Lowlander

It's a bus station, not a garage; so it is a road (restricted to buses, so don't go driving there either or they'll fine you!)

The only way to get out if it is if someone cuts in front of you illegally (and that should be shown on the camera). Otherwise the rule is simple - if there's not enough space for you on the other side then don't go into it (unless turning right).

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >...if a person uses > that space and flouts the law they deserve a > ticket. I can't believe how many people are > defending the money spinning mentality of local > councils. It's outrageous IMO... So you admit you deserve a ticket. Move on! As a car owner myself, I say quadruple the fines and if they're issued in error, there's a process to challenge.

If you're in a hurry then get a cab or park illegally and treat any fine as a "premium parking fee". Disabled folk can use their blue badges. Or you could cycle/speed walk.

right-clicking Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fox is spot on. local and nation government always > choose to fine rather than address the "problem" > even if it's through their own actions that cause > the problem in the first case! Invent a perceived > problem, raise it in the committee or commons, > vote on it & push it through some dodgy > legislation. Bingo!! Another cash cow to squander > on middle management and idle good for nothings! Really?! I've never been fined in my life. They're entirely voluntary and people don't seem to be put off. I suggest the Council quadruple fines. That should work.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Your first question makes no sense. > > > > On your second, parking attendants issue > tickets, > > that's their job. You parked illegally by your > > own admission, so just take it on the chin and > pay > > up. > > > > Lordship Lane is thriving and rents are rising, > so > > the current parking arrangements must be > working. > > The streets are packed with cars so unless you > > knock down some buildings and create a car park > > (like we did in the 1960s and 1970s) there's > > nowhere else to go > > My first question is regarding distances. We have > a high street quite a walking distance from the > nearest train station, which is a good reason why > people do not choose to come here from far and > wide. Many people rely on buses and cars to gain > access to the lane. If that is the case, why do we > not have more car parking options? As rah points > out, some more 30 min stay spaces would be helpful > for older/disabled/parent & child who need to > drive to gain access to facilities locally. > > I'm not proposing knocking down buildings, of > course not. But we need some relaxation on the > yellow line rules on the surrounding streets. I > think the new school in the old police station was > a missed opportunity for a car park if I'm being > honest. Why do we not have an underground car park > along East Dulwich Road near/on the trading > estate? We have options available but none are > being utilised. As fox points out, it's a money > spinning excuse for the local council to fine > people for wanting to keep the high street > thriving. All it does is drive people away. I > never have this problem in Bromley. > > Louisa. East Dulwich station is 5 minutes from the foot of Lordship Lane. Is that a far walk? If there was a business case for a car park then someone would have built one. Look at Northcote Road in Battersea, it's thriving even more than Lordship Lane, and it's pay parking all around there. We should try and emulate that success here in Dulwich.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > DulwichFox Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > We are a nation of Fines... > > > > > > Restrict Parking and Fine people when they > > need > > > to pull over and park.. > > > > > > Remove most of the Litter Bins and Fine > > people > > > when they drop litter.. > > > > > > Do away with FREE waste collections and > FINE > > > people when they Fly-tip.. > > > > > > Close all the Public Toilets and FINE > people > > > and issue ASBO's when they get taken short > and > > > take a pee.. > > > > > > This is how the Council MAKES money instead > > of > > > SPENDING it.. > > > > > > Total Disgrace.. and we put up with it.. > > > > > > DulwichFox > > > > How would you punish the nice person who > > fly-tipped a double mattress in my front > garden? > > Well you have to catch them first.. > > Known fly tipping spots are having cameras > fitted.. and fines sent to the owners of vehicles > caught on camera. > > Foxy. That's an outrage! Haven't the council anything better to do than snoop on innocent fly-tippers fine them?

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We are a nation of Fines... > > Restrict Parking and Fine people when they need > to pull over and park.. > > Remove most of the Litter Bins and Fine people > when they drop litter.. > > Do away with FREE waste collections and FINE > people when they Fly-tip.. > > Close all the Public Toilets and FINE people > and issue ASBO's when they get taken short and > take a pee.. > > This is how the Council MAKES money instead of > SPENDING it.. > > Total Disgrace.. and we put up with it.. > > DulwichFox How would you punish the nice person who fly-tipped a double mattress in my front garden?

Your first question makes no sense. On your second, parking attendants issue tickets, that's their job. You parked illegally by your own admission, so just take it on the chin and pay up. Lordship Lane is thriving and rents are rising, so the current parking arrangements must be working. The streets are packed with cars so unless you knock down some buildings and create a car park (like we did in the 1960s and 1970s) there's nowhere else to go

I know a 70 year old who walks from Dulwich Library down to Goose Green and back most days, often carrying shopping. Always cheerful and hearty looking. How far is the PO from your house Louisa? Are you physically unable to walk it? If so my sympathies. Next time park on the pavement though, much less likely to get a ticket. Or consider getting a blue badge.

haselbury Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure - as the 'careful lady owner' of a small > car - that Saga charging me car insurance of about > ?500 is a ripoff - they say it's because of the > SE15 postcode. I really want to know if this is > true - what are other people paying? fully comp, > long no claims history - anyone got views or info > that would help please? Spend 10/15 minutes getting some quotes: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/car-insurance/ Loyalty to insurers/banks died about 20 years ago. Most insurers now even charge renewal fees of ?50 or so in addition to hiking up your premium by 100% in many cases.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you serious. Nicotine at high doses is lethal > and nicotine poisoning can happen at relatively > low concentrations in small children. > > > Lowlander Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > OK, can I make it clear - tobacco, burned and > > inhaled, is lethal (i.e. cigarettes and rolling > > tobacco). > > > > Nicotine on its own is not lethal. And if it > is > > ingested in ways other than inhaled is far less > > addictive. Same goes for caffeine, alcohol, vitamin E and a host of other things. But lets differentiate between the odd cigar or pipe and cigarettes or vaping. I had my new year cigar and had a lovely nicotine buzz...no inhaling, and not risk free - bur it I've no desire to have another for 6-12 months (or never again for that matter).

?500 sounds about right (reading the lease, checking the name, adding the name, liaising with the landlord and registering the new lease with the Land Registry). Try getting a quote from another solicitor if you're concerned? Why do you need to add an additional lessee to a leasehold?

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ho Lowlander > > Thank you for the answer, the fact that you do or > don't smoke isn't relevant but it's useful to know > where you are coming from in this discussion > concerning the question on should Vaping adverts > be regulated in the same way smoking adverts are. I think they should be banned. Same with alcohol advertising.

No, I'm neither a vapour or a politician 😀 I do smoke about 10 cigars a year though (no inhaling). So I get a regular nicotine fix without the addiction.

OK, can I make it clear - tobacco, burned and inhaled, is lethal (i.e. cigarettes and rolling tobacco). Nicotine on its own is not lethal. And if it is ingested in ways other than inhaled is far less addictive.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This link explains the effect of nicotine itself. > > http://whyquit.com/whyquit/LinksJBlood.html No, that link shows the effect of smoking on the body. The effect of nicotine itself is far less clear-cut.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > @lowlander - Nicotine on it's own is not > > > addictive? I think you're mistaken about > this. > > > > Not at all - read this. > > > > > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicot > > > ine-all-bad/ > > > > There are many people who use nicotine > > (vapers/pipe/cigar/snuff) who aren't addicted. > > I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that. Nicotine > clearly is an extremely addictive substance and > there is plenty of evidence for this. The fact > that many e-cigarette manufacturers have been > pushing the idea that it's not, is another reason > to be wary about this new industry. > > Here's what the NHS says on it: > http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/2278.aspx?CategoryID=5 I don't disagree. The way cigarettes deliver nicotine is extremely addictive. But there are many people (well, ~2% of the population) who take snuff or smoke cigars (without inhaling) who don't show signs of addiction. It's like comparing crack cocaine and tea made from cocoa leaves. I'll concede, nicotine can be addictive, especially when delivered by cigarettes. But the article I liked to shows that we need a more educated debate rather than singling out nicotine as the bogeyman.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @lowlander - Nicotine on it's own is not > addictive? I think you're mistaken about this. Not at all - read this. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicotine-all-bad/ There are many people who use nicotine (vapers/pipe/cigar/snuff) who aren't addicted.

Here you go - stats from ASH http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_891.pdf

Nicotine on its own is not necessarily addictive or even harmful. Cigarettes deliver nicotine to the body in a very effective way (via the lining of the lungs) which makes them addictive - they're the crack cocaine of the tobacco world. It's the inhaling of smoke which is harmful, and tobacco is just a vegetable. You'd get the same risks if you inhaled smouldering pear-tree leaves. That aside, the studies I've seen show that over 99% of vapers are ex-cigarette smokers (i.e. less than 1% start because of advertising). That 1% outweighs the potential benefits of getting smokers to switch to vaping (although vaping is not risk-free, but that's nothing to do with the nicotine but with the additional chemicals...)

I still have a tape deck in the car and a box of tapes in the boot. Select one at random and hey presto, a free "IPod" shuffle...

Salsaboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whilst we're on the subject of PCN's, got a > Southwark one today whilst unloading in a > residents only car park in a block of flats. > Anyone have ideas about the validity of this with > regards to loading and unloading? I'm a tradesman > and was unloading tools at the time. Although the > car was unattended the boot was open as was the > communal door to the flats where I was going in > and out AND I'd left a nice note on the dashboard > saying what I was doing so the CEO could see it. There is a clear dispensation for loading - http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/473/guide_to_parking/499/loading_and_unloading - so worth appealing

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah but the forecasts aren't the point, in a way > they illustrate the whole risky idea; the gambling > on oil when you're a one trick pony is the > reckless bit when you can stay with your lovely, > sensible neighbours. We'd have had to have armed > guards on the border by now. Uh, you mean Engand's financial one trick pony financial services?! Let's have a look at the Bank of England's "cover all bases" forecasting, i.e. anything between -1% and +4% is "on target" http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/liveblogs/2014-11-12-2/

10-15% sounds about right I know of one flat bought in 2008 for ?300,000 sold in 2012 for ?280,000.