DJKillaQueen

Yes ASBOs are being phased out but there will still be an ASB unit within Southwark with the power to seek injuctions against and evict (council tenants) anyone who needs to be dealt with. The ASB unit works closely with the probation services and Police too. There have always been street robbers, the methods they use and what they target may change, but one thing remains the same in that they will always seek what they consider easy targets - so the phone they can snatch from someones ear, the bag they can snatch from someones shoulder or hand, and so on. When I was a youngster it was elderly people having their pensions snatched as they left the post office (common before banking deposits) or the purse at the top of a handbag, and so on. Imo there's no reason to feel any more afraid today than yesterday, or to be more or less complacent in looking after our posessions. I would echo others though in reporting any incidents of being suspiciously followed....or if you see someone (as I did) behaving obviously suspiciously. And it doesn't matter if you are wrong. An innocent person has little to worry about.

I agree KK. Any notion that the application is for 'occasional' use is nonsensical. There are things called 'temporary events licences' for such 'occasional' need for extensions to opening hours. Noise is more disturbing the later it is, and the quieter the area it occurs in, normally is. This is why night clubs and music venues are usually away from residential property or have some internal soundproofing if they want to be open through the night. That is also the reason why breaches of existing licences also matter, especially when provisions for noise control demanded by the conditions of the licence are ignored.

Giggigirl is right. Get the objections into the licensing department. Personally I think it unlikely the application will be successful anyway. The location of the premises within a residential area will have a strong bearing on any decision made and the licensing committee are not in the habit of granting late licenses to premises in such close proximity to residential areas. I can't see the Thursday extension being granted under any circumstances and I suspect any weekend extension may come with requirements regarding soundproofing and security, but again, the more objections pointing out the residential aspect of the location, the better.

I agree with twirly and it reminds me of something I did last year. I was walking to Sainsburrys and as I passed ED station I saw a young man/ older teen on a bicycle near the entrance with a hood up and he was paying particular attention to women leaving the staion with phones and handbags over the shoulder. I suspected he was scoping for a (by bicycle) mugging and so I stood at the bus stop pretending to wait for a bus and kept an eye on him (and took a discreet pic on my phone). After around ten mins he must have suspected I was paying too much attention to him and he cycled off to the park next to Sainsburrys. I cut through the park and I see him at the far end now riding up and down the play area fence clearly looking for unattended bags, so by now I have no doubt what he's up to. He doesn't see me and cycles off to the saiunsburrys car park. When I get to the car park he passes me and says something (called me something I didn;t quite hear) and I just replied by telling him I knew exactly what he was up to, that he was ;ooking for someone to mug and made sure I said it loudly enough for anyone in ear shot to hear. When I got to sainsburrys, the security guard told me the same guy had been pointed out by customers in the car park for suspicious behaviour, and there were two police officers in there shopping, so I reported the lad to them, emailed them the pic from my phone, and am pretty sure, stopped some unfortunate woman from having her phone or bag snatched that day. So yes, it is a pretty common appraoch for criminally minded teens on bicycles to snatch phones or bags that are easy to do so, and most times they'll scoot off if rumbled by the mark before they can snatch something.

Hi Wildthing...there are lot's of free fitness groups in the what's on section that meet on average once a week for low level exercise. Worth giving some of them a try.

There was an article in the times today titch, kind of endorsing what you are saying........that even though there are electronic boards saying when Olympic lanes are operational, many drivers are too scared to drive down them at any time for fear of a fine.

It's dangerous territory I think to start accusing anyone of selling stolen goods. I guess that's only something that can raise suspicion if someone is repeatedly selling similar items.....but then again, they may just be a second hand dealer, so perfectly legit.

Otta I think you got of lightly lol....remember my experience when I dared to engage in harmless banter on a lesbian thread? And I'm a lesbian ffs!!!! lol........

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whilst I agree that the road layout changes are a > pain, if someone cycles into a stationary barrier > I think we can safely assume they aren't paying as > much attention to the road as they should. Is > anything ever a cyclist's fault? That wasn't my point. Of course I was perfectly aware of the road around me last night but when you have travelled the same route for years, unless a sign tells you there's a new layout and the flow of it (which on Westminster bridge it doesn't, you are suddenly thrown as the brain tries to make sense of it for you. We know the lights have been rephased. We know there are Olympic lanes. They are easy to see. But there are a lack of signs showing the new layout of changes to junctions and roundabouts.....

The OP has a point though.....the layout and flow of many junctions and roundabouts changed overnight, eliminating some contra flow cycle lanes and there's no signage to indicate the new layout to cyclists. One example is coming off Westminster Bridge to Parliament Square. Buses and cycles had a seperate filter right turn lane. Now you have to go all the way around parliament square to come back on Whitehall. I got caught out by it last night. It seems as though olympic lanes and the flow of those has been given precedent over the safety of some road users.

I was already really looking forward to watching it on TV......but even more so now from the posts above.

LOL I'm keeping out of this one......still remember the furore last time I dared to jovially converse on lesbian (or was it lesion?) matters...... Welcome to ED smith-harris, there are lot's of us here, and shock horror, most of us have both straight and gay firends......don't take anything anyone says on the forum to heart.....most people mean no harm.

He/ she doesn't but the suggestion was that the level of disruption (to traffic) is unnacceptable.

David you seem intent to pick a fight and I'm not going to bite. You know very well that I meet sarcasm and personal digs with the lack of repsect they deserve and my opinion isn't very high of anyone that can not debate without resorting to such. Read again your posts that prompted my disdain towards you and see the provocation is all yours. It is perfectly reasonable to question the basis on which the council and highways decisions are made, esp when it involves spending money (OUR money). My view is merely different to yours. Henry has another view. That's what discussion is about.

There's sense in your comment e-dealer...but some parks are so big they need roads for access for maintenance, emergencies etc. My view is that there is perhaps an arguement for putting a speed hump about half way down to force cars to slow down as they come over the brow of the curve....that seems perfectly sensible.......but what is being proposed are humps every 50 metres....FIVE of them....at a cost of 5k.

Oh david...really....I live opposite the park (and have done for 20+ years)...I walk through it every day and yes I cross Straker's Road several times a day. Not sure what your point was anyway. So it seems as though the reasoning for humps is because some dog owners and some parents of toddlers lose all sense of common sense when approaching Straker's Road, and need to be protected from the drivers that see a dog or toddler in the road and head straight for them at speed? I wonder if they lose such control of their faculties when they cross Peckham Rye or any neighbouring road for that matter? Just because it is a road travelling through a park does not mean it is somehow magically different to any other road. Humps have become the solution for negligent parents and dog owners more than cars travelling at 10 or 15 mpr imo.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are other events going on in and around > London which have nothing to do with the Olympics > and if you are unlucky enough to be involved in > them and have no choice but to negotiate roads > around the torch relay, cycle races etc then it is > an utter nightmare and is adding a lot of time to > the journeys. The torch bearers may have > contributed to their communities but is there > anything else more self-serving than sport? The > Olympics should be permanently sited in Greece and > everyone else should contribute to them- it may > just keep Greece from going under. It is ONLY for a few weeks....and you seem to forget that sport is something that is far more common place than those making a living professionally from it. So self serving it certainly isn't. Sport is beneficial for good health and is something that permeates every age, gender, culture.....so it's a positive thing. There are ways to beat the traffic restrictions - public transport, cycling, walking.......owning a car doesn't come with a divine right to drive at your own convenience....that really would be self serving.

I only have tickets for matches at Wembley Stadium but I'll be very peeved if I have to go to Stratford to collect those.

It's funny because this afternoon I cycled accross Westminster Bridge (around 4pm) and there were cones and a Police Layby to pull over any vehicle they wished to (presumably to search). When I came home over the bridge at around 1 am not a single bobby or cone to be seen. Now it doesn't take a genius to work out that any terrorist or would be assassin isn't going to be put off by the ad hoc temporary road block here and there. I did have a feeling of 'what really is the point?', but I guess it's the visible presence that's supposed to act as a deterrent rather than the belief they'll actually find a van packed with explosive or have to shoot a missile at a rogue plane. Of course, they might just have been looking for tax dodgers (can't remember passing an ANPR van though).

There are some celebrities but 8000 of the torch bearers were nominated for inspirational work they've done for their local communities. And apart from the 8k selcted another 24k were shortlisted. I personally think that it is inspiring that so many people share their skills and enthusiasm for no financial reward, driven only by wanting to give something positive to their local community. A lot of people also depend on the work of volunteers. What kind of world would it be if we were all 'self serving'? So for those reasons I will be cheering on those community heroes. It's their day, their moment, and they deserve to have it.

Growlybear Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whilst I'm not remotely interested in the Olympic > Games, and can't wait for it to be over, I can > understand that the majority of Londoners don't > share my view and will be watching some of the > sporting events. But I can't for the life of me > understand why anyone would want to stand in the > street to watch someone running past carrying an > Olympic torch. Of course you don't understand because you are not remotely interested in the Olympics. Most of the people carrying the torch are people who have served their community in some way (mostly in a voluntary capacity). These are exactly the kind of people we should be lining the streets to cheer on, as opposed to the Z list celebrities that fill our tabloids and reality shows.

The last time I went to ED Police Station was to hand in a wallet I'd found. I went there because it was nearer than going to the busier Peckham Station. I guess the real question is what purpose does ED station serve? It's not a fully functioning station and a counter service isn't really enough to justify keeping a whole building open imo.

So it's a Parks Department initiative. Surely even they can see that ?5000 would be better spent elsewhere. It also makes sense though as to their lack of perspective regarding roads management. Strakers Road is not an accident waiting to happen....nothing of the sort, but if they have a policy of speed humping every road that runs through a Southwark Park then it begs the accusation that it's traffic calming simply because it's a road within a park (i.e. blanket policy), rather than any real need for doing so, and rather ridiculous given the drastic cuts forced on local authorities by the recent financial crisis. Meanwhile, vital services elsewhere are short of money and resources.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Speed humps are very effective at reducing speed. Depends on the type of hump and type of vehicle being driven.

The truth is henry that a car going at ten miles per hour is technically speeding on Strakers Road. What most people consider as speeding is travelling at a speed that makes accidents more likely, and serious injury from accidents more likely. The area around Straker's Road is not so heavily populated that people stupidly abandon all road sense and run out in front of cars travelling at 10 mpr........hence there never having been an accident there.