thebeard

elliemon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks EDmummy. I have a feeling that the strip > along where the East Dulwich Deli is has a parking > restriction from 4pm but where i was parked was up > until 7pm. Hmmmmmmm. I find those signs slightly > confusing - is it just me? And annoyingly i tend > not to park along LL either for that very reason. > Anyway moan over - i'm going to challenge it. > Thanks for advice all. I wouldn?t challenge it until you?ve been back and check the signs. I think if you have parked in the bus lane outside Soup Dragon after 4pm then I?m pretty sure that you don?t have a leg to stand on. If you challenge it you?ll lose and end up paying ?120. Currently in the bus lanes on LL you can?t park between 7am and 10am and 4pm and 7pm. So you can only park when the shops are open between 10am and 4pm. This is one parking restriction which I believe should be changed on Lordship Lane there is very little need for the 4pm restrictionon that side of LL. Busses do not need a clear bus lane in the afternoon after 4pm in that direction. Its all part of the parking bus lane NONSENSE. Check and pay is ASAP if I?m correct the sooner I pay them the sooner I forget and move on. EDIT added info I had a look as I was driving past and I'M WRONG the NO parking on that side is from 7am-10am so you should not have had a ticket. Did you park with a wheel on the pavement? That is a favorite one in Southwark.! Best to Re read the ticket.

woofmarkthedog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well my last one was "kinda on topic" though > tongue in cheek......ohh & a biblical theme... > > > and they "still tore my work down" argghhhhhhh > you b******s > > > > W**F > > *the tears burn my eyes still........really ohh*] I am soooo disappointed it was removed, twas a work of most excellent humour. Excellent quality.! Can we start an ?Abuse with humour thread? for similar works of art? More fun than anything to do with Swinebury?s that?s 4 sure.

Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) should become law for all. It is no different to having good tires brakes bumpers and seat belts. Maybe they could be set to allow 100mph on M ways between the hrs of say 1am and 5 am ie flexible speeds, which would make far more sense than fixed speeds. Mind you I?m in favour of completely automated cars program in destination and read a book on the way there now that would be fantastic. There is no pleasure in driving in the UK these days anyway.

Sorry old Chap ;-) Read my other posts and I think you?ll see that I agree with you, management is exactly what is needed. BUT it should be properly considered balanced management. Common sense.

ruffers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Machine says don't park till tomorrow. > You park. > > > > What exactly were you expecting? ruffers My guess and this could be a wild outrageous one?. Is Lizzie like most of us humans, was looking for practical common sense resolution and somewhere to park her car. Brain sees empty car park brain thinks I should be able to park in it. BUT NOooooooooooo here in the socialist inflexible Robotic Regime of Southwark nothing is what it appears, common sense takes a back seat to an out of order machine and an out of order council parking scheme and its unreasonable mechanical robotic parking attendants and their useless faulty machines. WHAT is it with you HUMAN LEMMINGS? Has it finally come to MACHINES ruling us and common sense dying a DEATH? You LEMMING away MATE. I?m with Lizzie and COMMON sense practical solutions, over out of order anything!

woofmarkthedog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No just a general & light observation > > > > Tra la la > > > > > W**F MTD Quality v Funny.. hehehe lol

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > why are you so convinced it's government that > makes for a harsh environment, tb? > > My contention is that simple physics and numbers > is making the environment harsh. The volume of > cars on the road, increasing exponetially is the > issue. If car parks were unregulated for example > some people would just abuse it and exclude > everyone else. If people were more considerate > then councils/government wouldn't need to spend so > much time dealing with the fallout Government is at the heart of our society so their management directs our lives They are responsible for managing everything from education policing to national security and the legal system, planning road works etc etc they are at every corner of our lives. Government manages the physics via numbers which = harsh or humane environment We probably have a better government today than at any time in history and I?m glad to be here in the UK but as we have seen in the last week we still have a long way to go. They fail us often and need to be pushed towards making practical and useful changes towards a more humane environment. Car parking is just an every day annoyance along with filthy streets and poor infrastructure.

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, I already admitted I was wrong. Pig shit is > runny and the council ARE all about making money > out of poor innocent drivers. > > And you are a genius. I?m thick as pig shit if I wasn?t I?d be wealthy, happy and on a beach drinking champagne every day. I should also have pointed out that the council are mainly about internal job creation, which results in them needing to make money. Every council department head needs to make his or her department as big as possible the bigger the department the bigger their pay etc etc? There is very little emphasis for them to reduce staff levels and save money. Drivers are just the tip of the con. Local councils make the house of commons look like a kindergarten. Mind you they doing one good service for us, as the front line low-level council employees, would be out in the real world working amongst us ahhhhhhhhhhhh the thought of it ?????

Moos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Edited out ? to answer. > > For example > "Parking in the borough is unreasonably restricted > look at lordship lane there is plenty of room for > parking and why are there no meters? > > Meters would stop all day parking!" > > So if the parking is already restricted, how do > meters help make it less restricted? Meters would > stop all-day parking? But you've just said you > want the parking to be more restricted! > > But hey - maybe I'm just stupid. Why would you > care about my opinion? I do care honest. I agree some of what I write is confusing sorry I only have time to blurt out my thoughts semi edited I apologise for the confusion. I?ll translate the section you quote above. ------------------ Getting confused over the restriction type? Restricted parking type 1 = restricted availability of parking due to cars taking up a parking space for the whole day. Which results in fewer spaces becoming available during the business day. Restricted parking type 2 = parking restricted by CPZ and meters This results in restriction in time allowance which results in higher turnover of parked cars. I believe restriction type 2 is better than restriction type 1 I?m now confused lol lol ?

Q+A Can't we use Dulwich Village as the car park? Interesting idea but one day I?d love to live there so my future home would be blighted by car park. So no vote for me. I told you before that Kew was better than ED! No contest Kew has the edge. But rivalling Bluewater and Lakeside... let's start with Croydon, Bromley and Lewisham first. OK. The Park and Ride car park? Maybe not the main part of the Rye the area where the Peckham Lido used to be, that would be sufficient. Mind you I?m thinking excavate the whole of the rye and go for the underground car park. If a job is worth doing it?s worth doing well. If it costs 30 million today tomorrow it?ll be 300 million tomorrow so lets go for it! It?d create jobs especially if it?s done by hand no JCB?s.

LOL The sooner we run out of oil the sooner all this car nonsense will go away. Oh I forgot about eclectic gas and hydrogen cars. Best we work it all out then.

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe I DO NOT start accusing people who > disagree with me of being stupid. > > > You're very funny but not too clever or you?re a > poor reader. > > Why not rear every thing two or three times then > you might get it? could also try using your finger > to point to each word one at a time that could > work for you. Maybe you just need engage brain > clear it ?shouldn?t be hard? then start reading > without any preconcieved ideas about what you?d > like to read. > > > > The irony. I've tried rearing everything 2 or 3 > times, but it takes years for them to grow up, and > that would leave scant time for the posting. > > Edited because I'm not a c0ck and don't believe in > belittling other posters unnecessarily. Yes but you are happy to interpret what I had written incorrectly, post up a cocky retort and not admit it you were wrong. You?re just proving me right again. V funny

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If Southwark had their way we?d be burnt in a few > car tires, South African style for parking > offences in the borough. > > and then > > Pig shit is runny n thin not thick, work that one > out ................................ > > Forgive me, thebeard, I don't tend to hang with > the swine, so I employed a popular idiom without > having considered the very real implications > behind what I was saying. I stand corrected. > > You come across as quite quite sensible, so I'm > sure your accusation that councils are simply > money grabbers is accurate, and that a ?60 parking > fine is not intended to act as a deterrent, rather > it is a very expensive car park fee. Apologies for being angry with you, short fuse n all that. I find more and more that we are all living under a huge amount of pressure from poorly managed local expensive government. And it makes me very very angry. Because it makes for a HARSH living environment for all of us. It would be interesting to see accurate figures of total cost of parking regulation and income from parking fines then we?d know. But unfortunately this information, which should be public knowledge, is not public so we can only conclude that they do not want us to know, I could be wrong. If that is so they probably have something to hide. I agree totally that if you are at fault then you should get a fine. I believe Southwark intentionally restrict parking where there is no need to restrict it, if it?s not intentional then it is incompetently managed.

Moos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > thebeard Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Pig shit is runny n thin not thick, work that > one > > out ................................ > > > > > > Why not rear every thing two or three times > then > > you might get it? could also try using your > finger > > to point to each word one at a time that could > > work for you. > > > > Or > > > > Maybe you just need engage brain clear it > > ?shouldn?t be hard? then start reading without > any > > preconcieved ideas about what you?d like to > read. > > > > > > Ummmmmmmmmm > > > > > > Or were you trying to be funny again? > > > > Right over my head?. > > thebeard, why do you start accusing people who > disagree with you of being stupid in these > aggressive terms? I've seen you do it a couple of > times now, and I just don't think it's helpful. > Trying to keep an open mind on this one, and I'm > happy to be proved wrong, but I'm getting the > impression that you struggle to communicate with > adults as equals. I believe I DO NOT start accusing people who disagree with me of being stupid. IF you read and IF they read what I have written then you and they will see that they have not interpreted what I have written correctly. I accuse people of being STUPID when they don?t read what I have written. It is tedious to continually have to deal with people who don?t read or misread what is written. To then be accused of exactly the opposite of what I have written I?ve made it pretty clear there is no reading between the lines yet Stupidity and self-importance runs away with them? None of us should suffer nonsense from fools? Please have another read of the thread and I?m happy to be wrong if you can show that I have been unclear or ambiguous. If I have I?ll apologise fully for being wrong.

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > thebeard Wrote: > > > You're very funny but not too clever or you?re > a > > poor reader. > > > Damn straight, I'm thick as pig shit. But what > snorky said. > > All this tosh about councils up and down the land > penalising road users and setting traps to make > money out of them - I've got a suggestion: STICK > IT TO THE MAN - don't do the things that get you > fined, that'll learn 'im. > > I may be simple, but I've learned from Catchphrase > to say what I see, say what I see. Pig shit is runny n thin not thick, work that one out ................................ Why not rear every thing two or three times then you might get it? could also try using your finger to point to each word one at a time that could work for you. Or Maybe you just need engage brain clear it ?shouldn?t be hard? then start reading without any preconcieved ideas about what you?d like to read. Ummmmmmmmmm Or were you trying to be funny again? Right over my head?.

snorky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > thebeard Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > YES agreed Brown should call an election. > > > > Or even better the Queen should now that would > be > > a story! > > > I have seen your xeroxed post ups near ED > station. ? pardon ? B)

YES agreed Brown should call an election. Or even better the Queen should now that would be a story!

It would appear slightly incompetent bloke. There will be MP?s who?ll fall on their swords too. The cry for Blood is loud. It?s a great distraction from the Credit Crunch. The simple cost efficient solution would be to just give all of them a max 20k a year extra if their earnings are below say 150k. But that would be far to simple and would not lead to a new department employing even more specialists paid for by the few british Tax payers. As I said I fear THIS will only COST US MORE.

Good tune! Maybe she?ll have to become a lesbian. Otherwise she?ll need to have a number of 240v mains vibrators to get her there. Poor thing nothing more frustrated than a woman who can?t get satisfaction. Hear about bloke with a little togger? When he dropped his pants the girl says, ?Who do you think you?re going to satisfy with that?? And he says ?Me?

The solution could well be the Sloane Sq one. Make LL one big Zebra crossing. No zigzag lines. Pedestrian priority from the police station to GG.

HEHEhehe

I can?t help thinking that we might regret this change from politicians setting their own pay. The new regulating crew with offices secretary's salary etc will be setting the pay it will need paying for and who know if they will get it right look at the FSA and banking! The difference between the cost of the new system and the money the MPs creamed off is marginal. I guess its progress only it?ll probably cost us as taxpayers more as usual!

lenk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whenever I ride my bike around East Dulwich I > never have this problem. > > I can't see why you need to drive to the shops if > you live in the area. > > I guess parking fines are just a laziness tax, > when you think about it. Maybe we should go with a car free zone, as was Peckham High Street, which died a death, mind you these are different days and maybe it'd work in East Dulwich. I'm warming to a park and ride system? Also thinking about a gated community with tollgates for visitor paid access. The Future holds such wonderful opportunities for all of us. Bikes unfortunately don?t work for the majority the hilly nature of the area in Holland it?s fine. Mind you if these electric bikes drop to reasonable prices if could work though not for mums with a couple of toddlers. There is a solution you?re just not looking at it practically.

snorky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > can someone fill in the missing information for me > please ? > > > person parks on council property knowing fine well > that parking isnt sanctioned & gets tocket to > prove > > Person gets clamped / fined > > > anyone ? Hold on that should read "person parks on public property knowing"

Macroban that is (sheer? edit) "shear" genius.! South London Park and Ride! Numbhead Peckham and East Dulwich shopping nirvana Ok the council make 1/100th of Peckham rye a car park that should accommodate at least 10,000 cars. Then they get a couple of your rides to ferry shoppers from the rye in a circuit from Numbhead Peckham and then onto the delights of East Dulwich. I suggest Free parking and say ?1 per person for a ticket ride the circuit for the whole day. We would end up with a shopping area to rival Blue Water, Westfield Lakeside etc. All we need now is a Council who have a brain for something practical ohm we?re stuffed we?re in Southwark I forgot that for a moment.