Voyageur

giggirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Chick Pea Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > GG you are quick to jump to assumptions. I said > > that the tone of your posts is hostile and > > arrogant, not that it offends me. > > > > Pedantic and passive aggressive. I'm guessing > people normally let you get away with that crap. And you too. Your behaviour on this thread stinks.

buddug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm afraid I'll have to decline James' wonderful > offer to shadow him as I have a full-time job. In > addition, I know I would find it as interesting as > watching paint drying - I spent many years as a > reporter on local papers, where one of the more > hellish jobs was being forced to attend evening > council meetings to report on the shenanigans of > these idiots. > > Having to watch James in action over the Plough > Lane wheelie bin invasion or the dog poo bin > relocation would be the end of me, fascinating > though I'm sure it all is. I would not of course > be permitted to witness the more interesting cases > involving residents debts or council tax problems > due as they'd be matters involving > confidentiality. > > I'm glad, James, that you 'welcome' the outcome of > the blind man's bedroom tax court case. But > wouldn't it be much more humane if people unable > to work due to illness or disability were not > hounded by the bedroom tax? Don't they have enough > on their plate? But I suppose, James, the ill and > disabled, in addition to those people who've lost > their jobs, are much easier to attack than say, > bankers who caused this crisis, tax avoiders, and > MPs fleecing taxpayers by using our money to buy > themselves duck islands, belfast sinks and porn... Wow... what a lame and offensive reply.

Anecdotes can still be facts :) Simples. Just because it is something that individuals experience and report on doesn't make it a non-fact.

Blandford Fly: http://ancienttofuture.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/blanfrod_fly.jpg

giggirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here are some facts about the people collecting in > East Dulwich this week. > > The person associated with Save the Kids and who > organised the collection is a member of this > forum. > > Last week, three separate threads appeared looking > to recruit fundraisers to collect money. The wage > being offered was ?7 per hour + bonus on top. > > A number of questions were put to the OP, asking > for clarification on the status of the charity and > asking for some transparency regarding where the > money was going to be spent. The OP declined to > answer questions about where the money would be > spent. > > Admin removed all three of the recruitment threads > for Save the Kids. > > As the OP of the original threads is a member of > the Forum, he or she could come on here and > comment if they desired to do so. Certainly if I > myself was running a charity and someone > questioned the legitimacy of my charity I would > have something to say. > > The link posted to the American charity of the > same name was misleading and pointless. A link to > a website for Dogs for the Blind or Save the Tiger > would have been no less relevant. The extra information is helpful g-girl, wish you had posted it sooner. Chick-pea's google search and link was perfectly reasonable as that is the group's chosen name - that's what 99% of us do when faced with something we know little about. He/she didn't say they were promoting the charity or that they believed the local collecters were kosher.

And what's more - calm down too!

giggirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Chick Pea Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > Secondly the link posted is the only web > presence > > for Save the Kids - it is not beyond the realms > of > > possibility that collections were being made > here > > for an overseas organisation is it? > > > > Yes Chick Pea it is completely beyond the realms > of possibility that a charity which works with > kids in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York and has > no presence whatsoever outside of the USA is > fundraising at East Dulwich Station. It really > isn't enough to Google things and then randomly > post links without engaging your brain first. > Posting links to a website of a bona fide charity, > as you did, gives credence where non is due. Posting the link is perfectly reasonable as the discussion is about the supposed charity - and to date there is no absolute evidence that they are dodgy (although that is quite possible). Clam down pepes.

Blandford fly sounds about right. They certainly don't sound like horse flies which are nasty big buggers! http://www.horseandcountry.tv/sites/default/files/imagecache/640x360/images/content/horsefly.jpeg

Chick Pea Wrote: ... fuelling the f®iction. I like what you did there...

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A friend just mailed me to say that this thread > sucks. Mmm..... with an ostrich like compulsion by some to refuse to admit to the problem caused by some.

susiq Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > never been struck by lightening, but have been > struck twice by cyclist on pavement, also just > this morning TWO cyclist breaking the law by > crossing the red lights at crossroads at Kings > arms one of them undertaking a lorry which was > turning, sounded horn to warn him of danger and > was greeted by two fingers, theres a lot to be > said for cyclist, guess what I'm saying? That's pretty much my experience. Not unsurprisingly I moan about the things that adversely affect me on a regular basis.

baggie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are those people in the video link for real?? I > would like to hurt them! I don't think this is > the intention of the message. Just watched it too. Bloody Hell.... http://www.abubakarstore.co.uk/images/mixed%20nuts.jpg

I love shopping in Waitrose - does that make me a painful snob? Or does it make you a painful inverse-snob :)

Well mynamehere, the issue for me is what affects me personally. Despite the statistics that are bandied about I have never been hit by a car as I walk along the pavement or cross the road - but I have been cycled into and verbally abused on not infrequent occasions during my years in London by pavement cyclists and cyclists barrelling through pedestrian crossings when the lights are on red for road users. THAT is what affects me and THAT is what annoys me. If these inconsiderate and dangerous cyclists behaved like the majority of cyclists there wouldn't be a problem. Simple as that.

I absolutely refute the suggestion that people can't comment in a negative way about a big event coming to their local area - or a church/mosque for that matter. Some people will be delighted with the prospect, some people won't. That's life. On a local forum it is a bit daft to say that only supportive comments are allowed. I won't be going, I will be with friends in a local pub. My own little 'community' if you like (god, I hate that word). As I said previously, with any luck they will push off to a bigger/more suitable venue for this community hug. Fairfield Halls?

'New community spirit'.....hmmm..... it may well work for some, but the idea of organised atheism nearly turns me off as much as organised religion. I'd rather spend my down time with friends of my own choosing TBH, but each to their own - I am sure it will floats some people's boats. I do have a view on the event being held in the Phoenix Centre on CP triangle though. A one time ED dweller I now live in CP and the triangle is chocker at the best of times traffic/parking wise. If an event like this takes off I hope they find another location as the immediate area won't be able to cope.

Chick Pea Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Voyageur Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 'I will also continue to break the law by > cycling > > on the pavement when I believe my life may be > in > > danger on roads that are designed without any > > thought of cyclists safety.' > > > > Yup - and nobody is going to stop you eh? It's > > akin to talking to a brick wall. My only hope > is > > that you get hit with enough on the spot fines > to > > deter you. > > Hi V - it is perfectly possible and safe to cycle > on the pavements but only when the pavement is > pedestrian free and wide. Also Lady D is female so > as far as I'm concerned that means she is a better > ie more concientous rider than the male - yeah I > am biased but that's based on expereince. > > Talking about cycle lanes, I noticed a few months > back whilst driving to Crystal Palace Park that > Southwark have installed an innovative new cycle > lane along Dulwich Wood Park. Basically the > pavement was widened and the outside edge coloured > green with a white line that demarks pedestrian > and cycle usage - cyclists ride on green bit. > > It's not all black and white. > > Edited for third time to add: I am not advocating > pavement cycling just accepting that it is not > always dangerous! You're never going to get just the 'considerate' cyclists on the pavements unfortunately - the aggressive w*nkers are the one that cause the problem.

'I will also continue to break the law by cycling on the pavement when I believe my life may be in danger on roads that are designed without any thought of cyclists safety.' Yup - and nobody is going to stop you eh? It's akin to talking to a brick wall. My only hope is that you get hit with enough on the spot fines to deter you.

jonsuissy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Voyageur Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > The ignorant a****oles who leap out from the > > pavements and through green lights forcing > cyclists to > > swerve out of their way and who scream abuse at > > anyone who objects to their behaviour (and > > unfortunately there are many, especially in the > > city) should be strung up by their ankles. > > > Fixed your post for you my friend On the contrary my friend, you merely added yourself to the list of ignorant lycra-louts :)

jonsuissy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyNorwood Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I've had enough - cycling on the pavement is > > illegal, whether the cyclist is being > > 'considerate', is 'too frightened to ride on a > > public road' and all the other blah blah blah > > hand-wringing excuses..... It's illegal and > > that's that.... I will no longer (ON A DAILY > > BASIS) be complacent and be intimidated by, > sworn > > at, spat at, threatened with violence by > pavement > > cyclists - I will take your photograph and give > it > > to the police, I HAVE HAD ENOUGH.... > > > This is truly dreadful and I'm not surprised > you've had enough. > Report it to the Police, that sort of behaviour is > unacceptable and I can understand why you hate > cyclists with such a passion. > I won't bore you with some of my stories about > pedestrians as that wouldn't help you in this > dreadful moment of your life, but I do know how > inconsiderate some people can be. > Please do let us all know where this is happening > so that I can stop my wife and daughter going > there, it does sound extremely dangerous. > I am surprised that no one else has highlighted > this epidemic. > Take care It's not uncommon sadly, especially in the city. A minority of aggressive twats that unfortunately have quite an impact. I was sworn at and called a c*** only last weekend by a lycra-lout as he sped past me on the pavement near Crystal Palace station. Funnily enough it does always seem to be men - clearly with anger management problems the little darlings....

Chick Pea Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Voyageur Wrote: > ------------------------- > > > > The ignorant a****oles who pelt along the > > pavements and through red lights forcing people > to > > jump out of their way and who scream abuse at > > anyone who objects to their behaviour (and > > unfortunately there are many, especially in the > > city) should be strung up by their ankles and > have > > their beloved speed machines crushed and > recycled > > (pun intended). > > I would advocate the crushing of their Lycra clad > nuts, the blame is with the owner not the bike. > However as part of a punishment strategy the cycle > thugs should be made to ride trikes and swap Lycra > for hooded onesies with fun ears and bunny tails > for a period of time decided by their victims. > > Edited to add: cycling on pavements - just say NO. I like your thinking Chickpea!

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bic Basher Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Is there still a (small) Boots in Forest > Hill? > > > > Yes, but has a very limited range of goods. > Does > > have a pharmacy though. > > xxxxxx > > But you can order stuff on-line, including small > things like lipstick, and collect it there without > having to pay a delivery charge. Only free if you have paid ?20 or more.

This is a somewhat pointless thread TBH - those that routinely cycle on pavements won't admit, or even realise, that what they are doing puts pedestrians at risk and will carry on regardless as they feel safer on pavements. As for reporting people that collide with you and/or call you a c---- if you object to their pelting along pavements towards you it is pretty difficult as they don't stop to give you their details funnily enough. Personally I am ok with kiddies on trikes cycling on pavements as long as an adult is supervising and making sure they don't ride into people or cause them to have to leap out of the way. I don't mind a cyclist using the pavement on occasion to cycle along at a sedate pace as long as there are no pedestrians on the pavement. The ignorant a****oles who pelt along the pavements and through red lights forcing people to jump out of their way and who scream abuse at anyone who objects to their behaviour (and unfortunately there are many, especially in the city) should be strung up by their ankles and have their beloved speed machines crushed and recycled (pun intended).

EDmummy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dodgy OP or not I'm absolutely horrified to hear > the plans proposed for beautiful Crystal Palace. > I'm a regular traveller to the spots centre an > know only too well that the roads in the area > cannot even handle the current traffic. > > Taking the OP at face value - ever heard of online > shopping? Shock, horror - you can even get Boots > online! There is considerable doubt that the plans will e ever be realised, together with considerable local opposition. CP'ers like their triangle with its plethora of independent shops. A huge retail area slap bang on top of the lovely park would ruin the area and damage the livelihood of the local traders.

One of the pleasures of living in places like ED or Crystal Palace is that they are not crammed with the usual high street crud, and long may that continue! Bromley is close'ish and has plenty of high street crud, but the 'decent'ish stores have long gone (Alders/Habitat). Croydon is a concrete hell but has more of the main high street crud outlets.