur attracts greater attention than other issues is because it's an easy target.

The practice of traffic officers taking pics at the scene is pretty widespread now. The intention is to prevent drivers claiming, after the event, that someone else was driving the car at the relevant time. There is a power of arrest where it is necessary to establish identity - rarely used unless there is a strong feeling that someone is giving false details. It's pretty rare for someone to be out without anything at all with their name on. I'm opposed to excesses of police power/excessive data gathering but agree that this pic is unlikely to find it's way onto any central database, or in fact be retained once the case has been concluded. You can ask the relevant force to confirm this, and you would have a decent argument that ECHR is on your side.

As I understand it he had been a successful announcer for a number of years and then got into booze and drugs and lost it all. He was then re-discovered once he'd got himself clean and sober.

McParland learnt the lesson from the Chelsea spanking and put 5 in midfield for Arsenal, and the players found a bit of confidence when Arsenal didn't really get into the groove. Let's hope Jewell can take it on from here. Roy who?

I would recommend Simon Rosselli. He did my daughter's 6th birthday and I've seen him working at other parties and events and he's always been very good.

I doubt whether a stand-alone hotel in ED would be commercially viable, but it seems that a number of local pubs are or will in the near future be offering rooms, which is good news. I suspect the demand is there and a bit of competition is healthy.