DJKillaQueen

I agree Otta. No-one denies that there are dangerous motorists, but the majority never have accidents or endanger anyone.

Well two dick cyclists crossed EDR and PR junction at 2am on Thurday night, through a red light, at speed, as I crossed through green. Thay also had no lights and dark clothing. I missed them by a metre after braking hard. I call that dangerous.

Might be worth reporting it to the Police. Mental health issues or not, he shouldn't be in your back garden (it's private property). Worst case scenario, you are alerting to a possible burglar, best case scenario, stopping a guy with problems from potentially being beaten up by a frightened home owner, for wandering where he shouldn't.

Hmm libellous is a 'theory' being presented as fact, that a portuguese judge (in 2009) described as being supported by no evidence whatsoever (a judges words) before banning the sale of the Amaral book and DVD (later overturned because lawyers successfully argued that banning it was an infringement of free speech). On which note, I am free to enter into debate on any thread where I have something relavant to add to the debate, and am very capable of doing that without being rude or offensive to those that don't agree with my views. There are plenty of theories, but there is no conclusive hard evidence wholy supporting any of them. If there was, arrests would have be made and convictions seccurred. It is a fact that no forensic evidence has ever been found to support cadaver or blood from Madeleine in that appartment or anywhere else. http://exposingthemyths.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/analogy-why-cadaver-dogs-are-not.html Edited to add, there is a very good reason why indicatve evidence is not grounds for conviction (and rightly so) as it makes possible wronged conviction and miscarriages of justice.

Yes people care, but are mindful of the last thread on this, and don't want to go back there. Sue, this is a very good article on why cadaver dogs can not be relied upon as hard evidence without supporting forensic evidence (of which none has been found in the McCann case), and might change your thinking on the issue. The same dogs were used on the Jersey children's home case. http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078055/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2031

Traveller - 'irish' or otherwise is not a race Louisa ;)

Are the cats able to go in and out (catflap) and therefore left to forage outside, or are they locked indoors without a daily freash supply of water and food - a toilet isn't really acceptable - as the cat has to step quite far into it to reach the water - and it's not hygenic either. Oh but this thread is a wind up, right ;)

Yeah but I tire of this incessant, drivers bad, cyclists good debate. It's road user attitude that needs to change with consideration by ALL for all. Then there would be no preventable accidents.

WOW. Imagine vehicles jumping red lights by the dozen, driving at night with no lights, weaving in and out of stationary cyclists without looking................ Today I went to a car boot sale in Hayes.....drove there in no time at all and took only slightly longer to get home. I had a great Sunday too :)

Then why write possible 'travellers' in the title, when possible 'tresspassers' would have been more appropriate. I'm sorry but Lady D is right on this occasion. The OP heard Irish accents and jumped to a 'possible' conclusion based on that.

I think the families of those ten people would take issue with that. Are you arguing that cyclists who break the rules of the road are somehow less reprehensible because they are not as likely to kill someone doing so? Anyone that thinks they are not subject to the highway code shouldn't be on the road...be they vehicle driver or cyclist.

Errm it's tough one because cats are different in character. Personally, and having owned cats all my life, I would never leave a cat for three days. Overnight occassionally but never longer than that. The reason is that if the cat has an accident, or gets ill, where is someone to deal with that? There are also the following reasons: Cats need a regular supply of 'fresh' water. They don't like water that's been standing for a couple of days. Also, the only kind of food that can be left for three days is dried food, but a diet of dried food only is very bad for cats (unless it is the expensive stuff like Hill's Science Plan). That is because most dried foods have high levels of ash in them which is bad for a cats organ health over the long term. Then there's the litter tray. I change mine every day for my cats, sometimes more than that. Imagine how you'd like it if your toilet wasn't flushed for three days? That's what that cat has to put up with. They won't die without water for three days (or food), but if it's a regular occurance then I think the owner should question whether or not they really want a pet.

I'm glad you were able to get a resolution Polla. When you pay for a service you have every right to expect that the stranger coming into your home is not going to steal from you. The company did the right thing in the end.

I think that's only fair and in the interest of everyone's safety. Tbf to the Police, they do do mobile road blocks to catch cyclists jumping lights (and riding on pavements too) just as they do road blocks to catch uninsured drivers, untaxed vehicles etc. The problem is that they can't be everywhere all of the time and there has been a shift away from mobile traffic policing and more reliance on speed cameras and CCTV. But the problem of course is that CCTV is only interested in parking and bus lane misdemeanors, not dangerous driving or cyclists (or drivers for that matter) jumping lights. So we end up with a situation where if you drive in a bus lane or park where you shouldn't you have a high chance of being fined. If you drive whilst uninsured or untaxed you have a semi-fair chance of being caught. But driving too fast or dangerously, jumping red lights etc (be it cycle or car) only a small chance of being caught and fined. And sadly being caught in those instances involves something going very badly wrong.

Granted, there are few fatalities of drivers at the hands of cyclists, but there have been pedestrians killed by cyclists (ten between 2005 and 2009 for example) and 262 pedestrians seriously injured during the same period. I think it's niaive to see a cycle as somehow not capable of causing death or injury. A cyclist jumping a light may also cause a vehicle to swerve which can lead to an accident. At the end of the day, irresposible cyclists are on a par with irresponsible drivers, and equally capable of both having and causing an accident, which leads to death or serious injury. What isn't in dispute however is that responsible cyclists come off worst in collisions with poor drivers. Making the roads safer for those cyclists, but not at the total cost of responsible drivers, is the challenge.

There are appropriate service levels though. DaveR is right in that whilst the stats show a massive drop in not just fatalities but fires and other call outs over recent decades the level of cover has remained broadly the same, with the fire service shifting some of it's role into fire prevention. The unions have always protected jobs over any factual debate around need (understandably as that is the first remit of a union, to protect it's members jobs) but on the other hand, essential services can't be gradually stripped away just because we have a few good years of low use of them. Personally, my view, from looking at all the data and evidence, is that the cuts can be sustained. On the other hand though, making anyone unemployed in the current climate is not something I wish for. And it's because of the current climate, where so many people are losing their jobs, that the Unions are miscalculating so badly (with their lack of leeway) when it comes to gathering public support.

You will be able to find out who owns the land from the land registry.

Looks as though they are resurfacing?

Nah he sensibly jumped ship years ago, unhappy with the biased voting. Graham Norton stepped in believing he'd landed his dream job.

I think it's a nice story too, especially at a time when many of the poorest feel completely abandoned by MP's and Government.

Baby scouts with axes running amok....now there's a thought ;)

I'm with LM. I recommend a series of books called 'The Making of Modern London' for a true understanding of how London has formed, with it's suburbs and social mix of enclaves door to door. The excellent series 'The Secret History of our Streets' also demonstrated the demographic phases that areas go though. In London, the overwhelming reason for gentrification in the last three decades has been the desire to find lower property prices (I'll stop short of saying affordable). Artists and the art movement have played no major role in that process. Deregulation of mortgage restrictions and cheap credit have been the major factor there. Louisa you should know better than anyone that Rye Lane was once the second Regent Street of London, aimed exactly at the kind of people and money that you are now complaining about 'taking over'. The older architecture alone on the neighbouring streets also is a clue that the area was born as a middle class suburb. You have also complained before about the multi-ethnic make up and the cultural diversity of Rye Lane. So now you don't want middle-class people of a certain ilk there too? Well just who do you want there and what kind of economy do you expect them to drive?

LOL ED...

Whilst I don't doubt your account regarding drivers, I would also say that island is not designed as a crossing point for that many people....what were they doing crossing there instead of using a more appropriate crossing point?

Most of us have nowhere to grow anything LD let alone keet chickens....you need to cut some slack here. Even if everyone wanted to be totally eco aware, they can't be. I only use my vehicle for work or for transporting stock for my Tenants Hall. I make all journeys that I can by bicycle (mainly because of the money it saves me). I make a lot of journeys by public transport too. When I do get on my bicycle or in my vehicle I always have in mind the opening words of the highway code - 'to avoid an accident if you can'. I don't consider myself to be inconsiderate of the environment nor do I believe I am putting anyones life in danger. I've never hit a pedestrian with any motor vehicle I've ever owned. I have though had several collisions on my bicycle with pedestrians that walked out in front of me (pedrestrian percesption being - bicycle equals slow and can stop immiediately)..... Things have to be looked at in perspective.