titch juicy

I've seen one in one of the front gardens in The Gardens

Phlox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She's a blogger, instagrammer and ex lawyer. And seems to have done something to upset Dulwich61.

I love snails! With garlic butter obviously. I suppose a whelk would be the nearest comparison.

Sign up to zipcar and use one of their vans for an hour. I can't imagine it'd cost much more than a tenner.

I have to be honest, it irritates me when I see people applying make up on the train or bus. I have no idea why; it's completely irrational and if anything I should be impressed they manage to get it on without it going everywhere.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Two ? one automatically and one from the next four > in the playoffs. Cheers- so, fixture pile ups aside, Hamlet are looking good for the play offs!

I shall be there.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 4-2 win last night against Kingstonian. 7th in the > table with four games in hand over three of the > teams above us. How many teams can be promoted from this league?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's written by someone who knows the area > intimately - it must be unreliable. Indeed. Imagine that.

Oh, i'm so sorry you didn't enjoy it.

http://londonist.com/2016/09/where-to-eat-and-drink-in-east-dulwich?utm_content=buffer80ffd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Although, you wouldn't have gone into the back > room of the Magdala without a cosh Is that an elaborate euphemism?

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > But if a cyclist has been > > stupid/wreckless/impatient (cycling down the > > inside of a large vehicle indicating left at a > > junction) then irrespective of how distasteful > it > > is to call them so, it could well be that they > are > > stupid (and/or wreckless and/or impatient). > > > > None of those points you've made about > extenuating > > circumstances above would stop a cyclist from > > waiting behind a large vehicle until it had > > turned. Nearly all large vehicles now have a > > large, bright yellow sticker on the back > warning > > cyclists not to cycle down the inside in those > > circumstances. > > Agree with your first paragraph, not so sure about > the second - of course cyclists shouldn't ride up > the inside of stationary lorries, but when one of > these awful accidents occurs we do tend (or I do > anyway) to assume the cyclist has done just that > whereas it often later comes out when the lorry > driver has been prosecuted that they overtook the > cyclist and turned across them (in at least one > case last year without signalling). There was a > case last year where it was proved that the driver > of the fatal truck would have had the woman he > killed in his vision in front of him for over > twenty seconds, but he still turned across her. > Sometimes it's the cyclist doing something stupid; > often it's not. Oh yes, I know the case and it was horrible and of course there are exceptions. But, I think my second paragraph still holds. If a large vehicle is at a junction indicating left (perhaps i should have been a little more specific), then not riding down the inside of that vehicle means that that vehicle will not be a risk to your life.

Beulah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulwichLondoner Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Beulah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > It was a gross generalisation. > > > It's pure victim blaming and calling them > > "idiots" > > > is disgraceful. > > > I'll give one specific (and local) example: > > [...] > > > > I cannot and won't comment on specific cases I > do > > not know. > > > > Where is the generalisation? Did I maybe say > that > > all pedestrians / cyclists / motorcyclists who > die > > in a collision deserved their fate? I most > > certainly did not! What I said was that > ***some*** > > accidents, however tragic, are entirely > avoidable > > and depend only on the individual's stupid > > behaviour. All of this to say that the raw > number > > of accidents is not a particularly indicative > > measure of risk and danger, because some > accidents > > are perfectly avoidable, some are not - and > only > > the latter are a true reflection of risk and > > danger. > > > > What is wrong with this line of reasoning? > > > > PS You talk about road layouts; like I said I > > cannot comment on specific cases I do not know, > > but, generally, what kind of road layout do you > > think would avoid cyclists being crushed by > > vehicles turning left? > > Is it too much to ask that cyclists and > > motorcyclists stay back when a big vehicle is > > turning? > > Can a big vehicle still crush a cyclist or > > motorcyclist who stays back? > > Please stop describing people who are killed in > road accidents as "stupid" and "idiots", they are > almost always not. > > It's easy to say "left-hook" accidents are > avoidable but there are often many factors at > play: cycle lanes pushing cyclists to the left of > traffic (and their blind spots) at traffic lights > ; HGVs with huge blind spots that cyclists are not > aware of; poor/nearly blind/distracted HGV > drivers; advance stop lines encouraging cyclists > to get to the front at red lights; poorly designed > junctions that create sudden pinch points; > inexperienced riders; lorries too big for London's > narrow streets; huge potholes that cyclists have > to avoid... > > Many of these points have all been raised in > criminal and coroners' courts for factors > contributing to the deaths of cyclist in London in > recent years. > What you term "stupid behaviour" may actually be a > logical outcome of those factors. But if a cyclist has been stupid/wreckless/impatient (cycling down the inside of a large vehicle indicating left at a junction) then irrespective of how distasteful it is to call them so, it could well be that they are stupid (and/or wreckless and/or impatient). None of those points you've made about extenuating circumstances above would stop a cyclist from waiting behind a large vehicle until it had turned. Nearly all large vehicles now have a large, bright yellow sticker on the back warning cyclists not to cycle down the inside in those circumstances.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Foxy- may I ask what you do to have all this > > behind the scenes access to businesses on LL? > > I stop and talk to people.. They all know me. I > am up and down Lordship Lane day and night.. > > Social Butterfly I was once called.. :) > > Foxy Thanks :)

I can completely understand why people don't cycle to work. I'm lucky in so far as im reasonably fit, not scared of the roads/traffic (totally understand why people are) and have good private bike parking and shower facilities at work. I can't understand why people don't get the bus though. It's comfortable, reliable and gives you time to relax with a book or music. The extra 15 mins it takes to get in are a luxury to me rather than a chore. I think London would be a much nicer place if everyone slowed down by 5% instead of being caught up in the rat race.

Agreed. Just out of interest- what's new about the new one?

I do walk fast (well, at least for the first couple of miles!).

Foxy- may I ask what you do to have all this behind the scenes access to businesses on LL?

Beulah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You really need to retract this: > > DulwichLondoner Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Also, what are the causes of these accidents? > When > > a cyclist dies because he decided to undertake > a > > big bus which was turning left, it's not > because > > bicycles per se are dangerous: it's because he > was > > an idiot and what happened was Darwinian > > selection. > > There are many, many reasons why accidents like > this happen. > Perhaps you should actually bother to find out why > first... I reckon if you totted up all cycling deaths on the London roads over the last 5 years, that quite a large majority would be caused by a cyclist undertaking a large vehicle that was turning left at a junction. It's pretty idiotic in my mind. It couldn't be more well advertised how dangerous this is. Yet, every week I still see someone doing it. I've tried to stop people too. Now, i'm not saying this is the cause of all cyclist deaths and there are bound to be some instances where this has happened where perhaps the driver wasn't indicating, but i'm surprised there haven't been more deaths caused by a cyclist being impatient or wreckless. In my experience, drivers of large vehicles (particularly buses) have become much much more aware and sensible in recent years. It's their livelihood after all. But, of course any cycling death is tragic and horrendous, but even more so when they're preventable like this. It's a big bugbear of mine. The cycling cause in London would advance so much quicker if cyclists helped themselves a lot more as well as putting pressure on councils for better facilities and better rules.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah, I never understand why people moan so much > about sitting on a bus. For me it's my reading > time. Headphones in, world around me blocked out > for a blissful while. > > That's something I actually miss now I am walking > in the mornings, but I also enjoy the walk and it > gives me some exercise which is good because > fitting the gym in can prove difficult. But it > means I am reading less. > > RE Walking speed. I am a fast walker, but I think > 20 minutes per mile is a reasonable standard, and > definitely not "grandpa" speed. > > I used to enjoy cycling (many moons ago), but I > just wouldn't feel safe doing it now (largely due > to my less than perfect eye sight). I walk home (from Liverpool Street to Crystal Palace Road = 5.1 miles) occasionally and it takes me 1hr 20 mins.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There used to be some others on here but now it > feels like it's just me who think that East > Dulwich's poor transport links are part of its > appeal - far less transient and more local. If we > had a tube for eg we'd soon be like Clapham North > - full of Saffas and Aussies..whereas we only get > the quality one's of course :). Fooks given about > SE22's transport by me? None. - i just sit on the > 40 most mornings up to E&C and enjoy it. The tube > from Elephant is the sh1tiest part of my commute > by far! This, exactly. Except I take the 40 on to London Bridge or Fenchurch Street and it's genuinely quality time. Comfortable, air-con, listen to music and/or read a book. If the tube came to ED i'd consider moving on.

"I dont care about the privatisation of the Train line. Thats up to the Gov. The gov though has to provide me with links to London and that comes from my taxes. The deal that the Gov made with private companies to run the lines was specific and Southern is not a company that has kept its part of the deal. Everytime you get a refund online because a Southernfail train was delayed or cancelled, it comes out of Gov's money which eventually comes from my taxes. What about the ?20m that Gov threw away on Southernfail during Summer to improve the service? Isn't that coming from my tax money? Generally speaking it doesn't mean that since Govia/Southern is a private company can do whatever it wants with the schedule. The Gov provides the guidelines for the service and Govia bids that its going to follow the schedule and provide that service. The deal was trains every 10 minutes on peak and 15minutes non-peak. That hasn't been followed by Southernfail using as an excuse the London Bridge revamp. Btw I don't even know why am trying to make sense to you, you'r the guy that said if you kick someone on the shin no matter of his size he will go down... lol." I admit to being a little naive on the tax issue I apologise and stand corrected. The kick in the shins advice was given by an ex-special branch officer (former protection agent for a high profile member of the family of a certain very high profile 1980's prime minister) trained in close quarters combat. Edit: to KidKruger; I hadn't thought of the childcare aspect, having none myself. Again, I apologise.

If the boss gets on your back for being late every day, leave earlier and get in on time. We had a lady at work living in Essex who was late most days, mainly blaming the trains. Someone said to her to leave earlier-her response? It's not my fault the trains are rubbish.

geobz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > geobz Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Otta Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > JohnL Wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > > > > 1 Hour isn't good - we should be talking > > > 30-40 > > > > > minutes.:) > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you know that government guidelines on > > best > > > > practice say that children up to the age of > 8 > > > > (with special educational needs) shouldn't > > have > > > > school journeys lasting more than 45 > minutes. > > > Over > > > > 8s it's an hour. These guidelines have been > > > around > > > > forever (well decades). > > > > > > > > So I think an hour to work is perfectly > > > acceptable > > > > for a working adult :) > > > > > > > > > The issue is that your not an hour away from > > the > > > City. The transportation links are poor. > > > > > > I often walk from ED to Oxford Street, > doesn't > > > take me more than 1h20m to get there. > > > > > > So yes I think a bus that does 1hour against > > > walking 1hour and 20 minutes is an issue. > > > > > > And southern isn't running most of the time, > > and > > > the timeschedules are way off... you don't > get > > > trains every 10 minutes anymore apart from > > > 8:10,20,30, everything else is every 20-30 > > > minutes... thats awful and it feels like you > > are > > > living out of town. Also on weekends you get > > > reduced services and Sundays you'll barely > find > > > the station open. > > > > > > Commuting from ED is BAD! Stop trying to > > convince > > > yourself that its alright. > > > > The thing is, those trains that run every 20 > > minutes are never full, so why would they put > more > > on? > > Because thats why am paying taxes for? and on top > ticket fare? > > Whats next? because the every 20 minutes are not > full change them to every hour? The reason of > living in a zone2 area is that you should have > fast and easy access to the Center. > > 40minutes commute for 5 miles worth of travel is > so third world! Unless you live somewhere with the tube- best of luck. Oh, and how does paying your taxes have anything to do with private rail companies?