DJKillaQueen

HA HA.... Well here's one for you. The only time I ever hit a pedestrain was one that walked across a pedestrian crossing in stationary traffic. I had right of way (as the light was green on me) but hit him and then scratched and dented the car I fell into. In the end the car had to use it's own insurance for a repair...but surely the stupid pedestrian was liable? They should all be insured I tell ya! *opens can of worms as mid-afternoon snack muhahahahaha*

oooh mischievious....but I'm in the mood ;-)

Well the ideal solution is seperate lanes for cycles...but I've lost count of the number of times I see pedestrians walking in the ones that do exist!

TBF what mattees is the type of floodlighting used. There are many types of downward pitch lights that don't cause neighbouring light pollution beyond that of street lighting.

MP your pint is quite safe and you won't get searched at that time either so coins, and all the other variety of missiles you like to throw at the ref will get in ;)

Otta...there is a lot management can do to make sure there as little trouble as possible. Zero tolerance to licencing breaches and the law is one of them. CCTV and adaquate numbers of correctly trained staff is another.

Peception by pedestrians also has a lot to do with it. The noisier a vehicle is the more respectful of it pedestrians tend to be. They see a bicycle and assume a) it's not going at a speed that can harm anything b) if it does collide with anything it won't harm it. So they walk out in front of it. They don't do that if they see/ hear a motorbike, because they have a different perception of motorbikes....that they are fast and dangerous. I cycle, drive and have motorcycled too and have seen this difference in the way predestrians interact with vehicles on the road. No pedestrian ever stepped out in front of the motorbike ever. The car, they sometimes do and the cycle, they often do.

Yeah I've seen the sting operations in action too....just as I've seen ANPR road blocks to catch illegal drivers. They can never be everywhere and catch everyone. Here's something to consider. The other night I came home around midnight and had no lights...so I cycled on the pavement. There was absolutely no-one on the pavement so I considered it safer for me to do that at a slow speed, rather than ride on the road with no lights (also illegal). Walking that far along dark streets as a woman alone was never going to be a sensible option. To me the home offfice guidance is clear. Fine a cyclist if they are endagering others, use common sense if they are not.

Call the Southwark Noise team.....they'll come out within 45 mins and shut him down.

I'm voting for AV. The reason is that it will only make a difference in constituencies where there are small/ medium sized margins of votes. So if there was say a 15,000 vote majority under FPTP then it might swing less under AV. I also think as a system it will favour the Lib Dems and Lobour more that the Tories, and I hate the Tories. So hardly an impartial reason but it's an honest reason.

I used a speedometer for years and my average speed (and I am fit and sporty gal) was 25mpr. I can vouch that most cyclists never get above that speed. The only time I ever managed to break 30 was along long and straight uninterrupted downhills and that involved correct use of gears and was on a fast lightweight racing bike. Most cyclists travel between 10 and 25 mpr which is why most cars travelling at the speed limit overtake cyclists - in fact pretty much all of them do. Edited to add that a bike registration scheme wouldn't work. Where would you put a number plate on a bicycle? It would have be at least the same size as that of a motorcycle to be viewable and there just isn't anywhere secure to fit that. Given also the number of bikes and parts that are stolen, it would be a nightmare to administer.

I'm voting yes.

The situation is that Southwark are only funding one festival this year as part of the cuts but there is other funding that the Irish Festival could apply for, such as the Community Council Fund.

Oh H armchair psychology never was your strong point and still isn't by the looks of things ;-)

Peter is right. It is the venue's responsiblility to provide and pay for door staff. They may of course pass that on through higher hire fees, but that should be negotiable. Any current contract would probably contain a clause regarding alteration of hire fees anyway - so that could be referred to.

DH have brought all this on themselves.....IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR GIG....geez..do you really believe that venues should break the terms of their licence to accomodate your gigs? Unbelieveable. Edited to add that there is no way in a million years I would ever ignore the terms of the licence held by the club I run, for anyone using/ hiring the venue......because no licence, no business. That is what you are asking a venue to risk by expecting them to ignore certain terms of their licence.

Unfortunately it is lesson in what happens if you don't observe your licence and manage your premises well. Most venues have CCTV now anyway as a matter of course but I would think that it's the reduced hours at the weekend that might bite most. On door staff though....most premises that have late licences have the requirement for door staff from 10pm as a standard part of the licence.

Huguenot...our taxes fund lots of things many people don't get use of. Should people who don't drive be demanding their taxes don't pay for roads maintenance. Should childless people demand their taxes don't pay for schools? And Sue is absolutely right, with regards to the Olympics, Royal Wedding and even the funding of our national sports teams could be argued to be a luxury we shouldn't pay for. The point about tax is we entrust the governement to spend it in a way that benefits as many of us as it can. Cultural/ community events are part of many councils remit for community cohesion. Such events often require the additional help of volunteers and donation to happen anyway. It's very rare that a council funds an event in it's entirety. So we are in the midst of cuts and some things considered not as necesary as others may need to go but that doesn't mean that in principle the funding of such events when money is available is a bad idea. Edited to add that how can you know what the Irish Festival is H?...you live as far away as a person can get from East Dulwich!

I know that some of our residents are planning to look into other ways of having some kind of Irish Festival even if it's a scaled down event. I also wonder if some previous events could be combined into one event too. That surely would be a cheaper way of having something.

Fabulous pics! Keep them coming!

Yes but someone can only be prosecuted for riding on the pavement if they do so without due care. That IS the guidance from the Home office to the Police. If you are trundling along at a speed and in a manner that endagers no-one, the Police won't do a thing. If you go to court they then have to prove you were wreckless.

The issue is continued breach of license plus poor management (Sue isn't to blame for any of that). For me it's a black and white issue. I'll be interested to see what Ian reports back from the hearing when he get's time later.

This is precisely what you posted Sue with regards to closed windows and shutters Putting the shutters down makes the room seem like being in some kind of air raid shelter or something. It's horrendous from the inside. I have every sympathy with people who are being disturbed by noise, but can we keep some kind of proportion? How often does this disturbance actually happen? We hold Goose gigs at DHFC once a month, and I would be mortified if I thought they were disturbing people living nearby in any way. We spent a summer looking for a suitable local venue after we were kicked out of the EDT without warning, we were lucky enough to find DHFC, and we've spent over two years building up the Goose. We started out because we really wanted to bring folk music back to East Dulwich, and we bring really top artists here. If we have to close the shutters we might as well give up. In other words, your gig should be exempt from some of the terms of the license? The license has never said, only close windows and shutters at 10.30 as means of controlling noise pollution. They are a requirement every evening that the club opens. The club does have air conditioning...it is referred to in the licence that it be used.

Found the following Home office guidance.... The primary legislation which makes cycling on a footway an offence is section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act, this provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he "shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers or shall wilfully lead or drive any carriage of any description upon any such footpath or causeway." Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888 extended the definition of "carriage" to include "bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines." On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. At the time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that: "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required." "Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16." (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004) So in other words no-one under 16 can be fined or prosecuted for riding on a pavement....

That's not the issue. DH had several compaints regarding non enforcement of their licence - use of shutters being one of them which is where you had an issue and seemed to think that part of the licence shouldn't apply on certain nights (and have had a grudge against me ever since for insisting that it applies at ALL times - they are Southwark's rules not mine). If DH had taken their licence seriously we wouldn't be having any of these conversations now. He did mislead because he didn't know or bother check his own licence when presented with the facts by several posters. I call not knowing the details of your own licence incompetant. And it wasn't just bar hours and noise and shutters, it was also parties going on beyond the 1.30am licensed opening hours. Did he accidently make a mistake with regards to those breaches too? He could have posted afterwards and conceeded his error but he didn't. You can not argue with breaches of licence, nor can you argue with breaking the law with regards to minors and alcohol on the premises (and yes the details of that are published and in the public domain from the Police recommendations). The review is happening for good reason under those recommendations.