a fish

barniepage Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ryan Gander's piece, aside from the earth work > that would have provided a dynamic space, would > have directly supported youth performing arts > projects in South London with about ?80,000 over > the course of the next 10 years. Art with a > function, art for the public. > > Instead the commissioners have picked a useless > and non-site-specific piece of art that is, > according to those two specifications, no > different to the Hepworth that was put there 40 > years ago. One might have thought that the idea of > "public art" might have advanced somewhat in that > time. > > But I suppose, after all, in these austere times, > it's better to spend the full whack on a useless > sculpture than on a project that gives money to > local youth projects. Remember, public art has long since been rubbish anodyne nonsense, usually picked by a committee that knows more about money than it does about art, or what's good for the community; viz. the crap that's been on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Sq. Well, the Wallinger piece was great, but the Whiteread one was dull ( and horribly misjudged in terms of materials) but my God the Big Blue Cock (fnar) is desperately bad and the Bill Woodrow was one of the worst bits of public art in any city ever. It doesn't help that, like Henry bloody Moore, Hepworth is seen as a safe bet artwise, despite the fact that, like Henry bloody Moore, her stuff is ugly, lumpen, graceless crap with no meaning or concept.

barniepage Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Conrad Shawcross ugly metal things to be installed > in the park: > http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/ar > t/news/barbara-hepworth-sculpture-stolen-from-dulw > ich-park-to-be-replaced-with-antitheft-works-by-co > nrad-shawcross-8892880.html Nowhere near as ugly as the Hepworth piece. One of my all-time least favourite pieces of public art.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I like Crystal Palace, and would quite happily > live there. But a decent size house near the > "triangle"... still not going to be cheap. You do sometimes get lucky; we have a big flat up there with full ownership of the big garden. It needed a bit of work when we originally bought it, but it was still a good deal. But we want to sell in ED and buy another in CP, our worthless pensions being what they are.

Looks good!

Voyageur Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is life after ED! Hey Voyageur, is there a good local CP forum?

d.b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's wrong with "ask politely"? 'It's not my f*&?ing problem that you're pregnant'.

Yeah, I'm starting to get tired of ED, and am thinking of moving back to CP. It's just got a better vibe to it.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > afish: "call them on it loudly" sounds like > chastisement to me, either way the guy obviously > made a mistake - this does happen in real life. > It's just the way it is - passengers aren't > intentionally trying to take a seat that another > passenger has tried to give-up to a pregnant > person. No, he saw her approaching, I saw him look at her directly moments before I stood, he did not '...obviously make a mistake...', he probably thought she - or indeed I, or indeed someone else - wouldn't call him on it. She did, but even if she hadn't, I would. His sheepish behaviour after she did so, rather than saying 'Oh sorry, I didn't know' further proved that he was being a selfish @$$hole. You do get them you know, whether it's on trains or bikes on pavements.

FFS, Pay attention, KidKruger. Let me make it clear, I am not advising people to bollock others just for ?...being on the train and not being bent on looking out for your needs...?, I am relating what I think should happen when, as I stated above and you clearly didn?t read it properly, I stood up to let a pregnant woman sit down, and a bloke who stood and watched her climb laboriously on at New Cross Gate sat down in my vacated space before she could. She said loudly ?I think this gentleman was giving up his seat to me?, patting a large, very very obviously pregnant ? and indeed badged ? belly, shaming him into getting up and letting her sit down.

Bonfire2010 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's fine in theory to say that I/we need to make > it clear that we need a seat, but personally I've > been wary of this since a friend, nearing the end > of her pregnancy and feeling faint, asked for a > seat and received the response 'It's not my > f*&?ing problem that you're pregnant'. > > Lovely. The answer to that should be "Yeah it is, I'm feeling very nauseous indeed; sitting down usually stops me from puking copiously".

Make sure the badge on your bump is at the eye level of a sitting down commuter. Make sure it's well into their field of vision. And if, as happened when I stood up a few weeks ago, someone other than you sits down - in this case a bloke - call them on it loudly.

It was never my intention to get anyone to change their minds, just maybe to see that there are other views. Though bumping up against such intransigence can make one slightly bloody minded. I'll give LadyD the last word, should she want it...

Bear in mind, LadyD, I don?t actually need to prove anything to you, I know what it?s like around here, I see it every morning. I tried to make you aware, but you?re determined to retain your prejudices intact, not to mention your weird thing about the Law applying to everyone but you. It?s like your fingers are in your ears, and you?re going ?la la la, I can?t hear you? very loudly indeed. I bet you read the Daily Mail.

I could, but I?m not going to, because I know what you?ll do. You?ll get even more desperately wriggly and pedantic about, oh, I don?t know, we can?t see this guy?s Lycra because he has an anorak over it, or that guy?s freewheeling so he?s not dangerous or some other guff. Either that or you?ll claim not to accept anecdotal evidence. I have made my point, if you are too timid and/or loath to admit you may have actually learnt something, that something?s actually penetrated the thick layer of obstinacy and prejudice surrounding your brain, then that?s your choice. Meantime I warn you, if you should ever go walking around Farringdon and Clerkenwell, be hyper vigilant, the guy at our reception has just told me how he was hit by a cycle courier yesterday afternoon, just outside Pret...

Oh I?m *so* sorry LadyD, I seem to have forgotten my wide-angle lens on my big SLR. Tell you what, I?ll bring a BBC HD film crew with me tomorrow, shall I? The fact remains that I have, as requested by you, provided you with 8 photos of 8 cyclists, all cycling in areas where they?re expressly forbidden, either on the pavement where it?s illegal anyway, or through the Grand Avenue ? the workplace of dozens of people ? where there are big signs ordering you off your bike. I have been hit by one cyclist, and seen two more bump people. I have had to jump out of the way sharpish several times, and have watched others do the same. I have heard cyclists hissing and tutting and swearing at people for having the audacity to be on a pavement when they want to come tearing through. I have watched when, at 6:30am, when there isn?t a car on the road, a cyclist bombed along a pavement barely two people wide, not once, but twice. In every single one of these 8 cases, there was no reason for them to be on the pavement other than pure selfishness. They may not all have been wearing Lycra, but some definitely were. There was evening a police crackdown last week, with dozens of cyclists being handed fines for cycling on pavements and cycling through red lights. If that?s not enough to prove my assertion that Farringdon and Clerkenwell is a nightmare for idiots on bikes, then I fear for your version of reality.

Yes, you have LadyD, your sad, very blinkered, prejudices are just telling you you haven't, or maybe you're just being ultra pedantic about the fact that most of them aren't wearing Lycra. One way or another, they're still tw4ts. This morning?s pavement cyclist was especially tw4ttish, weaving in and out of pedestrians, bumping at least one that I saw, hissing and tutting at them, going really quite quickly. He was shouted at by a construction guy coming out of the site who he just missed, but he called him a cnut and cycled on.

I tried to this morning, but I didn't get my phone out in time.

If trying to make idiots sit up and listen is attention seeking, then yeah.

Oh yeah, I look where I?m going all right. Though I don?t have eyes in the back of my head, which is a real pity, because a courier hit me from behind the other day. I didn?t have headphones in ? I?ve stopped doing that ? so I know for a fact there was no warning noises. What is it with you anti-pedestrians, are you so blinkered that you can?t see that this is happening all the time?

Won? No, as I said, but perhaps you?ve deliberately skipped that bit:- ?...while you apologists for twuntish behaviour - especially LadyDeliah (remember, she asked for proof) - still refuse to acknowledge the problem exists (or if it does, it doesn't matter), I'll keep posting them, because they still keep doing it...?

jimbo1964 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > a fish Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > LadyDeliah asked for proof of my claims that > > Clerkenwell/Farringdon has a higher than the > > national average number of pavement cycling, > red > > light jumping @$$holes. I?ve been providing her > > with evidence, but she doesn?t seem to be > about. > > So I shall continue to do so ? if there hasn?t > > been a crackdown ? until she appears. > > > > Bloody minded, me. > > By just taking the odd muzzy snap you're not > actually proving anything statistically. You're > just being a bore.. But you know that. The odd muzzy snap of what? Oh yeah, that's right, some selfish git cycling illegally on the pavement, or an area where it's expressly banned, when there's no need whatsoever to do so. You can see how close today's was to hitting me. And while you apologists for twuntish behaviour - especially LadyDeliah (remember, she asked for proof) - still refuse to acknowledge the problem exists (or if it does, it doesn't matter), I'll keep posting them, because they still keep doing it. Bloody minded, me.

jimbo1964 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not getting enough attention? LadyDeliah asked for proof of my claims that Clerkenwell/Farringdon has a higher than the national average number of pavement cycling, red light jumping @$$holes. I?ve been providing her with evidence, but she doesn?t seem to be about. So I shall continue to do so ? if there hasn?t been a crackdown ? until she appears. Bloody minded, me.

Morning LadyDeliah, did you miss me? This guy did, but only because I jumped out of his way.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well spent five years then, still it,s only FIVE > FOOKING YEARS OF YOUR LIFE so nothing lost, good > work At least we gave it a try. Plus, I have a feeling we'd be back to Moxons most weekends, CP doesn't seem to have a fishmonger.

It really is atrocious, almost as bad as the one on the Paxton at Gipsy Hill