Otta

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Soz" is not a Scouse word, or at least not > exclusively: it's generic northern England. As a > kid in south Manchester, with very little contact > with the outside world, let alone the next town or > city, we'd all say "cossie", "pressie", "soz" etc. Fair enough, I just said scouse because I used to hear it a lot in Liverpool.

So would you suggest 10mph speed limits on all residential streets in London? Or just that people look where they're bloody going!!!

Well he'd be within his rights to give you notice and ask you to leave if you refuse to sign a new contract. How about haggling with him and asking for a 2 month notice period but forget the first 4 months bit... Buying a place takes so long from start to finish, I don't think 2 months notice would really do you much harm.

*shudder* I know a snake's gotta eat and all that, but the whole mice thing is grim. This opinion was probably formed when defrosting a freezer in a shared student house years ago, only to find about 10 dead mice frozen solid at the back. Left there by a previous tenant who'd kept a snake.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She doesn't live in a Bohemian area such as ED, > and has a fairly conventional lifestyle - two kids > under 10, semi, garden etc etc. Le Creuset cookware. http://www.johnlewis.com/le-creuset-round-casseroles/p310796?kpid=231452279&s_kenid=6ed9771a-a7f6-2ac9-f25f-000031b858c0&s_kwcid=129x47486&tmad=c&tmcampid=73

I think of "soz" as a scouse word.

You would.

Foxtons can't force you to do anything, but I guess it depends on the terms of their contract with your landlord. I'd call them and chat, and suggest that if they are good to you, then you might like to use them when you come to buy your new place...

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apart from the name I don't really see much > difference between Liquorish and The House Of > Tippler. Indeed, both crap.

They never stay outside mine long enough for me to get down the stairs. Bastards!

I can find no mention of it. Although apparently you can go on a nice golfing holiday to the Lion's Head in Cape Town. Who knew?

Pah, if it ain't Mr Whippy, my kid ain't eating it!

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But I just don't understand - so many things can > come from between parked cars that aren't idiot > pedestrians - if you are driving through an > environment like that you just slow down to allow > time don't you? You might, but slowing down doesn't mean you might not still hit someone. I guess I am coming at this from a slightly different perspective. Teaching people to cross roads safely is a big part of my job, and I see a lot of really stupid habits. Cars might be "killing machines" (I think that is absolutely stupid terminology personally, but whatever floats your boat), but they are also a fact of life, so we have a responsibility to be aware of what is going on around us. Again, I don't drive, but I can easily imagine a situation where a driver was (correctly) looking one way, only for someone to step out right in front of them on the other side. "an environment like that" Like all of London you mean?

I have never driven a car, and of course every case is different. But I still feel pretty certain that you could be doing everything right and still fail to brake in time to avoid someone walking out infront of you, especially if walkng out from between parked vehicles.

And if a driver is using their phone whilst driving they deserve to be banned from driving whether they hit someone or not (unless they jave a bloody good excuse). And if a pedestrian walks in to a road using their phone and gets hit, then the driver should not be punished. Bit there are lots of what ifs going on here.

"Otta, I wonder how many of those deaths were deliberately caused by errant or careless drivers?" Deliberately? I suspect none.

And as for "fair", what does that even mean? We're not talking about preordained death sentences, we're talking about accidents. There is no fair, there is just shit luck, and unfortunately those left behind have to live with it.

I am thinking. Of course any deaths are unfortunate and any sane minded person would rather there were none, but think what you are saying, and be realistic. 132 is a tiny tiny number in a City the size of London, and of that 132, only 14 were cyclists, which suggests that actually the roads are pretty bloody safe for cyclists. 5 times more pedestrians were killed, and they only cross roads.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2014/june/casualties-on-london-s-roads-at-lowest-level-ever There were 132 fatalities on London's roads in 2013, the second lowest number since records began, with fatalities involving pedestrians down six per cent (65 down from 69 in 2012) Deaths involving powered two-wheeled riders also fell by 19 per cent (22 down from 27 in 2012), while cyclist deaths remained the same at 14 During 2013 there were 489 killed and serious injuries to cyclists, compared with 671 in 2012 - this 27 per cent reduction means that around one in every 434,000 cycle journeys made in London end in the cyclist being killed or seriously injured (KSI) Pedestrian KSIs were also significantly down during 2013 with the total number down 25 per cent compared to 2012 (838 down from 1,123). This is also 31 per cent down when compared to the 2005-2009 baseline and 55 per cent down when compared to the year 2000 (838 down from 1,870) The number of children killed and seriously injured continued to fall across London in 2013, with a 31 per cent reduction to 187 (down from 270 in 2012). This is also a reduction of around three quarters when compared to the year 2000, showing the continuing long-term progress in London in making its streets safer for all.

And that's UK wide. I searched for London earlier, and it was something like 14 cyclists killed and 69 pedestrians. Will have to double check that now, but if that is right, then London is unbelievably safe.

But we don't really have huge casualties in the great scheme of things, and one could argue that the benefit outweighs the risk. I'm just playing devil's advocate on here really, I don't really care that much either way.

Origi confirmed for Liverpool, but we don't get him til next year.

Hmm, we'll see if this turns out to be true, but Saints saying the two players will not be heading to Spurs. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28542225

I certainly think older motorists should have to have sight tests regularly. And I think dangerous driving should hold much tougher penalties. On that I totally agree with you. But I also think that dangerous cycling should be punished pretty harshly whether or not it's likely to kill. And I think if you are on a vehicle (which a bike is) on the road, you should have to follow the same rules of the road as everyone else.

Hate to agree, but I do think we need a top quality striker to replace Suarez, a genuine ?30m+ player (not an ?8m player that we over pay for). Sturridge is good, and can play and score without Suarez, but he can't do it all on his own.