Zebedee Tring

I agree that it's good that Callows will still be in ED. But who will go next? Another useful shop like Farmers rather than one of the numerous yummy mummy and trendy Nathan Barley style establishments who no doubt can afford the rent?

Perhaps I should have added that I don't recommend this course of action to someone who is a slender 5ft 3in!

I, for one, don't condemn all cyclists, only those who behave illegally - and remember, we are talking about people who are breaking the law - one can't choose which laws to obey. However, people walking along staring at their phones to the exclusion of everything else are another of my bugbears. If someone using their phone in this way walks in my direction, I carry on walking and they usually come off worse- which is easier for me to do than other people because I am 6ft 2in and pretty hefty.

Thanks, taper. To quote the Bike Hub website: "Many cyclists are afraid of fast-moving motorised traffic so cycle on footways. While understandable at certain busy intersections and the like, it?s very much against the law. If a certain stretch of road is deemed too dangerous to cycle on, choose an alternative route (via smartphone apps or online journey planners) or walk your bike on the dangerous stretch. If you ride on the footway, ... you could cop a fine and you may antagonise pedestrians." That's pretty unequivocal. So prepare to cop a fine LadyDeliah, though you clearly aren't worried about antagonising pedestrians.

The emphasis is on the words "who show consideration to other pavements users when doing so". As so many pedestrians will tell you, there are a growing number of cyclists who do not show consideration to other pavement users and who take the view that they can ridee their bikes where they want with impunity.

Well, all that I can say is that if you (or indeed any other cyclist) hit me while you're cycling on the pavement, I will be bloddy annoyed and will act in self-defence (that is, if I am still conscious).

I'm all for positive change. In the meantime, unless there is some change, please don't cycle on the pavement.

Oh, so it's pedestrians' responsibility to improve road safety for cyclists, while cyclists carry on riding on pavements, is it? And it's our fault then if cyclists hit us? A funny kind of logic. Such as the pedestrians who are inconsiderate enough to dare to cross at a crossing and who then complain when a cyclist nearly knocks them over?

Ratty, if you don't live here anymore, why are you bothering to post on an ED site? Perhaps you should (in your words, not mine) "get a fooking life" and become interested in issues in your area rather than wasting your time on this site, which should no longer be of any concern of yours. Perhaps, if, like my wife, you had nearly been knocked over and injured by someone cycling at speed on the pavement, you might take the problem seriously.

On at least one occasion I have told off a yummy mummy who has been cycling on the pavement with whom she sanctimoniously calls her "little one". I have told her that she is committing a criminal offence. A look of horror has come over his face since she clearly takes the view that crimes are only committed by members of the "lower orders" and not by hard working, law abiding, middle class people like her. Along with boy racer cyclists who believe that they can do what they like because they're saving the planet, it's cyclists like this who give those cyclists who abide by the rules a bad name; and they are setting a very bad example to their "little ones". I find hard to believe that StraferJack has in 12 years in ED only had a cyclist pass him on pavement once. I have at least one cyclist passing me on the pavement every day.

You could gently inform him that you are mates with some seriously heavy Sarf London geezas who could come round and 'ave a word with him if he continues with the noise. This might work since he might not want to risk playing loud music on the ground that you are bluffing.

Good morning, James. Beauval Road is currently virtually a building site, with vans and lorries taking up a great deal of the parking space during the day, though there's nothing that one can do about this. However, what I am concerned about is that there are now two portaloos placed in the roadway in the upper part of the section of Beauval Road that ends at Milo Road. Apart from taking up much needed parking spaces, they are beginning to smell and may well be a health hazard. I'm not sure whether the portaloos are being used by one set of builders or two. Leaving aside the question of why the builders have not placed the portaloos within the curtilage of the property or properties) on which they are working, I have a number of questions: (1) Do they have the legal right to place the portaloos on the roadway? (2) If so, do they have to obtain permission from the Council to do so? (3) If so, have they obtained permission? (4) If they do not have the legal right to place the portaloos on the roadway or they haven't obtained permission to do so, what action will the Council be taking to get them to remove them?

HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have far more self-esteem than I actually > warrant but I couldn't give more than a very > generous 2.5/10 for that contribution and that's > mainly for the ED-ward part, facts have to be > faced, the rest is pish. > > So, the day job awaits in the morning. But that's > fine with me, let's be real, Pickettywitch won't > pay tribute to themselves now, will they? > > And NO! I'll not hear a word to the contrary. Perhaps you could translate this into comprehensible English, HonaloochieB. because I have grave difficulty in understanding what you are saying.

Blueeyes, I bet that you wouldn't call the OP a "sad prick" to his face if you were standing next to him in a pub. It's the coward's way of blogging - abusing someone anonymously, knowing that they can't get back at you. If you don't find someone funny, you should just ignore them, not abuse them. Humour is a matter of personal taste; personally I thought the Snowden allusion quite funny.

Typical bloody Daily Mail, obsessed with house prices to the exclusion of almost everything else, with the possible exception of "Voting Labour Gives You Cancer" type scare stories. Next week - "House Prices Fall The Nearer You Are To Aldi"?

More fool them for voting Republican and no doubt opposing Obama's modest health reforms. Now she wants to use our NHS when it suits her. If it had been, say, African refugees coming to this country and then immediately using the NHS, she would have been up in arms and encouraging Fox News to come down hard on them - that is, until she and her husband were ill and miraculously started to see the point of what they would no doubt have regarded as a "Communistic" health care system.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Is there a visual plan/diagram of what the > plans? > > http://www.steveprentice.net/tube/TfLSillyMaps/sou > thlondontube.jpg > > How about this one? What exactly is this map supposed to show? A fantasy Underground?

Why do they announce that the Victoria and/or Clapham Junction trains will be going from Platform 3 when affter leaving DH the trains initially occupy the same tracks London bound? I thought that Platform 3 was almost exclusively for Thameslink trains (or whatever they call themselves this week).

I very much hope so since I posted a letter there today?

It seems that the standard way to put someone down with whom you disagree or who has shown an interest in something in which you aren't interested is to adopt the massive overused put down "Get a life" - this suggests that you have a more interesting life than a person whom you consider to be a poor sad barsteward and that somehow you are morally superior to him/her. To which I say "If the thread is so boring, why are you wasting time reading it?" - or "How about not reading the thread and spending the day spending your valuable time doing else more productive?" In short DF, many people *are* interested in the M&S saga. You aren't being forced to contribute to this discussion.

As I remember it (and I was growing up in Walthamstow at the time) the construction of the Victoria Line was held up for years because there was supposedly no economic justification for it. However, after a considerable delay, the line was given the go ahead on the ground that it would relieve congestion in the central area. And what a success it has been - can you imagine getting from Victoria to Oxford Circus any other way than by direct Victoria Line link? Similar arguments could be used for extending the Bakerloo Line today. And, remember, the Victoria Line was built at a time when the car was king, they were about to built a succession of urban motorways in London (including one through Covent Garden!) and railways were supposed to be old hat (hence Beeching) - indeed tube travel numbers were on the decline. A very different situation from today.

If only the Bakerloo Line were extended to Camberwell and Peckham. However, if you study your transport history, you will find that it was proposed that the line should be extended to Camberwell all of *80* years ago - indeed there are post WW2 underground maps with a dotten line showing this as a proposed extension (along with the abandoned Northern Line extensions to Ally Pally and Bushey Heath). And the extension has been proposed on many occasions since then. So it may be wishful thinking - but I hope I'm wrong about this.

Davidh, I was making a serious point in a lighthearted (and possibly ironic) way. I was making fun of the contrast between my wishy washy liberal persona and the more vengeful dark side that lies beneath - I am a Scorpio by the way! In reality I am 100% behind the OP. People who allow their dogs to crap all over the place should be fined to the limit - they should also be required to meet people who have lost their sight in one or both of their eyes because of toxocariasis that they have caught from dog crap.

If I'd been vindictive, I'd have wrestled her to the ground and required her to consume said offending article. But I'm not vindictive so I wouldn't have. Hanging's too good for people like her. 'ere, I had that James Nesbitt in the back of my cab last week.

If the opening post is polite, there should be a polite response. If the opening post contains insults about another poster or (say) their family, then of course that doesn't apply. And I think that you know that, *Bob* (can't do smileys but just imagine a smiley!)