Earl Aelfheah

@Champ - I get why you found this particular event worrying. I'm just pointing out why there is an understandable sensitivity to criticism on the part of cyclists.

The FT and Guardian online (although the latter is pretty poor really, at least there's no paywall).

I do think that editing someone out of a film, based on allegations alone is a bit disproportionate. Whilst I accept that the accusations sound credible, that's not the same as their being proven.

I think that people who cycle are understandably touchy to criticism. There are a hugely disproportionate number of threads and newspaper and radio 'opinion pieces' criticising cyclists. No one really believes that it's OK to jump red lights, yet a lot of people do it, in cars and bikes and as pedestrians, running across on a red. All are at fault, but I find those doing it in cars much more of a worry personally.

What a horrible way to lose your job. On a long haul flight, reading about your impending sacking on the front pages of the papers.

If that is the outcome, I am far from surprised. The consultation was (sadly) always an irrelevance.

... just unreasonable and extremely inadvisable.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It isn't 'illegal' to ask someone's age, but it > is > > irrelevant and enough to establish a prima > facie > > case in any age discrimination claim. > > > That's weird, because I had to train a whole load > of people when the legislation was brought in, > both in my own company and their clients' > companies. > > http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1841 If you ask someone their age as part of the application process and there is no good reason to do so (i.e. it has no relevance to the role being performed), then you are opening yourself up to an age discrimination claim. The fact that you have asked such a question is likely to establish a prima facie discrimination case, which means that the burden of proof shifts to the employer, to prove that there was some other, legitimate reason for turning down the applicant. This is not the same as asking someone's age being 'illegal'.

just wipe your hands on the back of your trousers and be done with it.

It isn't 'illegal' to ask someone's age, but it is irrelevant and enough to establish a prima facie case in any age discrimination claim.

What with the talk of treason and 'enemies of the people', it is totally unacceptable for a Conservative Minister to write such a letter. It is all creating a climate of fear and suspicion. When Brexit goes wrong, there will be recriminations for sure - and ironically, I suspect they'll be coming mainly from those who were pro Leave.

... whilst that remains unresolved, closing down roads will just add to everyone?s pain.

Fundamentally, if you want to reduce the number of people using cars, you have to provide reliable, frequent and fast public transport. We have buses which can take an hour to go 3 or 4 miles in rush hour and a train service run by Southern 🙄

There are a lot of people who seem oblivious to those around them. I was in a busy public building the other day and a small group of adults decided to stop and have a chat on the stairs. They seemed completely unconcerned about the fact that they were barring the passage of a large number of people. Everyone was having to squeeze past them and still they just stood there chatting.

I get the impression that they see Teresa as the least worse option. The idea of professional clown Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson being in charge dismays them / any sane person.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have yourself a Cocker-Knee > Christmas....https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2 > 017/oct/19/cockney-themed-dinning-event-symptom-of > -social-cleansing-in-east-end-theatre-company-lond > on end of days

My view is that Labour can?t be less competent than the Tories (who have delivered us Brexit and are now driving us towards a cliff edge).

How about Mercato Metropolitano?

Let's face it. The brextremists will never be happy, whatever the outcome - and they'll continue to blame everyone else for the countries ills, whatever they are.

Camberwell Green has horrendous pollution concentrations (plus a school, a hospital and a playground just off it). Closing Cambwerwell Grove adds to the problem, by forcing even more traffic through a massive bottleneck. Bit quieter for those living on Millionaires row though.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's why an area wide strategy is required, > definitely just closing one road won't do it. But > once one road is closed, why not look at how the > additional traffic in other areas can be dealt > with by more road closures (as I suggested > earlier, for example, closing off some of the > toastrack roads to keep traffic on the main > arteries) rather than just campaigning to reopen > that road? All reopening Camberwell Grove bridge > will do is concentrate the impact of cars back in > that area, that won't lead to a change in car use > either. This is just not a sensible way to do things. It may be that closing Camberwell Grove to traffic can be justified as part of a Borough wide plan - but it seems unlikely imo, that an opportunistic intervention, driven by vested interests of a handfall of residents is likely to have chanced upon the best possible solution to traffic issues across the wider area. We need some proper analysis and a consideration of the knock on effects / impacts on traffic in the surrounding area of closing the road. Don't the council get paid to do this stuff?

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > But, the analogy is spot on. You just can't > bring yourself to admit you are anti-car, so you > make nebulous claims that you hate "hate their > lazy, selfish, unnecessary and inconsiderate use" > and drop in that you somehow are OK with "sensibly > used low emissions motor vehicles". I'm surprised > you didn't go the whole hog and slip in "well, > some of my best friends drive cars". > Just admit it - you are anti-car. You want to see > the bridge closed to traffic because you hate > cars. > > > How about anti-inappropriate-use-of-car? > > I don't hate cars, I think (as with opiate > painkillers, gas fired power stations and > warships) they're a useful tool for a specific > range of things. If you need to get a family of > four and a bunch of camping gear to some remote > part of Wales, for example, there's really no good > alternative. I've lived in places where your > quality of life without owning a motor vehicle > could accurately be described as sod-all. SE5 > isn't one of them. > > However, for moving people a few miles around a > densely populated city, they're simply the wrong > tool. Anti-social by design and by definition > (convertibles with the roof down aside), vastly > overweight and over-engineered and, as a direct > result, creating disproportionate danger, energy > waste and noise (all essentially facets of the > same thing). You simply don't need a 60 kilowatt > engine, 1.5 tonne chassis and motorway-grade > impact protection to move one or two people and a > few kilos of stuff a couple miles around a city. > Your average cyclist can probably sustain 500 > watts on a good day and 15mph average speed, which > is as quick as driving in London; for people who > can't or don't want to keep that up for an hour, > or have a young child or a small amount of work > gear to carry, electronic assist will do the > same. > > It's as if we all one day decided to use petrol > chainsaws for a bit of light gardening. There are > times and places where heavy, noisy and dangerous > power tools are the only practical way to get the > job done - but it's better for everyone (in a > densely populated city) if we use them as a last > resort. It's one thing to think that there should be a strategy for encouraging people out of cars (I'd agree) and another to just close one or two roads (regardless off the knock on effects). This is not going to lead to a step change in car use, it's just going to concentrate the impact of cars in certain areas.

Bored kids in provincial towns are as bad, if not worse.

Is Jeremy Bowen (BBC reporter) from ED? He posted a photo of what looked a bit like Melbourne Grove - could be wrong.

They're not going to say 'Trump rested his cup on the red button by mistake, you've all got 10 minutes left'.