taper

It is becoming the dinner party conversation from Storm

I'm no Bishop Berkeley, but i am a tea pot agnostic. So give me the evidence, and I'll believe in ghosts. But you can't. Not one shred.

Until evidence is produced, I won't accept woo. Nor woooooo for that matter.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > taper Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > The burden of evidence is on you and yours. V > > difficult to prove a negative. > > xxxxxx > > Indeed. So better not to make statements which you > can't prove :) > > Some people are unable to distinguish between > certain colours. Other people (I knew one) can > only see things in shades of black and white. > > No amount of others telling them they were "wrong" > could convince them that colour "existed", if they > had a mind to doubt it. > > Some people are sensitive to psychic phenomena > which others can't perceive. Telling them that > they are talking bollocks just because you are not > so sensitive is closed-minded. And some people are sensitive to believing any old crap because they are feeble minded.

Perhaps Louisa's psychic can try whistling them up from the other side.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > taper Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I am very happy to give the OP the assurance > that > > there is no such thing as paranormal activity. > > xxxxxx > > Evidence for your statement, please? The burden of evidence is on you and yours. V difficult to prove a negative.

How dare you. In a previous life I was Pythagoras. Believe what you wish Louisa. But rest assured your fears of ghosties and ghoulies are not well founded. Pleased to hear you didn't spunk any cash on the psychic.

I am very happy to give the OP the assurance that there is no such thing as paranormal activity. I hope she did not pay the psychic, who is either deluded or a charlatan.

Agreed. Lyndhurst Way is bloody awful, particularly heading back from central London. The markings outside Peckham Academy are like a Land Rover testing track. Blackfriars Road heading home near Laughing Gravy is bad too. But Lyndhurst takes the prize. Some roads in Barnsbury are its equal. But south of the river, that is the freakin daddy of Perineum leathering, ball crunching, filling shattering road surfaces.

Thanks. That's good news. The school will be hugely popular.

Hope and expect the answer is no, but will there be any religious screening for entry to the school?

It is certainly safer sometimes to bend the rules of the road. At certain junctions, I always where I can pre-empt lights going green and roll forward so I am ahead of traffic and more visble. Technically what I am doing is wrong. But it puts no-one in danger. Sometimes too I will head onto the pavement to escape potentially dangerous situations, but only where there is no threat (including of alarm) to pedestrians.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyDeliah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Injuries and deaths to pedestrians per mile > driven > > is not particularly useful because huge amount > of > > miles are clocked up on motorways and other > roads > > where pedestrians are excluded. > > They are more useful than trying to compare > absolute numbers when the number of cars and > cycles on the road are so vastly different. > > Davidk - I'll dig them out in a bit. Here's the data you are looking for http://www.greatgasbeetle.com/cyclists-terrorising-pedestrians-a-review-of-the-data/

That is an awful junction, with a very poor road surface.

katanita Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My condolences Annabel, so sorry to hear about > your son. > > Tragically it seems another cyclist has been > killed on the roads today, on Camberwell Road. No > report I can find yet but apparently via Met > Police > https://twitter.com/se5/status/402421158001516544. > From the sounds of it the area is cordoned off and > best avoided at the moment. > > If anyone ever wants cycling routes from ED that > avoid main roads let me know, I take back streets > wherever I can to avoid coming into contact with > lots of traffic or large vehicles so have quite a > lot of routes I can suggest e.g. ones that avoid > using Camberwell/Walworth road, or Camberwell New > Road. > > I'm not sure what this horrible recent spate of > deaths is about, I just hope it leads to action on > cycle safety and better provision for cyclists on > the raod. The grim details here: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/male-cyclist-in-his-60s-dies-in-crash-with-lorry-at-camberwell-road-8947110.html That is a very nasty junction indeed and the road surface is awful. As you say, best avoided - by using Portland street 400 yards east of there.

Yes. Higher up the hill the better.

Yesterday, the chicane was beautifully done. It would have graced the Badminton horse trials. Difficult enough to run though it. There is a bit of an issue with how fast some cyclists go down the Surrey Canal path. That area is a park and cyclists should be prepared to give way and ride cautiously. Lots of dog walker cyclist tension I've seen recently.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://research.english-heritage.org.uk/report/?14 > 789 > > Page 84. Footnote 107. > > The Warhurst is not very detailed on this. You can > probably consult a copy at the Local Studies > Library. > > In the past I've posted a few old maps on the EDF > illustraing this point. > > A local historian (not me) is preparing an article > on this. > > John K I delved a bit and found this. http://thetreesaroundnunhead.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/blake-angels-etc.html Very interesting. I'd love to see the article when it's produced.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When William Blake was alive his "Peckham Rye" is > what we now call Warwick Gardens and adjacent > streets. > > John K Is that right? I'd be very interested to see what evidence there is for this.

The value of my house (Peckham) has doubled in eight years. I can't see how it's worth what it's "worth". In the twenty odd years i've been in London, I've always been forced to move into less salubrious areas to buy the property I want. Invariably these have then become popular and the house prices have soared accordingly (including now with Peckham). There is still a lot of value in places like Catford, Lewisham, Forest Hill, and so on for around ?200k.

It's a little bit rubbish. But for Cliff's sake, this is Strictly. You've got to watch it.

I can speak only for me and my dog: we have no negative impact on any other park user. And from what I've observed of other dogs, the only significant issue is dog crap. The situation is a lot better than it was, but is still infuriatingly persistent. Other issues with dogs (aggression etc) are vanishingly rare. And when you factor the value added to our parks by dog users,the pros far outweigh the cons. Dogs walkers in the main care for parks: they report problems, make them safer and often provide the impetus for setting up Friends groups. So Southwark should work with dogs walkers, not constantly seek to chip away at their liberties.

Yes I know. But your "what's the point of that?" seemed to assume such areas were provided for the use you have in mind. They're not. But as it happens a short walk from the entrance behind the cafe into the Japanese garden should suit your purpose with minimum exposure to unleashed dogs.

aquarius moon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If it's a central area, what is the point of > that? > > So I would have to carry my 3 little dogs through > the dogs allowed to run free area to get to the > dogs on lead only area, in order to avoid large > dogs running free! > > Unless the areas are accessible via a main gate > directly from a road, it is rather defeating the > object, don't you think?! The object of dogs on leads areas isn't to provide a space for people who don't want their dogs to come into contact with dogs off leads. The principle of preventing dogs from walking free in Southwark's 60% of parks is a very bad one. There needs to be a purpose behind every preclusion or segregation. The assumption should be that parks are free for all to use unless there is a compelling reason to restrict access.

When are LB Southhwark going to do something about this dogs p1ssing on posts menace?