DJKillaQueen

And there is the problem...there is no 'proof' the guy was casing, just assumption. And assumption, no matter how likely it might be, is not enough to prevent being sued.

Pavements are not part of the road Henry. I agree with your points regarding acceleration/ deceleration though and fuel consumption and motorways etc. Studies are fine but not conclusive. Most roads are not straight, or clear of obstruction for that matter either. Perhaps a study measuring that would be more appropriate. A point you might find of interest LD is that in Paris heavy good vehicles are not allowed to drive inside the outer orbital. They are required to offload to smaller vehicles (as a general rule). Does no-one have a view to my point regarding the impact on travel times for those who have to use vehicles for long jorneys across London. 20mpr limits work fine on a local level, but would make journeys for those who work out of or across London unfeasable. Imagine if all of London ground down to a 20 mph limit. It would add anything up to three hours travel time for me just going to and from work if I were based at certain locations. Many people and commuters would be severely impacted in this way. This is perhaps why TFL control all main routes across London, to make sure sure such a ridiculous proposition never comes about. The same is true for Southwark. A blanket 20mpr limit wouldn't touch TFL controlled roads, and there can't be many Southwark controlled streets untouched by humps or 20 mpr limits already anyway. As someone above pointed out, people speeding on those roads rarely get caught doing so anyway. Questions around enforcement are a real issue.

Affordable social housing would be a good idea. More need for that than allotments.

Just to take you up on some of your points LD. Forcing reduced speed increases fuel consumption and therefore pollution, so if you care about polution you probably wouldn't want to see a 20mpr blanket limit. Having said that, cars are far less polutant than ever, engines are quieter than ever, those suffering injury or death are lower than ever and as a percentage of those who use cars, it's still a very safe form of transport. So I just don't recognise the alarmist picture you paint. Go back 20 years and longer and there really was something to say in all of these areas. With regards to users of public transport (buses being some of the most environmentally damaging vehicles on the road btw), they were not part of your attack, which was specific to car owners. Buses and lorries (both necessary) have some of the poorest records in road safety and cyclists for example. Quids is quite right to point out the tax on fuel and the billions it brings into government coffers, but that aside, central taxation is just that - central taxation. Does the childless couple get to demand that only parents pays the taxes that fund our schools? Of course they don't...no more than one road user should have preference over another when it comes to roads maintenance (again heavy goods vehicles being the highest cause of wear). Coops the majority of people on the roads are in vehicles....which means that the largest users of the road are people travelling in a vehicle (be it a bus, lorry, car etc). Household car ownership percentages have nothing to do with it. And who said anything about motorists setting their own speed limits? I was merely pointing out that 30 mpr works perfectly well and the ridiculousness of a 20mpr limit accross London. There are people that have to drive accross London to get to work for example. I have worked in places like Pinewood and Shepparton doing 12 hour days, a journey I can do in 70-90 mins on a motorcycle in peak traffic. It would take twice the time by public transport and cost four times as much. London already takes forever to get around at certain times of the day.

Yes there have been attacks on innocent people after they were accused falsely of something, so it's not an exception to point those out and KK I'm suprised at you. Do you really have so little understanding of mental health issues so as to suggest that naming someone with such issues would be an effective deterrant to whatever 'unusual' behaviour they had displayed? You also miss the point of the consensus against publishing the photo...that 'assumption' (that he was casing the joint) is not enough.....there needs to be more than that.

ED does seem to be quite bad. I've noticed it too. There used to be some rule about depth and speed at which it should be repaired. Anyway...it's all here...... http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/150/reporting_potholes_is_easy

LD the majority of people using the roads are motorists (in one form or another) and they pay huge amounts to do so. Pedestrians use pavements and crossings (or should do). So motorists have every right to voice opinion on something they use more than others. Cyclists, also have a right to input on road safety and management measures for obvious reasons. If pedestrians crossed where provision is made for them to do so (i.e designated crossings), they would be safer. More work needs to be done though to improve things for cyclists. The thing that irks me most about this blanket limit is that it takes no account for one of the primary lessons of the highway code, which is to, drive according to the conditions. It essentially removes the ability of the driver to do this, whilst making the vehicle use more petrol (so smacks the face of any green policy that Southwark has). Imagine if every borough did this. I would find myself coming off the M1 in the middle of the night and forced to creep my way back to South London at 20mpr, when there is vitually no traffic on the raod, and no pedestrians in sight. It's lunacy! Thankfully TFL will ensure that never happens.

'Likewise those who behave unusually should recognize that it increases the chance of their being publicly challenged, they should respect this and be prepared to either defend their activity.' Hmmm would you include those with mental health problems in this? Dangerous definition if you ask me. And in my experience of persistent offenders, being caught and shamed is not something they fear.....far from it. I agree though that communities can work together to self police, in turn working with the Police and SNTs to deliver safer communities - we do it where I live. But working within a local community is very different to using an online medium where the whole world potentially can see what is published. There has to be a line.

I don't think you've ever been abusive or agressive either.....that's my point. Most people will always see an articulate point made, as just that. Equally they will see rudeness, abuse etc, for what it is too. You will probably find that many more people do share your views than the few that challenge them here.

I've kept it in it's frame at the Musee D'Orsay this time, just to add artistic integrity :D http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dtZkYJTYXuc/TTYYG24sOCI/AAAAAAAAAjA/xm08fJEYr1E/s640/OrigineDuMonde_Courbet1866.jpg

I stopped reading the foie gras thread some time ago (supporting a ban as I prefer to eat humanely reared meat). I would echo Voyageur's post Aquarius and say that those who overstep the mark in debates are there for all to see. Focus on your own arguments, keep them intelligent and based in fact and others will see that. Never get wound up by the minority of slightly deranged posters on here. It's just a forum (and all forums have them). For those few, many more read and can see who's being grown up, and who isn't :) x

I think there has to be zero tolerance but it's hard to find the right way to deal with that at ground level when Fifa do such a poor job at the top (eg punishing a player for wearing he wrong endorsed kit more than a club that subjected an England U21 team to racism during a qualifier match).

OMG....no.2 is a dead ringer for a friend of mine. He lives in ED so they are already here, but fear not, as he's about to move to nunhead, thanks to proerty prices being too high in ED :)

And where have I or anyone justified the behaviour of the guy? Pointing out that the law will have a view on the posting of photos is not an effort to justify anything.

Ah yes.......I had forgotten that ED was a enclave, somehow seperate from the rest of London and indeed therefore 'special'............

'I can't see a valid reason for anyone to peer through someone's window on their private property.' Bailiffs do this all the time.....so there's one.... ;)

I wonder why some people even leave their homes if they think london roads with anything above a 20mpr speed limit are scary!

It could also be argued that a blanket low speed limit would encourage frustrated drivers to speed. At present, a driver can choose to stick to (hump free) main roads or not.The principle of a 20mpr borough wide zone is an excessive over reaction.

Bah humbug!

But John is right. A forum is read by much more than a local community and unless a crime is committed the person in that photo does have rights. Yes we all know that it is likely that the guys were casing for burglary, but there is no evidence of that (as accepted in law) until it happens. That is why posting photos online of someone under suspicion of what he might later do is unwise (hence the minority report reference). Admin did remove a photo posted by someone who did just that after a young man was a bit anti-social towards them at ED train station. And it's not a liberal mindset that points out the above, it's one that understands why laws exist and what would be the consequences if people were allowed to ignore them. I would like to see many laws changed, that I feel would give power back to the victims and take it away from criminals, but I'm not going to advocate breaking the existing laws to please my own feelings on them either.

Fear of what a stranger, apparently up to no good might do if he sees his pic online (and knowing where the person who took it lives) is an understandable fear. There are also issues around publishing pictures of people, especially as at this stage, no crime has actually been committed. It's a matter for the police, and only the Police imo. They can publish photos if they feel there is good enough reason to do so.

It's obvious these guys are up to no good and possibly working as a team. I'd also pasit on to your Safer Neighbourhood Police Team as they are more likely to have the time to patrol with PCSOs to see if these guys reappear.

I think it's a combination of things. Three main intersections come together at goose green and LL is a vibrant shopping high street. It's no use pedestrians claiming priority over road and vice versa. Everyone just has to use the space equally. I drive up and down LL regularly and have done for years (and cycled too) and really can't see any major problem or increase in traffic.

'apparently people are selling them on eBay' Just had a look on ebay and found nothing. The allocation system seems ridiculously unfair.

If you use Mozilla Firefox as a browser you can add a download plugin (all free) to the browser. It shows as a little blue arrow. Whilst an mpeg video is playing on any site, you can click that arrow to download the video.