Earl Aelfheah

Reminds me of the we want plates Twitter account. Anyone for cottage pie in a pint glass?

Kaleidoscope by the Boo Radleys. Was watching 'Spirit of the Blitz' (an old Deathbox skate vid) on You Tube - this was the opening track. Both the vid and the track transported me back somewhat.

Yep, the Dulwich Estate's only aim is to maximise income in order to subsidise a number of elite schools. Charity eh?

Bruno's, the ice cream shop, the burrito and the popcorn places in the market.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyway, I don't 'trawl' the Guardian - as has been > noted here many times, I read the Guardian. For > all its faults, it still has the best news > coverage for a UK newspaper. > > Unfortunately (though often amusingly), it also > has the most bats**t-crazy and reality challenged > columnists and opinion writers for a UK newspaper. > And, yes, they do print things that deserve to be > highlighted and mocked on a semi-regular basis. > > Besides, I think any sane person would think > Alanis Morrisette's advice was dangerous and > should not have been printed. Blimey, it is easy to wind up Guardian readers.

I think Sandi Toksvig and Neil Buchanan lived opposite inside 72.* *slightly obscure 80's kids TV reference

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So you hate the Guardian, yet you trawl it for > > examples of infuriating articles, which you > then > > link to on here? > > > Because one of the great joys of life is winding > up po-faced sanctimonious Guardian readers maybe? OK. Have fun with that

.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So you hate the Guardian, yet you trawl it for > examples of infuriating articles, which you then > link to on here? > > A better question would be why someone would read > a thread call 'God I hate the Guardian' and then > express surprise at the content of the thread. Not surprise.. just pointing out that it's a little perverse.

It's not that I'm unsympathetic. The point is, you should speak with the publican in the first instance.

Squirrel74 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear The new Cherry Tree pub, > It seems you are turning into the old Cherry Tree > pub. Keeping my family awake until 1am with > terribly loud music, not asking people to leave > the beer garden until 12am. Is it your plan to > upset your neighbours? This isn't the place to contact the Cherry Tree pub.

So you hate the Guardian, yet you trawl it for examples of infuriating articles, which you then link to on here?

Is this place related to the Great Exhibition does anyone know?

I liked Inside 72, but I think it's 'legend' has become somewhat exaggerated over the years. Probably time to stop using it as a point of comparison. Anyway WGT looks good, and nice to have somewhere with a decent beer garden.

That's a case of a murder, precipitated by a road range incident. It's interesting that you think the fact that they rode a bike is what makes them dangerous, as opposed to the fact that they were a murderer. If a murder wears shoes, does that make shoes dangerous? I think I may have been spiked.

The idea of a 'war' between motorists and cyclists is ridiculous. As Chris Boardman put it "You?ve got 2% of vulnerable road users versus 98% in two tonnes of steel. How can you possibly have a war? I think that?s called a massacre. What could a cyclist possibly do to somebody in a car??.

Loz - there are not multiple threads about dangerous driving though, (despite the potential harm represented by a motor vehicle being significantly greater than that posed by a small, light, relatively slow, self propelled bicycle, as I already stated). The vitriol aimed at cycling, a relatively benign form of transport, is ridiculously disproportionate. This may be why some people get very defensive. After all, if you repeatedly single out a relatively small group of vulnerable road users in an entirely disproportionate manner, it's a natural response to be defensive. The number of threads talking about 'dangerous bikes', or 'reckless cyclists' is just silly and belies something quite dark imo.

Sounds like a non-story to me. I don't imagine for one minute that anyone is going to be stopped from doing a paper round.

^this. But also, let's do stop having these threads - it's clear that some people have a pathological dislike of cyclists and are convinced against all evidence to the contrary, that cycling poses a huge danger to other road users. We get it. there are plenty of threads on it. Let's stop now.

Whilst sitting alone in my Volvo XC90 in traffic, the engine rumbling, I noticed a person on a small push bike cycling past the line of cars. It annoyed me. I don?t know why (I didn?t think deeply about it), but I felt a small jolt of annoyance. It felt wrong, like they were skipping the line and no doubt feeling smug about it. The git! Later on, there were two of them and I had to slow down to pass. Get out of the fecking way! Honestly why are they even on the road? I?m really starting to hate them. The next day, I saw one of them move slowly forward at the lights - they looked, saw nothing was coming and then crossed on a red! The sh*t! That is so dangerous? not actually dangerous, but illegal and definitely, potentially dangerous? had there been someone coming. I started making a mental note every time I saw a cyclist do something inconsiderate. Each time I saw them breaking the rules, I felt reassured in my original view, that an adult travelling around on a bike is frankly weird and definitely dangerous. I probably did also encounter some bad behaviour by other drivers and occasionally pedestrians, but it didn?t stick out as much as I wasn?t specifically looking for it. There have always been bad drivers on the road after all, it?s just something you have to get used to. Just people being people. I?m a driver and I?m very careful, so the behaviour of that guy in the van doesn?t tell you anything about driving generally, it?s just some guy being a dick. Anyway, I?ve notice more and more of this recently, how cyclists seem to ignore all the rules. I searched Google until I found some stats that suggest the number of people hurt by bikes could be higher than people think. Again, it all confirms my initial impressions. I suspect that we?d all be better off if they were banned! I saw this really funny rant on Facebook, where this guy was saying how they should all be run off the road- LOL. There are loads of threads about it on the local forum too (which again, just proves what a problem they are). If they all got in car, we?d all be much better off.

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.

Cycling isn't benign you're right... its net effect is actively positive, in terms of health benefits, reductions in pollution and congestion. Sure people can get hurt whilst cycling, but that is true of any and every activity. It's just crazy, actually pathological how people focus their disgust on this most innocuous of activities.

.. To argue otherwise is ridiculous

It is relatively benign when compared to motor vehicles.

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. Yeah I may have misused the idiom, what I meant by it was that the whole 'bloody bikes' manifesto really has run out of ideas when it resorts to blaming car-light hopping to cyclists.