Domitianus

How are they running a business from the street?

Nope, I heard that Grodon will be there as well as the famous chef. He is bringing the half-time oranges.

As opposed to SOmerfield which was EXTREMELY cheap and s**t.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_with_the_Twisted_Lip

Who knows what lurks under the mournful disguise?

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> pepsi Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Crikey - this really is like the Daily Mail!

> Some

> > astonishingly ignorant and prejudiced comments

> > here. I think it would do a few people good to

> be

> > in someone else's shoes for a bit.

>

> As long as they weren't new-ish shoes.

> Big Issue vendors should not be allowed to take

> pride in their appearance or try and look smart

> and presentable, according to some. Attempts at

> this shall be met with looks of disgust.

>

> And they must seem nice ,be polite and not be

> pushy .

I think the issue is not about pride in one's appearance or the like. It is the fact (which a number of people seem to want to stray away from) that owning a car, phones and being able to dress in what are cited as being new and fashionable clothes is simply not consistent with someone being homeless, hard-up or destitute. And those who are homeless or destitute are the people who TBI was established to help. I think posters are wondering whether someone who can afford to run a motor etc etc is really entitled to be selling TBI or has managed to get round whatever vetting or criteria there are and is effectively doing a genuinely needy person out of a pitch.

By analogy, if you saw someone well dressed and groomed, with a car and phone, mess up their hair a little, rub a bit of grime under their finger nails, put on a scruffy coat and, mournful expression in place, nip into a homeless soup kitchen to get a free meal you might feel that they were taking the p*** a little and taking advantage of the charity offered.

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sounds to me like a subject for a discussion in

> The Lounge -

> what reasons would police have for requesting a

> ban on discussing a local incident on an internet

> forum ?

Edited due to confusion

> If a mate comes to me and asks for a loan of ?100

> because he's short at the end of the month I don't

> demand a spreadsheet of his accounts and want to

> know what he's spending it on.

>

But surely, if he pleaded genuine poverty and your generosity was prompted by a belief that he was really in a sticky situation (which is what is implied in the case of TBI sellers) and you went into your local to find him sitting there swilling beer and sticking money into a pinball machine you might well feel your generosity had been exploited and think twice about giving him cash again in future, no?

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So you boycott the whole organistation on the

> basis of one incident, upon which you have no idea

> of any of the background? Good idea.

Did I say that? No! I offered a personal experience that tallied with the possibility laid out by the OP that not all BI sellers are necessarily bona fide. Perhaps you should take issue (perhaps even a big issue!) with the OP as well. I don't but the BI for a host of other reasons.

If they are indeed innocent, then 99% of ED residents have nowt to fear from this new camera car thingie. If they do break the law they might get done for it - boo-hoo! Tough tittie! Serves them right!

From recent posts on parking, school drop-offs etc etc, it seems however that there is a goodly number of ED residents who are not innocent but are selfish, inconsiderate, law-breakers.

As for safety, most (possibly not all) road traffic regulations have some connection to safety issues, so I find it difficult to understand how focusing on those breaking the law doesn't simultaneously deal with safety concerns.

I kind of went off the notion of the Big Issue when I lived in Belfast. I was sitting in a bar next to a bloke who was a regular face selling TBI in the City Centre and overheard him telling a friend how he had chucked someone out of his house into the street because they had fallen out.

Didn't really seem to fit the profile of a homeless person struggling to make ends meet.

Don't mean to be nasty but is this the place for getting advice on a health issue that you think might be serious enough to warrant an A&E visit? Try NHS Direct for advice or your GP or head for Kings.

A suitable detterent might be to fit a set of Boudicae-style blades to the wheels of your bike. Chop the little b***ards legs off - that'll learn them!

I still think the option of wheeling said bins at least three or four streets away is a good one. If the offenders have to spend a half hour every now and then recovering their bins, they might think twice.

"I had to BF The Night Owl..."

Translation please? Is this rude?

Fuschia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it is acceptable, for a child. Not so

> keen on drunken men pissing against shops of a

> night, mind you.

Why not? Surely there is nothing more natural and, when you gotta go you gotta go. No different from the need to breastfeed really.

Gubodge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry to take the thread back of track again but I

> have to respond to Domitianus, who is not aware of

> any children being knocked down in car parks? A

> three year old was killed in a housing development

> car park off Lordship Lane a year or so ago so

> whilst I'm obviously very relieved your mother

> safely guided you through the perils of car parks,

> please bear in mind that not everyone is so lucky.

>

>

> I'm not sure why you think you have a greater need

> to be close to the supermarket than someone whose

> legs are only 12 inches long. But maybe you're

> just lazy.

Does this mean that people with legs that are 18 inches long should be made to walk a further distance than those with legs 12 inches long, but not as far as those with legs 24 inches long. I guess the strapping six footers should have to walk from the very far side of the car-park? In fact, let's put in a chicane made out of Tensa-barriers like you seen in an airport or bank to really make the tall bu**ers walk?

I mean they are just lazy, after all.

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Domitianus Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > An alternative to chaining the place up would

> be

> > to send in a decoy, apparently vulnerable but

> > armed to the teeth, who could lure the buggers

> out

> > with the promise of easy pickings and then

> > nab/clobber the lot.

>

> How about tomorrow night then Domitianus? ;-)

I am dusting down my Batman outfit as I type (I believe you women call that 'multi-tasking' and make a big deal out of it!)

Clearly the miscreants involved are not troubled by the lack of light. I understand it is because they have polished their corneas like Riddick out of Near Dark!

An alternative to chaining the place up would be to send in a decoy, apparently vulnerable but armed to the teeth, who could lure the buggers out with the promise of easy pickings and then nab/clobber the lot.

arriety Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's great you do so well, but it doesn't

> logically follow that all people can be as

> successful as you in being so organised. The sad

> thing about this thread is the complete lack of

> ability to understand or accept others' needs or

> restrictions or trials. To me that is much more

> worrying than bad parking on a bad day.

The really sad thing about this thread is the apparent belief held by some that because people have "restrictions and trials" they are entitled to routinely and deliberately flout traffic law for their own convenience!

let's all do that, eh? I am sure a few people with "restrictions and trials" would find that a wonderful excuse for doing forty mph on Barry Road, for instance.

Repeat visits from the various officials, I imagine. As has been suggested, a fixed camera and the automatic issuing of penalties on an industrial scale until people get the message? If parents start getting three or four penalty notices through the post they might start having second thoughts.

The Head could write to all parents about the issue, ask for their co-operation and observe that unless there is a significant improvement he/she will have no option but to ask the Council or Police to send officers to book those responsible. A bit of shaming and iron fist in velvet glove might just work?

Gubodge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A quiet corner of the car park would not be more

> appropriate, and certainly not safer, unless

> pavements/pathways were introduced. Crossing the

> entire car park with toddlers can be hair-raising,

> given that they are completely invisible to cars

> reversing out of spaces.

>

> As for Goodrich, the school had traffic wardens

> patrolling one morning a few weeks back. It has

> made no discernable difference in anything but the

> immediate term.

Worse than hair-raising, I say. Almost Satanically horrendous in its vile perils. Let's not forget the snake-pits, swinging boulders, low-flying bats and all the rest of the Indiana Jones style booby-traps that lie in wait for the unwary parents who has to lead his/her progeny more than ten feet in any particular direction!!!

I just despair about the world we have come to live in. When I was a nipper I was led across countless numbers of car parks in supermarkets and all sorts of other locations. Somehow or another my mother managed to keep control of me and my two brothers without us being crushed, knocked down, squashed, impaled, kidnapped or otherwise coming to harm. Come to think of it, in my entire life I cannot recall seeing or hearing of a child being knocked down in a car park. I am sure it does happen from time to time - it is almost inevitable that a child and a reversing car will one day share the same space at the same time - but to suggest it is some sort of looming threat that requires active measures to prevent is absurd!

hibbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> intexasatthe moment Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Right ,ok ,here's the answer

> >

> > The whole length of Barry Road is 30mph limit

> at

> > present. The proposal includes introducing a

> 20mph

> > speed limit on Barry Road from its junction

> with

> > Lordship Lane to its junction with

> > Underhill/Whateley Road .I do apologise for the

> > confusion on the drawing.

> >

> > Which then raises the question - what's the

> > rationale behind a speed limit of 20mph on only

> > part of Barry Rd.

> > You're driving along at 30mph and when you

> reach

> > the Underhill junction you suddenly switch to

> > 20mph ? ( or vice versa )

> > And if you've not all dozed off yet - personally

> I

> > think Barry Rd should be left at 30mph .

>

>

> I live on Barry Road and it terrifies me how fast

> the cars travel done there, I would welcome a

> speed limit of 20mph for the whole road please.

It still strikes me that the issue is not imposing new speed limits - it is enforcing EXISTING ones! Barry Road seems scary, NOT because it has a 30mph limit but because so many people pay ZERO attention to the 30mph limit and shoot down it at 40 or more.

If people completely disregard the 30mph limit they will not pay a blind bit of attention to a 20mph one....UNLESS it is actually enforced. Let's look at enforcing existing laws before setting out to establish new ones. If people actually drove at 30mph or less in accordance with the existing limit I suspect the road would appear much, much calmer and safer.

It's genetic. You either have it or you don't. Sorry!

You are obviously easily amused.