DJKillaQueen

Totally off topic but will make you weep with laughter.....

I didn't say that.....What I did say was that it is immoral to pay those at the top so much when most of the people working for that charity are working for free. We could all easily make money running a business where we didn't have to pay anyone. I accept the ethos of competing in a jobs market though.

The obvious one is HIV but also ADHD and it's various branches.

But coops, we don't have a reliable and affordable transport system and we are never going to. Go out of London and things are far worse. All the transport networks require millions (if not billions) of pounds of investment over the coming decades just to repair the damage of age. Passengers are going to pay for that through increased fares, and through taxes (paying for government subsidies). Also, London can not be compared to anywhere in Holland, as Holland has no city anywhere near as big or densely populated as London. Amsterdam is the largest city but only has a population of 741,000. London has a population of just over eight million! I've been to Holland and can see exactly why the transport planning they have works, and why it'll not work here.

James, you?ve completely lost the plot this time I?m afraid and none of your arguments make any sense until we know what kind of trade the retail unit will be. How on earth do you know if it will be competition for the same pool of disposable income and customers as other shops? And even if it East Dulwich Road competes with Lordship Lane...so what? We don't all live off Lordship Lane. I am someone who rarely shops in LL but regularly shops on EDR. ED is not an enclave, cut off from the surrounding wards of London. Since when did it gain this devine right to have preference over the economy of neighbouring streets, businesses and communities? Utterly ridiculous.

But I don't understand why anyone has to be paid six figures to do their job properly. In fact the country is full of people earning anything from min wage upwards who would be fired if they didn't do their jobs properly. So that is no defense of his salary imo.

James has to win now doesn't he? With Union J second. They are the ones that'll sell records anyway. But the devil in me would like to see Malony win, just to see how little effort Simon puts into making him a bankable artist :D

Six figures? Are you for real? You think there aren't highly skilled people working ungodly hours for far less? Our hospitals are full of them for example. I'll bet, the only way he can run three organisations is because of the staff he has beneath him who are are really running those organisations. And they probably deserve the six figures more than him.

LOL...well those complaining ferotiously about anything often exaggerate. The cars were probably doing 30.

Don't think we'll see James back on this thread personally.......and neilson I agree with you entirely. A councillor using a local forum to promote his own prejudiced view of a planning application is very 'fishy'. That the same councillor tries to mislead those reading with comments like 'probably a Tescos or Sainsburrys' is definitely not on (not the first times James has been guilty of that on this forum or on his blogsite). But more importantly, I use the shops on East Dulwich Road frequently (being the nearest to me) and have never had trouble parking any time of day or night.......so no parking nightmare to behold either.

LOL e-dealer...not really the right time of year to put that to the test.... I agree vilmos. Visibility is the most important thing and a hi-vis vest can be bought for a quid in poundland. Seems a small price to pay for being visible. I also have little sympathy for cyclists that don't use lights too. Lights are often the only thing you can see when driving, if a cyclist is filtering at night, in weather like rain for example. And if I'm driving and sat at lights, I always look for cyclists in the passenger mirror before moving off. Having said that though, the first time I was knocked off my bicycle (20 years ago) was in the middle of the night, no traffic apart from me and the car that hit me. I was lit like a christmas tree. He overtook me, changed lane knocking me off, and did a runner. I had a fractured wrist as a result. Poor drivers are always poor drivers, no matter what you do.

Another shop which will provide much needed jobs James...... And nowhere does the application state what kind of retail unit so it's very naughty of you to assume it's going to be Tescos or Sainsburrys. Trying to appeal to an established dislike of chain stores by local residents are we, perhaps? I suggest, being a councillor, you go and find out what the planned retail use is first.

And that's the issue isn't it fox. No one has an issue with installing measures in places where accidents have regularly happened, or where a design aspect of the road makes accidents more likely. None of the data supports the need for a blanket 20mpr limit.

James, where do you think those drivers that cut through rat runs go when you block the runs off? Oooh they must mysteriously evaporate into thin air. Common sense says those drivers have to go somewhere.....forced onto the main roads they were trying to avoid perhaps? Sorry coops but that's an impression you have and not one based on any hard survey. During the day, you'll struggle to reach speeds of 30mpr for any length of road anywhare in ED, either because of traffic or because of traffic calming measures. Mark, I have no issue with reducing the need for vehicles in urban areas, as long as there are affordable and safe alternatives. The truth is that London transport does not serve most Londoners well enough. Bus journeys are long and in some cases unreliable. The cost of tickets is prohibitive too (that's why so many people now cycle and/or motorcycle). And there's the issue of safety late at night...where stations, trains etc have no staff present and so on. Many late shift workers for example, need to have their own modes of transport, and they are often those on low incomes too. My view is that this is just the next stage in a long line of stealth measures by beurocrats obsessed with our roads, because they've got nothing else to obsess over. Yes indeed let's act like a society, and treat the majority of law abiding motorists, cyclists and pedestrians like the sensible safe adults they are, instead of penalising them, because some council official thinks everyone is an accident waiting to happen. All the data shows that reported accidents have reduced over the past decades (and by a third since 2002*). In London, the fire brigade last year were called out to the lowest number of accidents in 25 years (in spite of an increase in the population of London by 1.5 million over that time). Any sensible road safety policy would focus on the spots where accidents are still high (which is kind of what it tries to do at the moment). TFL have been poor on this, but the answer is not to drop a blanket on a whole area of London....the answer is to kick TFL up the you know what and get them to do what they are supposed to do (junction of Peckham Rye and East Dulwich Road being a case in point). *Department of transport http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120913120348/http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/road-accidents-and-safety-quarterly-estimates-q1-2012/

Hmmm...blocking access through residential streets forces drivers to use main routes which then get overloaded at spots and what you see is increased accidents. Take a look at the data for the junction of East Dulwich Road and Peckham Rye for example and compare that to accident data before the neighbouring residential roads were blocked off. To be honest coops, you sound as though you have a slightly ridiculous perspective on this. Not even driving instructors will suggest turning engines off while waiting at a junction (which is all a level crossing is). It's actually quite difficult for drivers to speed on most roads in London anyway...because the average speed is so low. Accidents are often the result of bad driving or drivers doing stupid things to get ahead of a jam (or not the fault of the driver at all...alcohol is a factor in 30% of all acidents caused by pedestrians for example). Rural areas are where speeding is an issue and most serious accidents relating speed happen there, not in towns. So by your logic all country roads should be speed humped really..........

I can't argue with any of that Burbage. But then I don't consider anything with paid executives to be a charity....merely a company using the status of 'charity' to make use of free labour and other kinds of goodwill, and as you rightly say, to get rich on the backs of public funded contracts.

I think taking things will be considered as theft, without a bailiff's order. Not sure getting arrested is worth it for ?60.

Coops, road tax was initially devised to help with the cost of road maintenance (it was called road fund and ringfenced until Mr Churchill changed things), which is why motorists were required to pay it in the first place. True, that is not the case now, but it doesn't change it's origin. I'm with fox on this. What fox doesn't mention is the amount of tax paid on fuel too. Where is that money spent I wonder? Motorists are heavily taxed in the UK. They can be forgiven for whining when forced to use more fuel keeping to ultra low speeds when not necessary to do so. The vast majority of drivers never have an accident with a pedestrian, nor any other kind of accident leading to serious injury. Many accidents involving pedestrians are also the pedestrians fault. At the end of the day, no amount of legislation, traffic claming, fines etc is going to stop wreckless drivers being so, no more than it will stop foolish pedestrians taking the risks they do. Only better education and better methods of apprehending dangerous drivers will work.

I'd prefer if my loved ones didn't step out in front of approaching cars, to be honest. Pedestrians have a responsibility too, to make sure they cross at points that are safe to do so. Just to pick up on some points above regarding enforcement. Once upon a time there used to be something called a traffic cop. What's happened over recent decades is that whilst we've become the most CCTV saturated country in the world, we have reduced the number of enforcement methods. CCTV is not used to catch bad driving, but to catch incorrectly parked motorists. Granted it is used at some junctions, but the problem with fixed cameras, as we all know, is that drivers learn to know where they are. This is not the same as fearing traffic Police that can be anywhere at any time.

I am aware of that H yes, and my NHS example was just to make the point that governments pick and choose what they cut (for various reasons) and that the existence of specific charities might shape the decisions that goverments take.

It's my experience of 20 years plus of cycling Atticus. And I did say 'some' drivers, not all.

Laugh all you like guys but engine efficiency has a peak and it's not at the lowest or highest speeds in road vehicles. Plenty of high tech documents on the physics of it out there if you take a look. I'm not arguing against reduced speed equalling reduced fatalities, just getting increasingly annoyed at being told we have to be carbon conscious at one end (or pay more tax)....and trundle around like mobility scooters at the other, because of a few plonker drivers who can't observe safe driving. Just feels like a paradoxical nanny state onslaught to me. And for the umptienth time, TFL manages A and some B roads, so anything Southwark decides to do won't apply to those roads without TFL's (unlikely) say so.

Fox is right. Modern engines are not designed to work best at ultra slow speeds. They also consume more petrol at slow speeds, due to the constant braking and speeding up/ down. And not only is the constant watching of the speedo a distraction from what is going on around the driver, but so too is constantly scanning the road for speed humps. Sinusoidal humps make cars meander all over the road as well as wearing down the inside edge of tyres and sending tracking out. In other words, all these efforts to control speed are actually more damaging to the environment, but then again, traffic calming has no consideration for the environment, just reduction of accidents.

It's not so much assiting, but filling the gap left by cuts. I can understand why charities oppose government cuts though. Cuts mean increased traffic to those charities which means a need for more revenue to provide those charity services. SF's example of the increased need for food banks is a case in point. That food has to come from somewhere, which means someone is paying for it. Private compnaies are usually the donators, but who are the donators for services traditionally provided entirely by government funded departments? If the NHS can't afford free prescriptions anymore for example, will the pharmaceutical companies suddenly come forth with donations of drugs for free medical banks? So for me there is also an issue regarding which charities and what they are expected to assist with. If government is intentionally cutting things it knows existing charities can provide in some form, then it needs to help them provide those services if it can.

And the vice versa is what I'm arguing for. I have no issue with any aspect of the CofE when they are making decisions amongst themselves. I do have an issue though when 26 male bishops can sit unelected in the House of Lords and have an impact on legislation that does affect me.