Earl Aelfheah

Louisa's post was in the spirit of the thread, so totally unreasonable to criticise IMO.

Ha! Was just about to link to that myself. Good article

Quite a fee galleries / museums do hold special late sessions for adults only

It's only about 30 metres of bus lane - if it started a little further down the road just past the junction with Landells Road- it would make no difference to the buses and the clear demand for short term parking outside Sainsbury's would be met. I suspect it may even improve the flow of traffic as a lot of people dither trying to work out whether they can stop or not / looking for laternative spaces.

I agree with you edcam, but I question the need for parking restrictions outside Sainsburys. It's only about 30 metres of bus lane beginning just past CP Rd - it would make little difference if it began after Landells Road. frankly any buses would likely get through the same set of lights in any given cycle.

I like the sun, but not a massive fan of the heat. A comfortable 70 degrees with a breeze is about as hot as I need. Kids waking up at 5am every morning is another negative - black out blinds never quite do the trick. People out in gardens keeping kids awake (when they're getting up at 5). Child care over the summer holidays is also massively expensive, difficult to organise and guilt riddling. There you go, I'm grumpy too. :-)

.

If we had some half decent public transport in SE London it would help alleviate a lot of the pressure on the roads. Unfortunately billions are being wasted from the infrastructure budget on Boris' vanity projects like the new 'routemasters', the garden bridge and the Emirates Dangleway. It would be nice if the mayor would extend the tube into SE London, to serve some existing communities and the taxpayers who are funding TFL, instead of diverting the northern line into the middle of a new property development already being dubbed 'Singapore on Thames' (due to it's being primarily marketed as an opportunity for overseas speculators to park their cash)... effectively a huge taxpayer subsidy to the developers. RANT RANT RANT

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you Foxy.

OK, but really, it's still possible to go for a drink without children being about, if you're that bothered by their presence during the day.

I have been wondering myself. Does seem to be making painfully slow progress. Anyone know what's happening?

Just thinking my way down the lane: Cherry Tree - no kids EDT - no kids Bishop - maybe some kids (afternoon only) Actress - loads of kids (afternoon only) Toasted - maybe some kids (afternoon only) New pop up who's names to awful to mention - no kids Palmerston - rarely kids Franklins - no kids House of Tippler - explicit no kid policy The Lordship - not many kids The Plough - loads of kids (afternoon only) The Castle - no kids The Great Exhibition - some kids (afternoon only) I'd say that's a pretty even split. None of them have kids in of an evening in my experience. Doubtless others will disagree.

Oh, fair enough, may have misunderstood. Seems to me though that there are at least a couple of pubs which are kid free most of the time (EDT, Castle spring to mind probably others). Doesn't seem that unreasonable that families frequent pubs during the day, especially when they're set up for it (selling food / coffee etc). Personally, I don't have that much trouble finding somewhere to enjoy a drink without the company of kids, as long as I can shake my own.

... and yet I bet there are others on this forum who will swear that the EDT is overrun with children most of the time.

I just don't recognise the picture being painted of 'no pubs being child free in the evenings'. During the middle of the day, then sure, there are certain pubs which sell food and coffee and are generally geared up to famillies - and to moan about kids being there is a bit silly. In the evenings, I can go for a drink without kids being 'everywhere'. If a kid is going nuts and their parents are ignoring them, then that's clearly ridiculous, but how often does that happen really. This whole thing reminds me of the popular forum assertion that you can't walk down the pavements of ED without being mowed down by a cyclist everytime you step outside. It all sounds too much like confirmation bias to me.

Whether it's just motorbikes using this as a cut through, riding at speed, or actually racing each other, or a bit of both, is all a bit of a moot point. It seems to me that's it's pretty unreasonable behaviour and the the OP shouldn't have been attacked for suggesting so.

Milk76 suggested that he had seen scooters racing each other. That's what I was referring to.

CCTV only works if the bikes are actually registered to the person riding them of course. A lot of these battered up scooters won't be.

This is the area along which motorbikes are *alledgedly* racing each other: [edited to add the * caveat]

There's just no need to race motorbikes through a pedestrian area. It's stupid, lazy and potentially dangerous.

There is no point in the Labour Party pursuing the same agenda as the consevatives. Yes, it would make them more electable (clearly, as the conservatives have been elected), but what would be the point? They shouldn't follow public opinion, they should attempt to lead it. An opposition, by definition, need to represent something distinct. If the electorate reject it, then fine, that's democracy... but at least people will have been given a genuine choice. The perception that political parties are all the same, is partly why so many don't engage.

Agree with Louisa.

The Telegraph were calling on Conservatives to vote for Corby (to 'destroy the Labour party')the other day. Didn't seem to concerned about ensuring a strong opposition then http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11741861/How-you-can-help-Jeremy-Corbyn-win-and-destroy-the-Labour-Party.html

I'm dubious. Anyone else actually witnessed any of this?