civilservant

when we got our new pup, we put him in a crate in the sitting room on his first night with us. i was in a sleeping bag next to the crate. But he cried all night and no-one got any sleep, so the next night he came upstairs with us and has slept under our bed ever since! our first dog slept in a crate for the first couple of years of his (too short) life. we got a crate for him because the breeder advised it was the thing to do. it was obvious that he hated it, and it was noticeable how much happier and more settled he was when we stopped using it.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > fonread Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Christ, reading this trash is enough to make me > > want to throw a seven. > > > > We have reached peak EDF. > > > > I'm off to kill myself. > > > I feel your 'peak' pain fonread > > In 1919 or somewhere close to that they > discovered/dug up the Kohi Nor diamond > > Last year in 2015 they dug up a bigger one, at the > same mine > > The EDF is much like that mine, it just takes > patience and a lot of digging hold on a bit - that old mine's still producing: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1651855,page=1

still not getting it kk...

Godwin bell? please explain?

LauraW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If it's relevant, I'm a woman and have known him for > 4 years. no, it's not relevant. The man was accused of harassment - and that is exactly what he is doing. > The fact that she's reacted so badly to having her > identity exposed does suggest that she was using > online anonymity as a shield while behaving > trollishly on EDF. Sue has never sought anonymity - many of us know who she is and appreciate her contribution to the local community. She, like anyone else on the forum, is entitled to reveal her identity on her own terms. She also has the right to object to silly and vicious messages posted about her on social media or anywhere. It is also very silly to accuse her of trolling. a general point - whoever is running this campaign has completely subverted their own cause. I have no idea of the rights or wrongs of whatever it is that they are trying to do - it's all drowned out by the shrillness of their voices - and I don't feel i want to even bother to find out. Because all I can hear is the sound of harassment, spite, misinformation and, oh yes, obfuscation. It's a complete turn-off.

sorry to disagree, JoeLeg, it does actually support the Fox's point - the issue was raised on the Forum, which was why the affected residents could see that they had common cause and were able to take action; the meeting that was convened by James Barber was advertised on the Forum as well just because one is lucky enough not to live next to a noisy pub is no reason to object when people who do, object - and I notice a lot of hypothetical 'I would never object, me' type arguments; some of the posters on this thread seem actually unhappy that ED is slowly becoming a less raucous place in the bits off Lordship Lane

JoeLeg Wrote: > > But did people address their concerns firstly to > The Great Exhibition? yes, they did - many times, and fruitlessly, which was why James Barber had to be called in to help

i was interested to hear that they thought they had several times more clients than actually proved to be the case. when i heard the original estimate, i can remember wondering where all these kids came from I've wondered how the original estimate was arrived at - but whether this was a genuine mistake or a cunning attempt to inflate the perceived need, it raises strong concerns about the organisation's accountability and governance

i haven't noticed that there've been more noise-related threads recently than there have ever been but: if someone is new to East Dulwich and encounters a noise problem; they hear about the power of the Forum and register in the hope that they can get advice or help - what's so suspicious about that? isn't that what the Forum is actually about? ETA but i seem to have spotted at least one poster who seems to specialise in anti-anti-noise posting - it takes all sorts

by all means have a word with the pub first but also have a look at the conditions governing their licence: these stipulate their opening hours, live music, use of outside space etc The Cherry Tree's are here: http://app.southwark.gov.uk/Licensing/LicPremisesGrantedDetails.asp?systemkey=850811 if they hear your, then fine; if not, you'll need to get in touch with the Southwark Licencing Team whose contact details are at the bottom of the licence good luck - it's not a pleasant situation to be in

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am a car owner. I am not 'anti car'. But anyone > with any sense can see that the potential harm > represented by a motor vehicles overshadows that > posed by a small, light, relatively slow, self > propelled bicycle... and by a significant order of > magnitude. The fact is that the amount of > 'concern' expressed about the 'carnage' bikes > cause, is ridiculously disproportionate. The > number of threads talking about the 'dangers of > bikes' is getting silly. I am a pedestrian i haven't driven since i got my driving licence i think cycling is a good way of reducing one's ecological footprint i would cycle on the road if i thought it was safe enough i have no problem with other road users so long as they obey the rules but... i have a problem with anyone, cyclist or not, who behaves on the road in a way that is selfish and endangers others (or themselves) i also have a problem with anyone who thinks it's ok to behave that way

Clearly this shop failed to pay its way. it's a hard job making a toyshop pay when so much more is available on-line, and many shops aimed at children sell clothes and books as well. but I can understand why the kids would be upset, middle class or not - being in a toyshop is lovely, it could even be magic. Woollies did fit the bill once, now TK Maxx is a source of wonder, all just as valid Aladdin's caves as good sweetshops or bookshops or delicatessens (like Sesame next door) and even though I admit I rarely bought anything there - only last-minute birthday party offerings, it just didn't have much I wanted to buy - I'll miss it too.

now, now, miga, what was all that about? everyone takes risks and many people break rules - that IS a pretty obvious fact, isn't it? well done for pointing that out. but i'd have thought that it's also pretty obvious that risks can be disproportionately weighted against some groups e.g. cyclists and pedestrians. but let's leave pedestrians out of this cyclist-focused thread... so wouldn't you agree that a rule-breaking blue car driver doesn't run quite the same personal danger of being squashed as a rule-breaking cyclist? hence my question - it's simply not logical to put oneself in a situation when the risk is so great and the reward so small. so - why does that make you feel so personally slighted? and what's all that stuff about road tax? how and why does that follow?

Loz, your M25 analogy is hilarious, but it is true that cyclist deaths (and the rather larger number of pedestrian deaths) are mostly caused by 4-wheel traffic so I've got another question - every day I watch from the bus while (some) cyclists take the most absurd risks in traffic. This being traffic, the risks will be shared to some extent by everyone around them, in the same way that a car with bad brakes is a threat to everyone else on the road. as exdulwicher points out, some of this is about bad cycling infrastructure. But quite a lot of it is not. so why do they do it? is it just for the sake of shaving a few minutes off their journey? or is something else going on?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh come on. I see cars jump red lights to, but to > suggest it's because of cyclists is really jumping > the shark. perhaps so (but I think you mean 'jumping to conclusions' - shark-jumping is something else entirely) but the basic problem is the mindset that, when in a car, behaves like a selfish arse, and when on a bike, continues to do so. special pleading, e.g. for cold wet cyclists, just doesn't cut it. of course there are pedestrian arses too e.g. wandering along with earphones in, getting in the way of well-behaved cars and bikes. but that, Best Beloved, is another thread.

traffic rules in America or on the Continent are not more sensible than UK ones - in France and Belgium they still use priorite a droite while acknowledging that it's archaic and dangerous; in the US they eschew roundabouts in favour of the totally bonkers four-way stop > if it's the middle of the night, cold and pouring with rain, a cyclist may feel it's ok to keep going if there is no traffic about is that really ok? what about the pedestrian crossing the road in the same weather who has to additionally keep an eye out for hurtling cyclists? in conditions of poor visibility (or at any other time even) all that anyone can hope for is that EVERYONE is obeying the same set of rules of the road cyclists benefit from being able to switch between being road traffic and pedestrians; if they're on the road, they obey the same rules as other road traffic; if they're on the pavement they get off and wheel their bike. simples, yes? btw, i don't drive - i walk or use public transport - so accusations of anti-cyclist hypocrisy don't wash with me

> reasons - saving time, pointless lights, some > belief of morale (sic) high ground, and general > immaturity. you couldn't have put the anti-cycling case better...

agree with everything you say, exdulwicher - thank you and goodnight!

a US 'cup' can be defined for nutritional purposes as 240ml, but that's a retro-fitted definition to what started out as a rough and ready indication of relative volumes within a recipe. as any cook kno, all recipes are about relative proportions, and generous margins of error are permitted i don't think anyone has felt the need to codify the size of a 'handful' or a 'tablespoonful', other popular measures in recipes (but see this link http://www.accuracyproject.org/measurements.html) , although I have recently seen nutritionist-type guidance about what constitutes a 'portion' (as in '5 portions a day) ETA useful link for measurement purists

"all gay people, all Jewish people" - again a spurious analogy noone was born with a bike attached - it's a conscious choice to ride a bike as much as it's a conscious choice to be a socially responsible cyclist (or citizen, for that matter) doesn't get around the real issue that with other forms of transport, there are well-defined rules and a shared understanding of what they are. if every cyclist readily acknowledged that they as a road-user have responsibilities to other road-users, then fine. until then, there is a problem IMHO.

this is the Forum after all, and Alice can approach the issue any way she likes BB, it's not sensible to compare the (rare) realisation of a risk (pedestrian killed by lorry while crossing irresponsibly) with the much more frequent near-misses that well-behaved pedestrians have with cyclists behaving irresponsibly. I first posted on this thread to point out that although a lot of thought and money's been spent on cyclists, as well as huge patience among other road-users in places like the Elephant, (some) cyclists still insist on flouting the rules. a general point - as a pedestrian, i can easily see an approaching car or lorry and make a decent judgement of whether it is safe to cross. But with cyclists, their speed is out of all proportion to their visual impact on the street scape - they zip along like neutrinos - tiny mass and huge speed. So that they're near invisible until they're on top of you. That's scary for a pedestrian. and what's also scary is the reluctance to stop at crossings. So very often crossed at a green light or a pelican crossing and had to jump out of the way of cyclists who don't think that THEY need to stop. i've got no problem with cycling - it's about some cyclists. how about all you cyclists out there do a bit of policing of your own kind instead of chuntering on about how fast and easily you can zip home compared to us pedestrian snails?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Totally genuine question here. Why if the body > needs to be buried in order to keep its > integrity, is it then okay for that to be time > limited? Surely it either needs to be buried in > one piece or it doesn't? I just don't understand > it. neither do I and I'm not even trying to understand it because I suspect there's no logic to it if it's about taking a perfectly decent bit of wooded green space and turning it into a graveyard because the pious are worried about disturbing the long-dead in existing graveyards, then that just doesn't compute - other pious folk have no qualms about digging up their dead and repackaging them to fit the available space; it's done even in the best churches e.g. Westminster Abbey or am I missing some element of religious orthodoxy here?

in places like Greece, Italy, Spain, where they believe strongly in the need to preserve the physical integrity of the body after death i.e. bury not cremate, it's quite customary to lease a burial plot for a fixed period of time. When this time is up, the bones are disinterred and re-buried more compactly - hence the catacombs and the ossuaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossuary you see in many European cemeteries - so they can manage with a limited amount of burial space. It's only in England it seems that it's your bit of green and pleasant land for ever and ever, or at least until they build a car-park on top of you

After the lengthy shenanigans at the Elephant to give cyclists their very own space, I was bit bemused last night to see a cyclist in full Lycra barrelling along on the pavement, right next to the cycle lane. Does anyone wonder why the rest of us hate cyclists? It may be just one bad apple but since most of them are masked by their helmets and Lycra, with no number plates or other ID, no one can tell which one it is.