LadyDeliah

Agreed Jimbo1964

That's one park. What will happen in parks with less organised dog owners?

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Get an oyster > > Register it > > Set it to top up automatically online (you choose > amount) > > No more faffing Around with newsagents, cash, > machines. > > If it gets lost or stolen you can immediately > block it and all money on it gets transferred to > new card > > It is so immeasurably better and more convenient, > anyone saying "it's a faff" is a fool to > themselves. You're assuming that everyone who uses public transport makes the same amount of journeys on a regular basis. Not everyone who travels on public transport uses it as their primary mode of transport.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyD come on, if you don't agree with someone's > opinion there's no need to abuse them ! Yeh probably. My bad.

I totally agree with Lee. The question of what is a problem in our parks should not just be confined to dogs. By narrowing the issue to dogs and posting an extremely biased survey, it is clear that dogs are being unreasonably targeted. If the council are worried about hazards in our parks, there are plenty of other things they should also be looking at. We need to think about what it is they are actually trying to achieve here? Are they really interested in just gauging opinion? And if so, to what end? I imagine the most commonly reported incident that will come out of this extremely flawed survey, will be that people hate dog shit. And?? How will this information add anything to anything? We know this already. There are already rules in place to address this. If it?s still the most commonly reported incident, then that?s because the rules are not being enforced due to staff and budget cuts. Additional restrictions won?t make any difference to this, unless dogs are completely banned from parks. If dogs off lead comes out as the biggest incident reported and the council decides to bring in additional restrictions, again the current rules are not enforced, so what difference will additional restrictions make (thinking about their staff and budget cuts), unless dogs are banned from parks. So if this is not a way of gathering support for draconian restrictions on dogs and their owners, then at best it?s a total waste of money, as there is nothing useful that will or can be done with questions that everyone knew the answer to already, without a huge investment in park staff. In a time of austerity, this is as likely as me joining the Tory party.

Also the arsehole who suggested cash should be done away with so he doesn't have to subsidise a more expensive admin process, (despite concerns for safety) I guess would be the kind of person who objects to paying for education or NHS services if he doesn't personally use them. Transport is subsidised by taxes despite being privately run, because it is recognised as being an important public service. Something we all pay for, not just commuters.

We need the options though Otta. I work full time, organising a new Oyster for my daughter for a week is not at all practical for one or yeo journeys. Aldo what about when you've not topped up your Oyster and have something urgent to get to. Getting off the bus becsuse you've reslised theres not enough money, hunting got a Newsagents that is open (could be after 6pm) and getting back to the bus stop to catcj s bus, is likely to make you late. Cash as a back up in that situation is vital. Not everyone of as organised as you cashless people clearly are. If there were paper ticket machines and Oyster top up places at bus stops, then maybe you could argue that there is no need for cash, but being stuck in the middle of no-where at night, unable to top up your Oyster or use/have cash is every woman's nightmare.

Also the point about kids losing change as easily as Oyster cards is rubbish. Most kids keep change in their trouser pockets and it makes a noise when it drops on the floor. Oyster cards are so much easier to lose. They usually keep Oysters in their blazer or cost pockets and you are unlikely to hear an Oyster card drop out. Plus people can help a stranded kid (or adult) by paying their fare in cash. Just because you have no fear of being stranded somewhere without being able to get home, doesn't mean this isn't a very real fear for lots of other people.

She lost it at home and we were looking for it for a week. It still takes a week to process a new one. Doesn't make sense to buy another Oyster for that period. That is just wasteful. Mine is just one example of reasons why cash payments should not be done away with. I am sure there are plenty more. I've punctured my bike tyre more than once and had to remove the wheel, leave my bike chained up and come home on the bus. I didn't have an Oyster card because I cycled everywhere, so paid cash to get home and to go back to get my bike once the puncture had been fixed.

giggirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it will be a disaster if this happens. > Worst case scenario is that you're out and you > loose your Oyster or you run out of money on it. > Cash is a back up but it would make people > vulnerable if they couldn't use it as a last > resort. Totally agree. Otta, my daughter lost her child Oyster card last week and we have now called to have it replaced, so she won't have it for another week (that's how long it takes to process child Oyster cards). I have had to travel with her a number of times whilst she hasn't got her Oyster card and have paid cash for her. If that option had not been available, I would have had to leave her at home or walk. There will always be times when people need to be able to use cash to pay for journeys.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Hence the complete absence of > rational engagement with the real issues So what in your opinion are the 'real' issues?

Hi Chuff, yes I did both the survey and the petition.

I didn't have an issue with UDT and I agree with quids, I thought he got more stick than was called for so that pretty much anything he said was jumped all over by the same people fairly regularly. Had an issue with TLS and SteveT though, being as how I've got a problem with any sexist bigots.

I've signed the petition.

Lol, class :-)

Louisa, please tell me it was I wot dunit!

Pretty much all cycling arguments have already been done to death on EDF, so in order to save you and countless others valuable time, here are a few of the more recent threads :-) Here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1112651,page=1 and here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1114924,1115814#msg-1115814 and here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1156373,1156373#msg-1156373 and another one here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1066246,page=1 There, lots to read so no need to repeat the arguments ad infinitum.

Wow, I wouldn't have guessed that was who you were talking about. Never took him like that to be honest although he used to piss me off occasionally, but he was usually interesting.

Come on Jeremy - grow a pair, name & shame.

Buses decrease congenstion by carrying loads of people who would cause gridlock if they all drove a car.

Fusion, loads more classes over all of the centres.

Have to say I had a lovely breakfast of scrambled egss (from my own chickens) with spinach and scotch bonnet pepper, topped with shredded smoked salmon, olive oil, black pepper and sea salt after reading Lousia's post. It was bloody gorgeous. Got the smoked salmon from Lidl and had loads left over for lucnh, so breakfast and lunch with all of the above cost about ?4 in total. I'm such a snob.

I like to post fairly strong opinions on topics I care about. I push the boundaries deliberately because I like to challenge the status quo and try to open people up to alternative view points and debate. I never expect my views to be accepted by the majority as they rarely conform with the norm so am happy to debate with those holding opposing views to my own, but even so, I am sometimes surprised by the venom some posters spit at me with personal insults. Having said that, I am sometimes a bit mean to people I think are bigoted or aggressive so maybe it can be a matter of perception. What I can't stand though is when someone posts something fairly inane, or something with bad spelling / grammar and they then receive a load of really unpleasant posts. It makes me wonder what miserable, frustrated little lives these unlikable people live.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When people stop driving in the Bus Lane , They > will just create another rule for people to fall > foul to. > > Motorists are an easy target... > > Foxy I disagree. Many motorists are in denial over how dangerous and inconvenient their behaviour is to other road users and pedestrians. I also think it's totally hypocritical for the people clamouring for a zero tolerance approach to cyclists on pavements, to moan about being caught breaking rules when they drive their cars and I look forward to motorists being fined for breaching the rules re: cycle lanes and cyclists advanced stop boxes.

keane Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes but look at the logic - dogs will not be > banned just because of one or two dulwich park > staff it's extremely unlikely. They won't start > the survey with - we welcome dogs to our parks... > And then ban them its just not realistic in any > way. I think it's pretty naive to assume that because the council states that they welcome dogs, they are not planning to impose serious restrictions on dogs in parks. The skewed tone of the survey contradicts that statement. It wouldn't be the first time that in an effort to appear even handed; the council say one thing when their intentions are completely different. Not sure if any of you remember the attempt to sell off huge council estates through various arm?s length management structures and only negative votes of the tenants were counted against their imposition but tenants who failed to vote were counted as yes.