Undisputedtruth

@Bic Basher, MP & showboat I failed to see what valuable contribution you've made to the thread other than engaging in making personal remarks. But I take heart in what antantant wrote as vindication: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally, I appreciate UDT standing up for the > side of the arguement that I believe is correct. *UDT waves bye bye*

Michael Palaeologus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Its my inability just to accept your views that is > the problem here. Again. > Iceland or M&S, it makes no difference. They are > what they are, retail outlets in a retail unit, > little will change apart from the branding on the > lorries. All else is detail which is largely > irrelevant to the holistic picture. I was merely making an observation on the flaws of your thinking. Incredible how you ignore the core planning issues and then pitching your planning argument as though it was a straightforward process. > All else is detail which is largely > irrelevant to the holistic picture. Wrong, people who live near to the development have a legal right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of their property.

showboat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No one likes a show off... :-) > > Look, I'm not impressed by that statement - if you > can't see how you've been rude then that > conversation is over - and I think you're pretty > aggresive frankly, but hey - it's your problem if > you want to be like that. I just think you make > yourself look bad. > > I think it's a shame when you have good points. Who is showing off and what a ridiculous statement. Thousands of people rely on the SLL and yet you want to make the argument into a personality contest. It really does irks me when people can't get the facts right on a very serious matter. Perhaps you are confusing aggression with irritation.

showboat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > antantant Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Personally, I appreciate UDT standing up for > the > > side of the arguement that I believe is > correct. > > > Fair enough that he's standing up for it, but he > descends into insults and condescension of the > type he accuses others of and then says "who, > me?". Takes some big brass ones to be that > arrogant and hypocritical. Completely disagree. If I wanted to give abuse then would have been far stronger in my language.

Michael Palaeologus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The fact that only a few of us can be bothered to > challenge UDT and his diatribes does not mean that > we are in the minority. A few? Just Bic Bash and you. Hardly any consensus on the forum, is it? > I guess that most people accept that it is just > going to happen and so cant be bothered to wade > in. Pure guess or rather a fantasy. But please show me your councillors giving support to your arguments.

@First Mate, I fully agree with what you said. Unfortunately, it's not the first MP have shown his inability to give an hollistic view or a detailed understanding of all the issues at stake. His fixation with M&S food skews his judgment.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Undisputedtruth Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > When I buy my next property I'll be asking for > a > > reduce price to reflect cost of replacing UPVC > > windows. Personally, never lived in Clapham or > > Surrey. > > If you do that then you'll end up not getting that > house. > Silly prices being paid regardless. I missed out > on a house which had pebble dash to a couple of > city lawyers working on the Lehman Bro clean up. > Maybe when there are loads of houses up for sale > you'll be able to pick and chose but right now and > for the last v many years it's grab what you can > when you can around here. Seems you were unlucky by getting competition from people with more money than sense. Doesn't happen all the time though!

Actually, there have been a large number of people supporting the SLL. It seems it's only Michael and you that doesn't. Nothing to lose sleep over. Mind you, I suspect you want to be a transport wanna be. Perhaps that is why you go to other forums and bring back back hearsays and present them as facts. I'm sure there are people daft enough to believe it. No self-respecting transport campaign organisation will have you, As I've always said, you're out of your depth on transport matters. Name calling and making up nonsense is your limit. Anything factual is purely out of your reach.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Finally something sensible being said by Penguin! > Does anyone actually have an update on the process > and timing of what is happening? Everything else > that can be said has already been said in this 26 > page thread.... > Penquin has been saying this for quite some time. Not only now.

Michael Palaeologus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are transfixed by Victoria being the only > destination for people using the SLL. Most simply > pass through Victoria to points east or west. The > ELLE allows them to go east or west without going > through Victoria and so reduces the pressure on > that station. No, but I suspect you're not a regular user of the South London Line to know any better. Basically, the SLL offers dual access to London Bridge or Victoria. As many others have said, most people do need to travel into central London areas and this is something that the ELL just cannot do. This has nothing to do with transfixation but your inability to understand the bigger picture.

I'm afraid you have said nothing remotely useful here. Unfortunately, name calling and giving out misleading information is the best you can do.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Undisputedtruth Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > It seems people are happy to give out wrong > > information and then blame the person for > > correcting them. What arrogance! > > Pot, kettle.... Nonsense, my information is accurate unlike yours.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Undisputedtruth Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Bic Basher Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Undisputedtruth Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > It seems the people who are complaining are > > the > > > > ones who give out misleading and unhelpful > > > > information to the forum. Then get upset if > > > they > > > > are corrected. > > > > > > > > If you're not sure of your facts then > please > > > don't > > > > post. > > > > > > Who made you forum monitor? > > > > > > I read that as "If you don't agree with my > > > viewpoint, please don't post as I'll rant and > > rave > > > at you back" > > > > When would you stop giving out misleading > > information, Bic Basher? Hardly a responsible > > adult behaviour. Not very helpful to forum > > members. > > Misleading information? Considering your behaviour > in The Lounge, in particular in the Euro 2012 > thread, you have a lot to answer. > > The fact is you've been rumbled and resorting to > troll tactics to get your point across. > > *awaits post about my low self esteem* It seems people are happy to give out wrong information and then blame the person for correcting them. What arrogance!

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Undisputedtruth Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It seems the people who are complaining are the > > ones who give out misleading and unhelpful > > information to the forum. Then get upset if > they > > are corrected. > > > > If you're not sure of your facts then please > don't > > post. > > Who made you forum monitor? > > I read that as "If you don't agree with my > viewpoint, please don't post as I'll rant and rave > at you back" When would you stop giving out misleading information, Bic Basher? Hardly a responsible adult behaviour. Not very helpful to forum members.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Network Rail stated they had capacity at Victoria > to continue the SLL. > The issue is the London Bridge end. LB used to > have 22 platforms. Platforms 17-22 were lost with > a 'new' signalling box in the 70'2. I've visited > that box and its 50's & 60's technology. Network > Rail have a plan to build a new regional > signalling centre outside of London which would > enable platforms 17-22 to reopen. Currently that > area is used as a car park for railway staff (I > kid you not). Sickening. Very interesting James. It seems with each LB development, Network Rail plans to cut capacity for the South London area. Incredible,

I don't do that sort of thing, BB. However, the system's forum filters out multiple accounts in any case. It seems you're making excuses already, Bic Basher. No surprise there!

Interesting ideas, mnh. I have attended several of the local community council meetings and many of the cllrs would like to keep the building. However, there were a couple of issues that keep cropping up. The first being security and wsecondly, whether the building would be used to its full potential. You could argue that Frank's cafe have proven that you can attract thousands of people to the building but the question still remains.

Don't get me wrong, some parts of the ELL will be useful when I travel to Shoreditch. But it's not an adequate replacement for the SLL. Even TfL have admitted it. So don't keep deluding yourself that it is. Come December, there'll be anger for sure as a great deal of people are unaware that the service is about to be cut.

It seems the people who are complaining are the ones who give out misleading and unhelpful information to the forum. Then get upset if they are corrected. If you're not sure of your facts then please don't post.

I've just joined up and posting under the name of Another-Level. Should be quite easy to correct a lot of the nonsense you have written. Anyway, the only troll is you, Bic Basher, with your lone ranger views on the ELL.

Now you back tracking, Bic Bash. What ever happened to read and weep? Full of wishful thinking if you ask me.

Even they are not certain that you could use the inner SLL railcard for the outer SLL route. I'm not willing to take risk a criminal record just because you think there's a loophole in the railcard ticketing system. Besides, most people uses travelcards, rather than railcards, where you have the required zones where the trains travel through.

Foxxy, I thought Davidh's gift shop was THE pound shop along Lordship Lane but without a comprehensive, no quibble, refund policy.

@James Barber I think you could be right in a soft launch for the ELLX2. Boris Johnson always seems to take any opportunity to grab the limelight where possible. Launching the ELLX2 before December gives TfL more kudos. Especially useful as eventually they would determine all rail services in London in the future. @Michael Palaeologus, I've no idea where you get your information from. TfL themselves have admitted that the option to replace the SLL is not a satisfactory result for all rail users along the SLL route. As a regular travellar to Victoria, both trains are packed at peak time. Taking away the SLL will only result in a more packed Victoria to Dartford via Peckham Rye service. Travelling along the ELLX2 on route to Victoria results in doubling of journey times. I fail to see how this is convenient, Michael.

When I buy my next property I'll be asking for a reduce price to reflect cost of replacing UPVC windows. Personally, never lived in Clapham or Surrey.