Blah Blah

My wife dislikes the top deck because of the stairs. She finds them fine to go up, but too steep and dangerous when coming down. Could that be a reason? I can understand why people with any kind of mobility problem wouldn't want to go there, but perhaps the able bodied find the stairs a challenge too?

I think we are splitting hairs here. Of course some kids will take longer or not get there at all but I was talking generally (and generally most children pick things up very quickly), to make the point to Penguin that to think cyclists need as much training and examination as car or motorcyle drivers is nonsense. Really young children haven't quite developed perfect balance Sue (and again that depends on the child) but 5-7 years seems to be the age when they start to negotiate those things very well. Boys of course lose some of that during puberty as their legs and arms spurt out of proportion. But that's a whole other discussion :D I also do think that cyclists are in an awkward place. They are not a fast as most other traffic, and some drivers DO get irritated by that (even if the cyclist is cyling perfectly) and at the same time, they are too quick to really be sharing space with pedestrians. Cycle lanes are good but they are not possible on every road. In the end, the responsibility has to lie with road users themselves, putting safety first.

What is wrong with everyone today? :D

lol rahrah. Sue, it took just 5 mins for my own two children to go from stabilsers to no stabilisers at the ages of 6 and 7 respectively. I remember it taking me a similar amound of time and at a similar age. Kids tend to get that you just have to go for it, better than adults do. A bicycle, once it's going, is hard to fall off of. Adults find it harder to learn to ride a cycle because they worry more about fallling off than kids do. It's the same for many things, like skiing and swimming for example. All easier to pick up in childhood. And there's plenty of evidence to back that up in a fair few psychology manuals. We can even test that here. How many people who cycle can remember when they went from stabilisers to two wheels? How hard was it?

Penguin you are being daft. The theory test for drivers is much more complex because of the speeds and types of roads that vehicles use. Use your common sense for goodness sake if you have any. Most people learn to cycle as young children, and they do learn in 5 minutes. Cycling, including a cycles stopping distance are second nature well before teens. They don't need to do special training for that. And as far as I'm aware, most schools still do have cycling proficiency courses, which is all that is needed to learn about signalling and riding correctly. If people then choose to ignore their training, that is on them. Let me also tell you this. As someone who did that proficiency course, when I stick out my hand to move to the centre of the road (to make a right turn ahead) drivers do NOT on the whole slow down to let me move into position. I almost always have to force them to do so. Now you tell me who needs some training there? I could fill this debate with countless examples of how cycle training is pointless against drivers that don't see cyclists as valid road users. Just as I could do the same for those cyclists who break the rules too. What would be the point though? In my experience, most drivers who complain about cyclists as a group (as opposed to individual acts of poor behaviour), are simply impatient people who think they shouldn't ever have to slow down for another vehicle, cycle or otherwise. London roads are crowded at times, end of. Cyclists have the advantage of getting through jams, cycle too if you want to have that advantage. At all other times, just chill dude. Perspective goes a long way.

I diagree red Devil. You are not just mocking 'the grief industry' (whatever that is) you are also mocking the people who have died. Death is something we will all experience, and in some cases it will be a painful experience. People in the public have always made news upon their death - there's nothing new in that.

I found red devils pic a bit uncomfortable too.

It strikes me, and I may be wrong, that the OP is having a bit of a tough time at the moment. People under stress may have reactions to things that wouldn't bother most of us. I hope JM&J is ok.

Let's look at training Penguin. It does takes considerable training to learn how to drive a car or motorcycle for obvious reasons. It takes five minutes to learn how to ride a bicycle. The Highway Code is also something that can be learned in an afternoon. As we all know, just because someone goes through training, it doesn't mean they will abide by that training. If they did, there would never be any speeding motorists for example. Everyone knows that red means stop, but some cyclists deliberately decide to ignore that. Crash helmets and seat belts are much tougher items than a cycling helmet. They are designed to have some effect in high impact situations. A cycle helmet is just a bit of polystyrene. In common situations where a cyclist is killed, a cycle helmet won't make any difference. A cycle helmet will however help in non life threatening collisions, in certain circumstances. So seat belts and crash helmets were made compulsary because they do things that cycle helmets don't do, namely save lives.

But that car park also serves cash converters and another store (superdiscount?). I've never seen wardens there though so not sure how they enforce the overstay and I've never seen it full either, except at Christmas.

I don't want to get drawn into or be the cause of any spats here. I bought a jar of something I thought was honey, Fox corrected that and was right on that one. It wasn't the fault of Khans either. Nowhere does the jar claim to be honey, I just assumed it was. I understand that cheaper honey may be blended varieties as opposed to single hive honey, and it's ok for fox to point that out too. Personally I don't mind blended honey. It tastes just fine to me and is just as good for you as any honey. But that will be a matter of personal taste and that's fine too. Let's play nice everyone. There are more important things to get irritated by than honey.

So the Khans jar on inspection is as Fox says, BUT we have other jars of honey bought from a well known supermarkets, all in the ?2 range and they definitely ARE honey. And sainsburys do a jar of set honey for ?1.40, described as 100% honey. So it is possible to get 100% honey in those price ranges.

Yes, many people die without warning (and some would say it's the best way to go) but it's always hard on those left behind, family and friends. 72 is a good age though and she had a great and full life.

I wouldn't say the OP is outraged Cella. Seems like a simple request for advice as to whether it should be paid or not, that's all.

And ED IS overpriced. Can eat and drink cheaper in many parts of the West End.

lol Jeremy.

Cameron will do anything to side with popular opinion, if it serves a purpose for him.

Yeah I've never needed a ticket to park in Lidl in Peckham. Maybe it's a two hour parking rule or something? Anyway, I wouldn't pay it. It's not enforceable in the same way that council parking tickets are.

I would say always give way to a pedestrian (even if they are in the wrong) personally. Not worth injuring anyone for the principle of right of way. And I would say the same to drivers too. People will always do daft things on the roads and some of those things may well be dangerous, but there's no point in endangering anyone in order to make a point.

I get honey from khan's on Rye Lane. ?2 for a big jar and it has a piece of the actual honeycomb in it, which is a nice touch.

If he was legit and at the wrong address he would have called the 'office' to double check the details?

Well it all gets stranger doesn't it? I think Dadof4s reposte is spot on. If Dulwichlad really did witness an assault that provoked the incident, then go to the Police. But it could be equally likely that it was a different incident, only this time mother and son gave as good back - and why not? A bunch of 12 year olds aren't as tough as they think, no matter what comes out of their mouths. Totally agree JohnL. There usually is a dominent ringleader with children, and others follow, which is why Youth Support Services and Police target ring leaders when dealing with anti-social behaviour.

Interesting post Dave. We too have seen friends move further out or leave London altogether, many of whom are public sector workers, who just can't afford to buy in London at all. When people start families, they expect to be able to find a secure home. Given there is no security in renting, the only option for security becomes either social housing or buying a home, both of which are more and more out of reach. We had parental help to buy our home 7 years ago (couldn't have done it otherwise), but it shouldn't have to be like that. What kind of city are we going to end up with if ordinary people continue to be forced out?

Sigh. Does every thing posted on a forum have to be so analysed? It's simple. The OP posted an event that most people would agree is awful and would leave most people questioning the environment that kids grow up in to behave like this. And some kids DO behave like this. Children that don't behave normally often have poor parenting and peers around them (and I AM qualified to say that). Dulwichlad notably (after making the effort to join and post) hasn't come back to defend his position. Again, it is perfectly ok to draw a conclusion from that. It's clear from his posts that he is trying to implicate the mother and children as having provoked that exchange. Well agin I'm sorry, but harassing anyone with that kind of language at 12 years of age is not defensible. And finally I believe that a report to the Police WAS made. I believe those Police contacted the parents and I also choose to make the conclusion that Dulwichlad is connected to those children or parents, until he comes back to say otherwise. Of course some of that is circumstantial. You don't need to point that out to anyone. But this is also not a court, it's a forum where people are free to mull over things posted. And my replies to you are based purely on your replies to me. No ulterior motive there (as you seem to want to imply). That's what usually happens in debates. If you challenge someone's view, they reply to you.