jimlad48

I am depressed at the attitude that single male = problem. I?m a childless male and occasionally meet my friends and their children, or my godchildren at the park. If I arrive early and have to wait a few minutes for them on my own, does that make me suspicious? I have friends who are stay at home Dads. If they go to the park and their kid runs off, while they wait for them, does that make them suspicious? I know people with learning challenges who are lovely people but may happily stand by the park minding their own business. Are they suspicious too? What makes me so cross here is that we assume single male = paedophile. We?d never say the same about a single woman, and I am 100% certain that a woman standing on their own in the park wouldn?t have aroused any suspicions or threads on EDF at all. You may not like the fact that he was there, but if he wasn?t breaking the law, and you weren?t prepared to call Police/Council or even appropriately challenge him, then that should have been a steer to not raise it here. People have committed suicide over false paedophile claims, and yet here you are describing someone who has, on the surface, done nothing wrong and where no evidence exists of wrongdoing, and effectively slandered them.

So I'm going to be a bit harsh here and say that frankly I don't see what the problem is. Has he broken any laws? Was he filming anyone? Was he touching himself in a way that implied he was trying to arouse himself? Did he do anything that would be illegal in the eyes of the law? If the answer is no, then what you've essentially just done is all but outright call someone a paedophile for the crime of standing in a park without children around. Do you understand the seriousness of this sort of allegation, or do you think that now 'because I've got a baby' you've got the right to post outrageous threads actively questioning someones innocent behaviour just because it doesnt conform to your personal view of the world? If you weren't prepared to confront, and you weren't prepared to call the police, then how dare you feel you can go online behind the safety of an anonymous handle and essentially accuse someone of being a pervert with zero evidence other than your view of the world? More to the point, what business is it of yours if he is standing there? If there is no law forbidding it, and no regulation preventing it, then he has every right in the world to stand there. And before you get 'oh but the Children' try asking yourself how you would feel if when your baby is a little older, your partner took it to the park and it went wandering leaving him temporarily alone, and you logged on here, you discovered that someone had put a post up accusing your partner of being a paedophile? Thats exactly what you've done here - made the gravest possible allegation by implication without a shred of evidence to back it up.

I'm afraid I switch off when I hear hyperbolic tales of Tooley street abuses - lots of rumour, no hard evidence. Like I said, if you have evidence, take it to the police. As for 'death of Lordship lane', we heard lots of people saying the same about shops in our area when our CPZ came in. Strangely they're all still in business - funny that.

I'll disagree here. Having spent years campaiging for one, our experience was that the Council was only interested in consulting when we could provide proof of local support to reopen the consultation. We spent a lot of time talking to the parking team and understanding how complex these matters are. I find the sort of 'one party state' nonsense a bit silly really, a consultation was held and the decision was taken on evidence and feedback. It was also based on experience - namely that when a CPZ comes in, other local areas quickly ask for one, and this leads to demands to do the whole thing again shortly after (several areas have had consultations quickly after based on local feedback). Where it is close run thing and a CPZ is coming in, council experience is long that they will only end up doing this again, so why not save public money and run it once. As for the allegations about cash - often spouted here without any evidence. I have said before, if you have concrete evidence that CPZ revenue is being used to do anything other than CPZs, then go to the police because it is a crime. Don't sit here typing, take proactive action and get the law involved if you have evidence to support your assertions.

Your membership can cover both if you want (I think they are both run by same chain). Worth checking the Camberwell one, run by Everyone Active too, as its also a good site. Worth keeping an eye on membership deals for a while - they vary considerably but I'd be looking to pay ?250-300 for a years full membership based on their current offers - anymore than this and you're being seen off.

Not really - its a CPZ. For years every CPZ that has come in gets naysayers here predicting the end of the world. None of their predictions have ever come true.

I dont think it makes any difference. Two hour CPZ are just as good. It genuinely made our lives vastly better. I love having a CPZ.

As a counter point, I would say the toastrsck CPZ has after 2yrs resulted in vastly reduced congestion, many more spaces and much quieter roads. Not one of the doomladen events some here prophesised would occur actually happebed.

I have recently bought a car again. In the greater scheme of things, barely ?10 to ensire I can park is a bargain. Dont see what all the fuss is about to be honest.

Thats illegal behaviour - tell them that unless they provide details you will go to the Police. Possibly local media too to 'name and shame' the company.

The original bills was lovely, I went there a couple of times. The chain on the other hand is a totally different experience - very average and a lot of the charm and experience lost.

Its a well known scam - a quick google reveals a lot of hits on this issue.

James Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow. Such nasty responses from you people. > > If I left something of value in a shop I would be > annoyed if they chucked it out front where anyone > could take it. > > Ianr your analogy doesn't make sense. If I left > something at your house, would you throw it > outside onto the pavement??? > > The decent thing to do would be to put it behind > the counter. Why could the shop owner not do that? > You lot need to stop projecting your whimsical > fantasies about darling local shopkeepers onto > these people and look at the facts. > > And get some empathy. Why should the shopkeeper do that? I worked in a supermarket when I was young for a few years and the amount of lost property we got was astounding and there was no easy place to keep it. Now if you're a small store with limited space, why should you take up that space with something thats been abandoned in your store. Those scooters are everywhere, and more than you'd imagine probably get lost daily - I'm sure its not the first that has been abandoned. The shop keeper has no obligation to keep anything, or store anything due to someone elses mistake. I would be empathetic if the OP had phrased her original post in a way that suggested the fault lay entirely with her, and it was a shame about the loss. But this was phrased as a drive by character assassination of a small store which hasn't done anything wrong. Thats not fair, or appropriate and thats why I'm not sympathetic to the case.

Thanks - complaint has been filed!

No - elsewhere.

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You've not answered my questions. Because they make no sense? Its a shop, not a house, so the comparison is utterly pointless. The owner made clear his policy that he doesnt keep left behind items, and as such has made clear he has not got a duty of care in this situation. He acted perfectly reasonably in putting it outside for collection.

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If I visit your home and inadvertently leave > something behind, my scooter perhaps, or my wallet > or debit card, do you have any duty of care to me? > If so, how far does it extend? Big difference between a home and a shop. If the shop has a policy of not keeping left behind stuff then thats the shops call. Its an entirely reasonable thing to do, and I think that in an age when small businesses are struggling to negatively shame them for your own mistake is just not fair.

There is a house near us undergoing a total rennovation where the owners have moved out and they are are having major roof and internal work done, including a loft extension. We fully recognise that this work needs to be done, and during the working week its fine, but the builders have for several weeks now being coming in before 0800 on a Saturday morning and shouting / banging / crashing loudly and working through the day. Is there anything that can be done to prevent them from coming in before a certain time on a Saturday, or are we just out of luck. I'm a bit fed up of being woken up by builders early on a Saturday morning now, and the work looks like its got a long way to go.

So you forgot something and you're trying to generate negative coverage for an independent shop owner for your mistake. The only person thats done something wrong here is you - you left the scooter behind, you made the mistake and you are doing something nasty by blaming an innocent shop owner for your mistake. I'm sorry you've lost a scooter, but the person to blame here is you, not the shop owner.

Took a black cab from Waterloo to Camberwell last week. Driver started doing a very odd route, and changed when I queried it. At end of journey he intentionally went down a road forcing the cab to do 3 sides of a square to get to its final destination. When I pointed this out he got extremely grumpy and told me that it was doing that which made accepting the fare worthwhile!

peckham_ryu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > snoopy17 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > jimlad48 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Its Brunswick Park. He has been seen in local > > > shops too occasionally. > > > > > > What shops has he gone in. > > I definitely have not seen him in Sainsbury's. He has been in the local sainsbury's.

Its Brunswick Park. He has been seen in local shops too occasionally.

Ultimately this is going to require either the closure of Heathrow, or an acceptance that we live in a global city which has multiple airports. Personally the noise doesnt bother me that much, its just part of city life. If you want to live an aircraft free life, then try somewhere in the country - but realise that there are few nirvanas - I've just come back from a few days walking in Yorkshire, and there was regular very low, and loud military aircraft flypasts - personally I regard it as the sound of freedom and have no problem at all with it, but it was a lot louder than the planes here. Otherwise, if you want to stay in London, try moving northwards, where its a bit quieter, or accept that the price of having the benefits of London life is the noise of London airports. Otherwise you're going to spend a long time trying and failing to do anything except get worked up about something you won't be able to influence. Finally, if you think its bad here, try spending a day out in Richmond...

teddyboy23 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I got a ticket about a year ago ,in the yellow box > outside peckham bus garage .Sam as you my back > wheels ,and boot.in yellow box.I appealed saying I > wasn't blocking buses going into the terminal,or > buses coming out .I wasn't causing an obstruction > to any other traffic.got caught out when lights > other side of box changed red,not enough space to > move further forward ticket was cancelled you were lucky - I was done in the same spot a few years ago for identical reasons - thought I had space, but car in front of me stopped short so I couldnt clear the box. They upheld the fine annoyingly as a bus couldnt get out, but its made me paranoid ever since!

Someone asked about how many votes counted from same address. If memory serves, Southwark ignores multiple votes from the same address - only counting one reply from each address. Its not possible to 'stack the system' this way.