titch juicy

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > If it were so, then your argument about > cyclists > > being road users should count for children too. > > Except where we are trying to be reasonable about > it. exactly my point

Concerning social media, a friend of mine posted this elsewhere. "I was watching as this happened last night and Twitter is becoming as much of a hinderance as a help in situations like these. People talk about fake news like it's dreamt up by media organisations - which it sometimes is - or kids in Macedonian caves, but it's plain as day that a large number of normal users derive some kind of egotistical satisfaction from playing journalist/detective and being first to the "story". The balloon theory came and went, mainly because a security guard at the venue told someone that is what it was. People are still telling parents there are 60 kids holed up in a Holiday Inn, they're not. There was a grid of missing people being shared, most of whom were never missing but their mates had posted their pic almost immediately. The Sun (obviously never a hotbed of accuracy) asked to use a picture purporting to be of dead bodies in the foyer and it wasn't even the same arena. All of which is incredibly shit if you're a parent looking on. These reports led to inference and speculation on BBC and Sky, who were keen to keep up with the American networks that were ahead of the curve. The American networks were ahead in calling 1) a nail bomb 2) fatalities, because they don't care about due journalistic diligence and went with the if it quacks like duck approach. Anyone could quickly discern what had likely happened when pics of people in torn clothing and with shrapnel wounds started emerging, but there's a difference in confirming it. It's a dangerous precedent and could play into would-be attackers hands."

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Titch > that wasnt me but I would express same sentiments > (minis the swearing). You are a road user and by > riding on a pavement you risk my safety. Please > stop doing so. > > Your argument about confide ce falls down as you > would surely not argue a car driver post accident > should drive on the pavement to regain confidence? > Cyclists are road users, not pedestrians and need > to act as such. I wasn't risking his safety though. I was cycling very slowly for 5 metres on a pavement where there was plenty of room for both. The jogger risked his own safety by changing his course to run directly towards me. A little common sense is needed. Things aren't always so black and white. If it were so, then your argument about cyclists being road users should count for children too.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't mind kids doing it, but nothing annoys me > more than cyclists doing it - there is absolutely > no excuse or reasons to ride on a pavement - if > you need to be on the pavement dismount and walk > with the cycle. > > I was running last night and a cyclist kept coming > down the pavement towards me - I matched his > course directly and said politely but firmly 'this > is a pavement, ride on the road'. I was delighted > to see I forced him off the pavement and hope he > learned his lesson. > > There is no excuse for riding on a pavement - its > up there with jumping red lights as a deeply > anti-social and potentially very dangerous thing > to do. I always 'call out' to cyclists who do > this, politely but firmly and they almost always > respond with a four letter tirade of abuse. I > refuse to swear back, and always keep my cool - > when I say to them "If I am driving and go through > a red light and hit you, I will likely injure or > kill you. If you are riding and go through red > light and hit me, you will likely injure or kill > me too. Please respect my safety". > > None of them have an answer to that beyond a > torrent of foul abuse. Wow, what a charmer. How do you know that cyclist's circumstances? Perhaps they'd had an accident on the road before and were building up their confidence again. I agree that adult's shouldn't cycle on pavements under normal circumstances but if there's room and it doesn't happen often, then it's not really doing anyone any harm. Same as when joggers occasionally use cycle lanes (this happens around Elephant & Castle). A few years back I was cycling from The Gardens and wanted to use the path that cuts diagonally across Peckham Rye Common. I cycled across the pedestrian crossing and used the pavement for about 5 metres, intending to cut onto the path. A jogger running towards me deliberately changing his line of running to come straight at me; I shouted out, "What on earth are you doing?" to which he replied, "well don't ride on the f'ing pavement then". Was that you?

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apparently Moyes has resigned without request for > compensation, which if true, is a very decent > thing to do in the greedy world of football. Agreed. Also, apparently Mr Redknapp told the Birmingham powers that be that he didn't want paying if he didn't keep them up.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ???? Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > jaywalker Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > The clip of May's interview on news.sky.com > has > > > really made my afternoon. Well done to the > > press > > > for not letting her off the hook. > > > > > > I thought they were all Tory Lapdog/Murdoch > MSM > > etc? > > > > So, from my point of view, from thinking we had > > just one incompetent at the head of a major > > political party I see it's now 2! > > > > Oh happy days > > and Tim Farron (still banging on/being banged on > about faith) and Paul Nuttall (who scored hat > trick for Spurs at the weekend) Is Tim Farron still banging on about faith? From what i've seen he's been doing a pretty decent job in recent weeks, and to my eyes their manifesto is the best of the bunch.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The sign said something about it becoming 'A > Fabulous Little Place' (or something like that), > which the way it was written gave the impression > that this might literally the name of the new > venture. I hope not, or I will never visit on > principle. Haha! I support this view wholeheartedly.

They had the best range of breakfasts around- Kedgeree, Kippers, All the usual Eggs with Hollandaise offerings, omelettes, Mediterranean brekkies, Mexican breakfast etc etc. But also some peculiar practices (a hash brown and grilled tomato accompanying an Eggs Royale. Lose them both, no-one wants them and knock 50p off the price). Also, and i've mentioned before, they filled old HP and Heinz Ketchup bottles with dirt cheap sauces. Only the greasiest of greasy spoons can get away with that old trick. Cheap and nasty tactics. But, they were always busy at weekend brunchtimes and one girl in particular made a very good coffee too.

There are a smattering of shared use pavements around. Lordship Lane down to Dulwich College is an obvious one.

No, I suspect they meant 'People', as in 'people that ride on the pavement'.

bobbsy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's going to be absolute carnage on Monday > morning going north across London Bridge when the > bank intersection is shut to all except buses and > cycles !! > > https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/transport > -and-streets/traffic-management/Documents/Bank%20o > n%20Safety%20Map.pdf So, cars, vans, taxis and lorries are still going to be allowed across the bridge? You're right, the congestion will be horrendous. I carry on up gracechurch street and that'll be so clogged up. I might switch and start going across Tower Bridge- i used to.

Indeed. Giant Rats are gonna do for us before nuclear or ecological Armageddon. They've already taken over government.

I haven't (not very helpful sorry), but always fancied it. They've managed to put on decent line ups over the years. Getting there was always the stumbling block for me.

It looks like the Tories have confirmed that Leveson part Two won't go ahead, if the BBC's live election feed is to be believed. At the request of the Mail, Times and Express. I wonder where the real power lies? Paul Dacre is a stain on this country.

Caesi01 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In my experience when one respects the other, it > works for all involved. I commute daily on a > motorbike into central london and make sure not to > stop in the cycle box as well es leaving some room > away from the kerb to allow cyclists to move to > the front of the queue. > > I agree with the north of london bridge being > clogged up, but generally by all kind of traffic > participants, due to the ongoing building work. I wouldn't ever wish to tar all with one brush. A lot of motorcyclists are the most accommodating vehicles on the road. And yeah, that building work is a nightmare. And seems to have been going on forever.

I guess a poll early next week after the Lib Dem and Conservative manifestos have been absorbed, will be more accurate.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Big recovery for Labour according to today's polls > - Tories stay as is but LD support collapsing and > going to Labour. Looks like we are moving to the > old days when the big two got the lion's share of > the vote - (excluding Scotland/NI) The polls i'm looking at have Labour no higher than recently. In fact it looks like the Tory lead is extending. Cons 47.1 Lab 30.1 LD 8.7 https://britainelects.com/

I'd support more access for motorcycles if they'd stay out of cycle lanes and cycle boxes at junctions. The cycle lane at the top of London Bridge going north is a nightmare in the mornings for being clogged up with motorcycles.

claresy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lamp post banners seem absolutely pointless. I > can't think why anyone thinks they'll add anything > other than a nasty corporate feel to the road. > Also rather distasteful to spend money on empty PR > when people are sleeping on the streets and > relying on foodbanks (regardless of separate > budgets etc). They're not even creative. I'd > rather have some more street art. Reminds me of > how schools like my children's spend money on > supposedly 'motivational' messages around the > school etc when the toilets are broken (but not > visible to visitors). Couldn't agree more.

cordsm Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes! > > Agree with Nigello. The Herne Hill banners look > quite attractive. I think one of the ideas for the > ED ones (should they happen) is that they showcase > local artists, which seems quite a nice idea... > > Could the money be better spent on social > care/filling in potholes/mending pavements > etc......Yes! > > Although, could the same argument then apply to > any 'non-essential' (in itself, subjective) > government or council spending? E.g. art galleries > and firework displays (to give two random > examples)... > > I doubt we get any say in the matter, but admire > anyone up for trying... I don't know how many times (over a hundred i would imagine) i've been through Herne Hill over the years on the bus, on my bike, walking or in the car and i can honestly say that i've never noticed the banners. I have no idea whatsoever what they look like or what they say. I notice individual shops, pubs, restaurants, the park etc. but never once the banners. A complete waste of money IMO.

It's the obviously American style names that leave me cold- I have colleagues with children called Tyler, Taylor, Harrison and Maddison.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jaywalker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > "...in Bourdieu's language, the original Marx > (and > > Lukacs) hope was that 'workers' are the only > ones > > who do not misrecognise the socio-economic for > > what it is: a system of symbolic violence in > which > > privilege is transmuted to sociodicy (the > illusion > > that one's privilege is warranted, achieved by > > solipsistic acts of self-justification...)" > > Classic! Only on the EDF!!! > > BTW thanks for providing a bracketed explanation > of the difficult to understand big words for us. > Much appreciated. I didn't know what sociodicy meant so was grateful for the explanation.

You can remove all the labels for all i care. It simply boils down to a question of why one person should be spared prison because she might have a promising future, whereas someone that might not doesn't get the same privileged treatment from a judge.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Education should be as irrelevant as ethnicity. > For me there is no difference at all between an > Oxford medical student and a gangbanger with no > qualifications if they choose to stab somebody > with bread knife. Yes. This. I really struggle to understand the argument that because someone has a promising future they should be spared a custodial sentence. It's white middle class privilege at it's worst. They've had a privileged start in life, in my opinion they should be treated at least as harshly as someone that hasn't. Perhaps there's even an argument that the law should come down harder on them.

There was no room to sit by the stage. It was packed solid and barely room to walk round the edges by the food stalls. It's great that it's busy and it's a terrific event, but IMO it's too small and narrow to properly accommodate the demand. The queues for the 5 portaloos were horrendous and the main thoroughfare was unpassable at times. On food prices- I didn't think they were unreasonable at all. Where can you get a hot dog at an outdoor event for less than a fiver these days? And the food quality was generally great (well, our group thought so anyway). The kids corner (bouncy slides and indoor bounce around thing) were good, but crammed so tightly into that corner that it was a nightmare trying to keep an eye on the youngster with us (my nephew).