Earl Aelfheah

The irony is that for all their talk of cuts the Tories won't touch pensions, continue to pursue policies with the effect if increasing house prices (and so the housing benefit bill) and further weaken employees rights or ability to organise (driving yet more low pay).

A lot of people have no idea about where the benefits bill is spent. The idea that it all goes on 'work shy layabouts' is nonsense. Mostly it goes to pensioners, private landlords and towards subsidising low pay employers.

Omega Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta it's the owner of no. 51 that wants to sell > up and downsize for semi retirement apparently. > >....Yes the comments > that were already submitted before we received > notification are a bit odd but I assumed they were > from friends/relatives of the applicant so thus > they were already aware. Sounds like a bit of a greedy, self centred prick

I am pretty saddened by the election result outside of London. That said, Loz's analysis is not far off. Labour would also have made fairly radical cuts to Social Security. Withdrawal from Europe and the possible break up of the UK are two significant dangers to the UK economy now...Both BTW were made more likely by the Tory win IMO (another reason to rue the outcome). @derwentgrove - I think most of the more monied recent arrivals to ED are probably Tories.

It crushes me every time I see another front garden being concreted over.

I don't mind coots. Mallards on the other hand.. Very shifty eyes

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RosieH Wrote: > > > And for the love of god, this thread - what > kind > > of uptight nimby, judgmental area am I living > in? > > You are living in New Tunbridge Wells and I'll > thank you to behave in a neutral manner on these > 'ere streets or suffer the consequences. > > Are you chewing!?!!? From this forum you could definitely get that impression

Have a nice time foxy.

.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > God I wish I was more motivated to work today. I'm > involving myself in this nonsense for something to > pass the time. The forum would struggle if we were all motivated, productive employees :-)

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wasn't missing your point rahrahrah, I was just > not really agreeing with it. > > More people may die / get injured playing football > than cycling, but why do they die / get injured? > In a lot of cases it will be because of the > unpredictable actions of another player. Well sure, but in lot of cases it will be the unpredictable actions of another road user which lead to injuries on a bike. I just think that there is a general perception (misconception imo) that cycling is some kind of high danger activity. I don't believe the statistics bare this out and the perception dissuades people from getting on their bike / doing what they want to do. We shouldn't live in fear, especially when the fears are out of all proportion with the reality.

I just saw this by East Dulwich station. No sign of a helmet either:

But people are much more likely to get injured playing football and occasionally there are even serious injuries - people crack heads, run into goal posts etc. The fact that football isn't played on concrete missing the point. Contact sports almost invariably lead to some level of injury (there can't be many footballers who's never been injured), - where as cycling does not. The issue is one of ?availability bias? - the phenomenon of judging risks based on how easily we can bring examples to mind. Unusual and arresting events ? such as a lorry running a cyclist over - are plastered all over the media. A kid breaking his leg playing football is more commonplace but doesn?t make the news. It?s not unusual, it?s not novel. Cycling is not a particularly dangerous activity, but (as with anything) neither is it risk free.

Daddy Pig is gold

You really should expand on that tale.

Yeah, Mystery Incorporated is brilliant and makes several wry nods to the mistake that was Scrappy.

Skateboarding

Monsters inc and Monsters University are good, and the Wonder woman theme music.

... compare it to this

It's a shame that Cyclist is now coming off badly because of his/her doggedness, because taking the personalities out of this for a minute, I couldn't disagree more strongly with the general gist of this thread. Firstly, I don't accept the widely held view of cycling as a particularly dangerous activity. Secondly, just because you might feel someone is making 'bad choices', does not give you licence to stick your oar in. Bear in mind that there are plenty of contact sports (football for example) which have roughly the same level of fatalities per participant (actually higher). One could use the argument often applied to cycling, namely "wearing a helmet isn't going to do any harm, so why not be safe' to football. Try going to a kids match and admonish the irresponsible parents who aren't making their children wear a helmet. Why not, as was suggested earlier, raise the issue with the police? People are bad at judging risk and quick to jump in on a moral panic. I worry much more about the inactive kid, sitting at home eating junk food than the one climbing up a tree without padding, cycling without a helmet, or playing contact sports without a mouth shield. We are creating a culture of risk aversion and puritanism.

I agree that the number of petitions generally, are getting out of hand.

The buses do have signs asking people not to put their feet on the seats and not to eat pungent foods etc. Some people just ignore them. You can't always legislate for people being inconsiderate. Generally, i don't mind eating on the bus as long as people don't make a mess / take their crap with them.

A few times I've grabbed the hand rail on a bus and got a fistful of fast food fat. Getting to the top deck gives new meaning to 'climbing the greasy pole'.

FFS. Mind your own business.

Sorry to hear about this fizzmoll. Unfortunately too many dog owners personify their pets and so are incapable of understanding why 'their trying to play' might be upsetting. I've come up against this intransigent attitude so many times now, I can't tell you. I hope your son is OK.