Loz

Batting is still fragile. Traditional England middle order collapses seem to have returned. Ashes are starting to look rather tasty - which England will turn up?

Some travellers tips... - Remember, Easyjet don't care about the weight of your hand luggage, so put all heavy (non sharp, non liquid) objects in there. Ryanair do weigh you hand luggage (you have 7kg), but they usually do it at the check in desk, so leave heavy hand luggage things with a friend while you check in. - When you get to the airport, head off to a closed check-in desk - the scales still work and you can get a rather more official second opinion to argue any 'funny' readings. Plus you get more time to do stuff in my first tip if your hold luggage is a little over weight. - When you put you bag on the scales, make sure it us hard up against one side. Or, better, leaning on one of the raised edges. I've knocked 5kg off a bag doing that.

Fantastic - another convert to visible registration for cyclists, perhaps?

All the ones that, every time you mention cyclists obeying the law, they jump in and say 'but whatabout all the terrible car drivers'. See threads passim on EDF. Have to say, you're generally not one of them. Stamp out bad driving AND bad cycling. Who could argue? Who indeed.

Only me! Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't suppose Southwark is awash with idle Lumberjacks is it ..... Idle? No - they sleep all night and they work all day. Though apparently on Wednesdays they go shopping...

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...which was that until cyclists start causing a lot more pedestrian deaths (or drivers stop > causing as many) you won't see the same level of resource because although the impact is the same > in the case of a fatality, there are just far far far fewer fatalities caused by cyclists. I'm not arguing for the same level of police resource - not even near it. I'm saying that cyclists should stop asking for the law to not apply to them until the day that all drivers are 110% law abiding. Is asking for the rules to apply to everyone too much to ask for? Henryb was almost there until I rather surprised him by agreeing with him.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > > > I'd be more than happy with that. I don't want to > > see anyone breaking the law. I hate to see > > drivers OR cyclists saying 'boo hoo, you should be > > hassling someone else'. > > Well as this is a thread is about a little girl > who was hit by a car whose driver was by some > accounts driving recklessly it would be good if > you took your own advice. One account. And a rather dubious one with an obvious agenda at that. So henryb, do you believe that all road users should obey the law or not? Or is it 'boo hoo, you should be hassling someone else'?

From the Gruniad: Scotland Yard has identified several people who may be "of interest" in the case of Madeleine McCann, who was abducted in Portugal in 2007. Sounds more like vague ideas for an investigation, rather than any actual useful information has come to light.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well that?s your opinion and I respect that. The difference seems quite clear to me but if the > compromise position is that for the police taking more action against speeding drivers, drivers > stopping in ASZs and drivers over taking cyclists too closely then they also give out more tickets > for cyclists jumping lights then I would go along with that. I'd be more than happy with that. I don't want to see anyone breaking the law. I hate to see drivers OR cyclists saying 'boo hoo, you should be hassling someone else'. Everyone obeys the law = everyone is safer.

But Murdoch has already said that, if indeed he does anything, all he will do is chuck a bit of lingerie on the models. This will still objectify women, but will almost certainly kill off the No More Page 3 campaign. So I still believe it is based on prudishness, rather than politics. No nipples, no worries.

Proto-feminist? Enjoys a trim? Must be Katie Price.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Am I being cynical when I suspect that this > > seminar will have little to do with getting > > cyclists to obey the law? > > It is car drivers breaking the law is a bigger > road safety problem. It is unsuprizing if people > focucs on that. People? You mean cyclists saying 'don't stop us disobeying the law - there's nasty drivers out there'. Which is right up there with the old 'why aren't you lot out there catching burglars'. And just as plausible.

> I am delighted to invite you to a seminar that I am hosting to discuss Cyclists and the Law in London?s Living Room, Am I being cynical when I suspect that this seminar will have little to do with getting cyclists to obey the law?

Toldyouso Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are cougars I bet (avoids reference to wood). ... and their beavers.

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You sound weighed down by that almighty big chip on your shoulder . Did you get the 'Big Book of Really Poor Comebacks' for Christmas or did you write it yourself?

350 p/w is 1515 pcm 425 p/w is 1840 pcm As purplehaze said, if others in the area are asking 350ish, do you think someone will jump at paying ?325 more per month for your place? Or will is sit empty for two months before you have to drop the price and still pay Foxton's higher rate?

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ha ha ha ha!:) And you, luckily, had a hi-tech laser speed gun at the accident? One that has a single reading of 'Too Fast', I presume? Even when pointed at a tree.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it is possible to have a liberal attitude to nudity whilst still thinking that Page 3 is a relic of a bygone age. > It's not prudishness that stops me finding Katya, 21, from Essex and her views on fiscal policy rather unpleasant. > It's recognising that the image actively mocks women. Whilst it may not be porn I don't think it has a place in the > national press. But my issue with how tabloid papers cover women in general is one of constant sexualisation > coupled with derogatory comments about both celebs and others in the public eye (eg politicians or commentators). But British prudishness is still a powerful force behind the campaign. Otherwise, the other issues you (rightly) raise would the major issue. But, no, it's just all about the nudity. If Kayla (21) was wearing a bikini top she would still be equally mocking, but would there be no campaign to get rid of page 3. > The hypocrisy from the Sun and the Mail on pedophilia whilst simultaneously commenting on the > physiques of teen (and sometimes pre-teen) girls is shocking. I wouldn't really conflate what are two very separate issues. But since we've moved to that that subject, here's the classic Sun Charlotte Church (15 at the time)/Brass Eye Paedogeddon hypocrisy. http://screenagers.me/2010/07/21/tabloid-hypocrisy-charlotte-church-looking-chest-swell/

Generally it was a section that had people sitting in saunas. Or showering. Really, given the context it seemed entirely gratuitous. It would have every paper in the UK form the Daily Mail to the Guardian exploding in moral rage. Except the Sun, of course, which would go with a big headline saying 'Phwoar!'. Over there, though, no one seemed to think it was any worse than someone in a bikini.

But is it porn? I mean, they are just standing there, not in poses you would consider overtly sexual. You can get into lots of arguments about body image, etc, but are naked breasts in themselves porn? In Germany and Austria they have magazine programmes on TV at about 6pm in the evening that occasionally have naked breasts and I have even seen the occasional ad involving a breast on TV on at a similar time. And, of course, Germany has the Freik?rperkultur - the Free Body Movement. Maybe they just have a healthier approach and have less hang-ups about such things.

Sorry Maria, but that's the rule in London. Put so much as a fraction of a tyre on the kerb and you will attract a ticket. Take it as a lesson learnt the hard/expensive way. Most of us learnt it that way.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thank you Loz, I'll take that as a compliment. It was. We may disagree a bit (especially on this subject), but at least you can usually frame a coherent argument.

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz, I just pity you really . Your arguments are weak and bordering on childish as all your > assumptions about me are wrong making you look idiotic . Your pity is as misguided as it is worthless. I've not made any arguments as such (I couldn't be bothered this time). Just taken the mick out of your frothing Daily-Mail-esque rage. I'm waiting earnestly for the next buzzword bingo phrase. You've not used 'silent majority' yet, but can I also suggest 'decent people', 'rip-off Britain' and 'hug a hoodie' next? ETA: Ooooh, and 'squeezed middle'. That's worth double points at the moment.

LadyDeliah, you have been rather a voice of reason on this thread... right up to your last post. Then you went all 'DulwichBorn&Bred' on us.

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes , witness here ! She went too fast . But what is too fast? 5mph? 10mph? 20mph? We've pretty much established that you hate all cars and drivers, so I'm guessing any speed in this case is 'too fast'. > I assume you don't have kids so you are of a selfish mentality ? And DOUBLE BINGO!! The 'won't someone think of the children' and 'if you're not a parent you're all selfish' canards all in the one sentence. If you can just slip in 'silent majority' we could just have a forum best.