nxjen

Happy to admit I took it seriously but when it was pointed out it was not quite what it seemed (would not go so far to say it was a troll) couldn't help but notice the similarity. I was paying a compliment!

Not at all, the Private Eye column was very funny

Reminds me of the old Great Bores of Today feature that used to run in Private Eye

Far too many variables and unknowns for anyone to be able to offer you any reassurance. And those that try to I would not place too much reliance on as we are in uncharted territory. Just keep your head down, continue paying your mortgage and hope for the best. ETA I'm not sure it's desirable for wider society that house prices in London continue this crazy upward climb. We already have one generation largely excluded from home ownership - do we really want this to affect a second generation?

Perhaps do a cut and paste duplicate of your first post and post it in the Family Room? You'll probably reach more parents there.

This is shocking, perhaps get in touch with the relevant department at Lambeth Council to at least advise them there are safety concerns and the Fusion staff do not appear to have adequate training?

I only know the original meaning of the word which means something very different.

"Incubus"???!!!

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > nxjen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It would be logical if it was a public highway > - > > but it's not so it's meaningless to say because > > there's a pavement there pedestrians should > > confine themselves to this. There are many > > streets now pedestrianised that still have the > old > > pavements but pedestrians are not expected to > > restrict themselves to walking on the pavements > > only. > > All I am suggesting is that as there is no > disadvantage to pedestrians in walking on the > pavement it would be courteous of them to use it > rather than block the road and force cyclists > continually to slow to make sure their dogs and/or > children don't dart in front of us. If you find > being asked for that courtesy is too great an > imposition, fine, I'm not saying it should be > obligatory. Seems like you're asking for right of way rather than courtesy.

Don't know why you're so negative about it DF: is it going to personally do you any harm if it gets built?

It would be logical if it was a public highway - but it's not so it's meaningless to say because there's a pavement there pedestrians should confine themselves to this. There are many streets now pedestrianised that still have the old pavements but pedestrians are not expected to restrict themselves to walking on the pavements only. As for numbers of pedestrians versus numbers of cyclists, I can only talk about the times I've been there and pedestrians have always outnumbered cyclists by a long way.

It's not a road in the conventional sense as it is not open to public motorised traffic, only to park access vehicles. Methinks you want to turn it into a velodrome whilst saying otherwise. PS No idea what happened to your apostrophe, I certainly didn't edit it out. As you can see from the first word in this post, I am aware of the correct use of apostrophes!

"I hope its not too presumptuous to ask that pedestrians use the pavement, bridleway or grass (or even just stick to one side of the road rather than the centre) and leave a clear passage for cyclists?" Far, far too presumptious, when I was growing up the park-keeper would clip your ear if you cycled in a park! Of course things have changed since then and cycling is rightly encouraged for both health and environmental concerns. However, this cannot be to the detriment of those park users who walk which would relegate them to second class users and would prevent them from using the park in the way they have done since the park opened over 100 years ago. There are also far more pedestrians that use the roadway in the park than cyclists. You and your other half just need to show some patience for other users or use one of the many cycling only routes that have been appearing recently in Southwark which I have to say are making even me think about taking up cycling (though probably not). Besides, fewer pedestrians will encourage even more cyclists you consider jerks to charge around at 25MPH. I do agree though regarding dogs being walked on extendable leads which I think should be made illegal as they have caused serious injuries both to cyclists and to the dogs themselves.

Thanks for teaching me a splendid new word - bloviating. I will try to drop it casually into conversation now whenever I can!

Irony bypass?

Go on, give it a try, you know you want to ...

No amount of self righteous wishful thinking negativity is going to make it fail. I wonder how long it will be before "some people" succumb and do some shopping there?

I too am concerned but though an MP, he was outside Government when he participated in the Brexit campaign and we know what happened there. He is a loose cannon and needs to be contained if at all possible.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Boris appointment is unavoidable and good much Tory support. > > Why is everyone surprised? ... Yep, and this is the inducement that made Boris leave the contest for PM. TM is keeping her friends close and her enemies closer, and Boris could arguably do more damage outside government than inside. Have to agree the prospect of what he might say is horrifying: perhaps he can be wired up to a machine that will give him a very painful shock if he doesn't think of the consequences before he opens his mouth. And what will Leadsom get? Justice? Education? Health? DWP?

Whilst relieved neither Johnson nor Leadsom will be PM (this time), it wouldn't surprise me if one or both become members of Theresa May's reshuffled cabinet, indeed they both left the race so unexpectedly that perhaps they had this dangled in front of them. And Leadsom spoke so highly of May ... ETA Oh, I see certain newspapers are already speculating on this!

WorkingMummy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > she is awful. > I bet the Tory party membership love her Yes, it's very scarey as they're the ones who will vote for the final selection. Stretching credulity to breaking point that she was not being disingenuous regarding her comments about having children, can someone as tactless as this be trusted to negotiate on our behalf with Europe? Odious woman.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Boris has endorsed Leadsom. That's her out, then. Not a surprise, I think they're made for each other. Both a couple of air-heads with a questionnable relationship with the truth.

"Despite what the Tories are now saying an Autumn election is likely. Progressives need to be ready for that." Is someone able to clarify why an Autumn election is likely? Whoever wins the Tory leadership, the party has a majority and will not call a general election unless they lose a vote of no confidence. The idea of a progressive alliance is interesting but will not happen as a result of a petition. PS That Andrea is yet another lightweight, Tory fantasist.

James: In case you haven't noticed, everything parliamentary is in total disarray at the moment. To bang on about will Helen vote to trigger Article 50 is premature and opportunistic. To repeat what Tom Watson said regarding freedom of movement and to present it as official labour policy is disingenuous, there doesn't appear to be any consensual labour policy on anything at the moment. Though the EDM stands little chance of success, by signing it Helen has shown herself as wanting to do something about the awful position we now find ourselves and is not going to quietly roll over and passively accept the referendum result. I get it James that you're frustrated not to be in a position to do something, but to take pop shots at what Helen might hypothetically do at a time when everything seems to be hypothetical is irritating. I think Helen is showing herself to be a good MP in very difficult times.

Helen has sponsored an early day motion which sets out her position http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/243