DJKillaQueen

TBF Sue, he chose to completely ingnore the points being made about poor enforcement of his licence for which he is responsible (although I understand that some effort was made afterwards to adhere to the terms) and it might have been wise for him to read his licence before posting that I didn't know what I was talking about for example. Did he come back afterwards and conceed that he had made an error? I'm afraid not. I have nothing to apologise for! I run a licensed premise myself and we never get into the kind of trouble Nick and DH have - because we enforce every aspect of our licence. You can't pick and choose which bits you enforce. Obviously I don't know him in the way you do but he doesn't seem to be competant to me in observing the law in regards to licensing. It's been one thing after another and recent trajic events have shown, the law regarding minors, bars and consumption of alcohol weren't observed. You don't have to sell alcohol to minors to be in trouble. If you sell alcohol to an adult who then passes it onto a minor, you are responsible. If you see minors drinking alcohol or intoxicated, you are responsible. It is a criminal offence for which he and all his staff on duty are equally liable (hence the strong Police recommendation for review). I certainly do not want to see DH lose their licence. It's a crucial part of revenue raising for a struggling Football Club. But there does need to be some retraining of him and his staff to make sure they protect themselves as far as possible from getting into these situations in the first place.

Children under 14 are legally allowed to cycle on the pavement and some pavements have cycle paths marked on them so all cyclists are legally allowed to use those. Police and Community Police wardens can issue on the spot ?60 fines to cyclists who cycle on the pavement or run a red light and often (just like the ANPR traps) set up in an around london at juctions on odd days to target cyclists.

KK is absolutely right in everything he/she says. I personally tend to not accuse or presume anything of someone until they give me reason to do so. Parking a legally taxed vehicle (oh yes see they do pay tax) on a public highway (not someone's front garden or private land) for a few days is not a crime. They won't be there forever. Until they threw an anti-social party, every criticism was nothing more than unwarranted prejudice towards someone with a different lifesyle. And as much as some of you might like to think otherwise, people do not choose to live in a van to avoid council tax. There could be any number of reasons and every one of them valid.

From what I'm told, all council funding of festival events has been cut, so it's not just the Irish Festival. It has been a well attended event by ALL members of the local community and when local authorities can afford to do so, provision of cultural and community events are a positive thing.

I agree with KK too. Earlier comments made all kinds of assumptions about the van people before anything had happened. Last night though they clearly cuased disturbance, so that makes for a different situation. Did anyone call Southwark Noise Team then? Or go and speak to the van people to ask them to stop the noise?

Rubyshoes just thinks that because she is a homeowner or rent payer that the public highway belongs to her too (or maybe are talking about a he). It might just be possible that these two blue van owners hit on hard times and are trying as best they can to get on. If such people parked outside my gaff i'd be more than happy to help until they gave me a reason not to. It's called being human!

I might have to buy a jumper to fill the gap left in my life!

You are getting abuse because your argument is based on assumptions you have made about the occupants of the van and then you are indignant to anyone that has a different view. Take the advice of those that have suggested it and go and have a chat with the van people. You might be pleasantly suprised by what you find out, sympathetic even.

I'm with KK and others. Unless the van and occupants are causing a nuisance then what is the problem? If you want to live in this country, and in London of all places..... Who says you have to live in a house? You? You know nothing about the circumstances of these two people because you haven't bothered to ask them.....instead choosing to make assumptions like..... This guy is a 'champagne-traveller': obviously earning enough money for a nice car. It's this sort of ignorance that get's people's backs up.

Yes, those square speed humps make many drivers focus on 'them' rather than what's going on around them in the road, and most cars if they position correctly can go over them at more than 20 mphr. On top of that they cost more to maintain than sleeping policemen that go right accross the road. I hate them personally.

That is a good point....I can't ever recall attending a licensing committee hearing outside of daytime hours in Southwark. The other issue I think is having a bar open at an under 18' event. the report doesn't make clear if it was open but I'm assuming it was. The law is clear about required adult supervision of minors in licensed premises operating with a bar. I wonder how many of those young people were accompanied by parents or supervising adults.

I think some of the trmac ramps were for the pavement works but if they stay beyond the works then definitely one to raise. They are easy to remove and as Rye Lane has CCTV watching traffic (to hand out parking fines) it should also be able to pinpoint illegal tarmac offenders too. The metal dug up were the old horse tram lines from the 1870's.

Good point James.

That is interesting reading and shows just why I and you and others strongly argued the importance of licensing requirements being followed in that previous thread about DH and noise, some time back. At the time of that thread, Nick the licence holder didn't even know what the details of his licence were, arguing he had different licensing hours for the bar on another thread (and deliberately misleading an event promoter who uses the venue in the process) to those that he actually did. Soon after he applied for a variation to extend the bar licence! Doesn't say very much for the competance of the licence holder.

The government would simply continue to refer to the now outdated results of the previous census. There are many intelligent people posting on this forum tompaine who are well aware of the power of the establishment and the corruption of bureacracy and big business and so on. But they also understand the realities of trying to do anything about it. Sorry but boycotting the census will not achieve anything in relation to Lockhead Martin or anything else. Patronising those that disagree with you by inferring they are niaive doesn't help your argument either.

A no fly zone is just a direct attempt to level the playing field between Gaddafi's forces and the 'rebels' which is a bit like playing referee really whilst they fight it out. That's fine until Gadaffi starts getting the upper hand on the ground and then what? It's obvious that any kind of intervention is at least hoping for the downfall of Gadaffi.....but to be replaced by what or whom....THAT is where the UN, USA and so on go coc k-up in these matters. Do we run the danger of being drawn into yet another middle-eastern fiasco, to protect what this time? The Suez canal? More dwindling oil supplies? Totally agree that the Arab League are key.

But one thing H is right about though is that the implications of not filling out the census form ARE that local authorities will find themselves underfunded and unable to provide the required amount of schools etc. The data provided by the census is a straight forward means of making sure that central government and other agencies are able to provide the required type and amount of resources where they are needed. Boycotting it won't make one iota of difference to the arms trade (there are far more effective other ways to protest about that) but it might impact on whether there are enough school places over the coming years for yours and everyone else's children. H may not always be the most of politeness in his style of debate (and I've had more than my far share on run ins with him on that) but he is absolutely right in the points that matter. To not fill out the census as a means to protest about anything is self defeating, and makes no sense whatsoever.

My training starts this friday at the pub....!

The only thing we know for sure is that the killer probably wasn't wearing that pattern of jumper...

I thought Belen was the one sending those pms........ps just saw he/she has been deactivated.

I've had every cat I ever had innocluated. I only had yearly boosters with one pet. the boosters made no difference to the life of that pet because it lived to a ripe old age like the others and eventually died from old age. So innonculate yes...boosters? not convinced and have yet to see any evidence they are really that necessary.

Plenty of owners only have the first sets of jabs done and never have boosters and their pets do NOT go on to contract the various illnesses that innoculations protect from. I am yet to be convinced that booster jabs are even necessary tbh.

Isn't the issue with the nuclear power plant one of preventing melt down? Because that is the real risk - not the problems that have been experienced so far. A complete meltdown would be another Chernobyl - that is the news story it seems - the battle to prevent that.

I agree the new system will be an improvement and simpler to understand, without making much difference to tenants or the rents they pay. Everything will depend on the government getting their calculations right of course regarding the borrowing caps, but apart from that it should work for the better.

Southwark also have ?700million of debt........maybe it should go towards paying some of that off!?