TheCat

I'm a banker, and lo and behold think Sweaty Betty prices are ridiculous. And my wife doesn't even like lattes...that crazy renegade girl. PS: I look and sound the same as a normal person, so watch your back before I steal your neighbourhood from you

.

So go without then.....is this really a high value purchase? Better things to rant over.....

I watched the rugby last Saturday at the great exhibition. So you can rule that one out

If the situation is as you say James, will turning up to the meeting actually make a difference? This bullying of car owners is growing tiresome

Ah...the "Easy D Forum"....a melting pot of easygoing people.......

I'm not advocating an overall view either way, but leaving the EU doesnt mean that no immigrants will ever come to this country again. It simply means the numbers and skills are controlled, no? Yes, there may be 'timing issues' given extra bureaucracy of when and where the labour is required, that would be more quickly solved by a free market. But if we need plumbers for example, then surely people with plumbing skills would be prioritized in the immigration system....

All of the technicalities of jump starting or push starting aside, the OP has effectively partially responded to her own complaint.... Living in a big metropolis is inherently more 'unfriendly' than smaller towns.....I think you'll find this relationship holds the world over....its a downside of City living....

So after 1000's of years of oppression, feminism has given women equality of opportunity.... But third wave feminists seem to disagree....apparently 'everyday sexism' is rife.... Well I agree, but perhaps not in the way that feminists think....case in point.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/why-is-it-sexist-when-a-man-flirts-with-a-female-interviewer-but/

Saffron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So to those that make the case that one car is > off > > the street, so there is no net difference to > > parking space...the key point is that > effectively > > whether or not there is a car parked there, a > > dropped kerb means the owner of that home has > > 'taken ownership' of the public space in front > of > > their kerb. Can I get a partial rebate on my > road > > tax please? > > No, because road tax was abolished last century. Thanks. That was the point of my post. To find out about road tax.

So to those that make the case that one car is off the street, so there is no net difference to parking space...the key point is that effectively whether or not there is a car parked there, a dropped kerb means the owner of that home has 'taken ownership' of the public space in front of their kerb. Can I get a partial rebate on my road tax please?

Of course..thee should be more waterways for merpeople to get about Southwark council is merphobic

if we all claimed ownership of the kerbside in front of our house, then why stop at a dropped kerb? Why can't I plant some trees or erect a shed? The outcome is the same, one less parking space for everyone else in the street...

Charles Notice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you going to declare war on your neighbours? > > Don't think I would like you living near me Maybe I do.....

James...thanks for your response. Looking at the register of planning applications on the Southwark website, I can't see any dropped kerb applications in my street for the last few years, and I know the have been a few put in. Could you indicate where I can check this, as I can see all other planning applications, but not dropped kerb.....

DirtyBox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think you get notified, I have never been > and neighbours on both sides have had it done. > Techniclly they are not allowed to cross the > pavement - I had a flat once that had parking but > no dropped kerb and the council threatened to > place a bollard in front of the parking spot to > stopp me using it, luckily i sold the flat before > it got to that. > Again, yes, unless it's got restrictions. > > BUT.....why do you care so much or do you just > like picking fights and sticking your nose in? Perhaps im just nosey, or perhaps I care because its difficult to park on our road sometimes. And, perhaps im a pedant, but if the proper process hasnt been adhered to, then its not a fair situation for other residents of the street. Perhaps hyperbole, but if we dont have a process, whats to stop anyone just mounting the kerb and park on the footpath?

In another example of the trend for front garden conversions to car parks, a neighbour a few doors along our street has done just this. However, no dropped Kerb has been put in. I'm assuming either it hasn't been done yet (garden has been converted for nearly Two months) or they haven't bothered applying. Have a few questions for the collective forum wisdom... Do near neighbours get notification of a dropped kerb application? Can I advise them that without one they are not allowed to continue to mount the kerb and park in their front yard? If they do continue to do so, then I am within my rights to park them in? I suspect I know the answer to these, but want to be sure of myself before having a neighbourly 'chat'....

i was queueing this morning at 5am, with a glass of prosecco. i hope i can get a bugaboo pram half off.....

in all seriousness, no matter what we thought of the sea cow..if rents are going from 25k to 50k.....the the high street is farked.....

Two flys on a toilet seat.....one got pissed off......

I work from home. Hv had a few phantom knocks this week.......

Charles Notice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Crazy idea unfortunately. Already had one of my > children hit by a cyclist on the pavement. > > Front door--garden path-- pavement-- bang. That's terrible. But the fault there is the the cyclist shouldn't be cycling down the footpath. If you know that it's a cycle lane, not a footpath, then you wouldn't let a child run out there, no different to not letting them run into the road I would think...

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > At the end of the day?..every single option > which involves closing or reducing capacity of > roads in order to reduce traffic and congestion is > totally perverse logic. > > > Does anyone claim that? > > > Not enough school places in Dulwich?...solution > ?Shut down a few local schools so people move away > and send their children to school somewhere else? > > > The key difference here is elasticity of demand: > all kids of school age need to go to school, it's > the law. Not all journeys which are currently > driven need to be - at least according to TfL, the > councils, public health professionals etc. > > > Power shortages?...solution ?reduce the amount of > power generation, so more blackouts, then people > will surely use less? > > > Y'know what? If our energy infrastructure were > screwing up the city's public spaces and air to > anything like the degree that vehicles are, and if > those-who-run-things determined people could > reasonably cut back their consumption by 20, 30, > 50% without seriously impacting their quality of > life, I might be persuaded to get behind that one > too :o) - although not if it's promoted by those > awful vegetarians as a way to make us all eat more > salad. > > > The solution in all these cases is not reducing > existing capacity?its about improving the > attractiveness of the alternative, WITHOUT majorly > compromising the primary option?. > > > Spoken like someone who's never paid ?? for a > fancy energy-saving LED bulb only to find that it > doesn't work with the blasted dimmer switch & that > proper filament bulbs now enjoy similar legal > status to crack cocaine. > > The question, when it comes to cycleways is, HOW? > How do you make it safe enough for a ten-year-old > to cycle two miles to school, instead of being > driven by Mum, without compromising the other > options? I can only assume that it's either not > possible (and therefore others need to be > compromised, if that's what the plan is) or > enormously expensive - otherwise they'd have > already done it by now surely? Agreed, the question is how? But one would imagine that smart people being paid to come up with these ideas probably could.... Off the top of my head, with 5 seconds thought, Are our footpaths congested? No. do we need footpaths on BOTH sides of every road?...probably not. So what if the routes for cyclesways had one side of the road for pedestrians and one for cyclists. Okay maybe not a perfect solution, as some people might no want a cycle lane outside their front gate, and cycle capacity wouldn't be as large as a whole cycle superhighway; but would make for a safe journey. Anyway, that might not work, and that's not the point, the point is that surely there are other ways rather than closing off roads and making traffic even worse...

At the end of the day?..every single option which involves closing or reducing capacity of roads in order to reduce traffic and congestion is totally perverse logic. So the roads are at capacity??solution??close more roads??work that one out!!!? Analogies for this ridiculous logic are?. Not enough school places in Dulwich?...solution ?Shut down a few local schools so people move away and send their children to school somewhere else? Power shortages?...solution ?reduce the amount of power generation, so more blackouts, then people will surely use less? The solution in all these cases is not reducing existing capacity?its about improving the attractiveness of the alternative, WITHOUT majorly compromising the primary option?.

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat said "Yes, we all need a 'wide perspective' > on the future, but one eye must be kept on the > short term practicalities for the majority of the > population." > > For your information, 70% of London households did > not own a car in 2011* and that % is continuing to > rise. > > What was that about the majority? I think you are > in a smallish minority. > > > > > *http://www.uncsbrp.org/driving.htm How long did you spend googling to find a stat that supports your agenda? In the same link you provide they also quote a figure of 0.76 cars per household in London, then they also have a link to a study quoting 54% of London households own a car...but you didn't mention those one's did you? Anyway....I'm going to go drive round the block for fun now.....