Blah Blah

That sounds very suspicious. A community warden (as they are properly called) would be on foot. They always work in pairs and as someone has pointed out wear a special red uniform with 'community warden' clearly written on it. But logic would say that only a Safer Neighbourhood Police team would do something like this, as part of an anti-burglary campaign perhaps.

If he's not very sociable or struggles to be so then finding something he's very interested in is probably the only way to motivate him to join something and stick with it. There are lots of activities like politics, the arts, free lectures, etc that he could look at doing. Someone suggested volunteering too. There are all kinds of charities that young people volunteer at. Crisis is a good charity for that, working with the homeless, amongst others. They btw have a volunteering information day this Saturday.

Exdulwicher makes some good points though. Cyling on pavement when there are no pedestrians around doesn't harm anyone. Similarly, cycling through a red light in the middle of the night when there is no traffic around doesn't harm anyone either. Both are technically wrong/ illegal but cyclists are also affected by things, like weather or congestion, which will affect their behaviour sometimes. Cycling on a pavement in a way that forces pedestrians to give way is a conscious act of danger but the vast majority of cyclists would never do this. This is also something I have never seen any cyclist do on Rye Lane either (apart from the shared cycle path at the north end). A cyclist on the road has every right to be there, cycling as fast as the speed limit and conditions allow, but then again, very few cyclists make anywhere near the speed limit. So this is why the OPs question has no merit. Cyclists over 16 can be fined for riding on a pavement, so legislation already exists for this. Just becuse it is impossible to fine everyone that does it isn't a reason for banning every cyclist, any more than banning all drivers because the few that drive badly are never caught, would be a reasonable idea either.

But the psychology is completely different. Children first learn to ride bikes on pavements, and continue to do so. Only after the age of 16 can a person be given a fine for riding on the pavement, by which time the lack of any feeling of illegality about pavements has long gone. No-one ever learns to drive a vehicle on pavements or going the wrong way on roads. So it's not hard to see the psychological difference in attitude.

It isn't a huge wiggle round to avoid the Choumert one way. Sand street is less than 20 metres away and is the correct way round. It adds maybe only 50 metres to the Journey max. Cyclists are just being lazy.

That response sums up perfectly how ridiculous your whole argument is Alice. Cyclists can cycle as fast as the speed limit allows. A cyclist riding at 20mphr (most ride at around 10-12 mphr) would be a potential athlete so the whole speed thing is a non argument.

A petition will achieve nothing. The only way to remove someone through their home is through the court. There are specific grounds for eviction under law. If they are tenants, only if anti-social behaviour breaches a tenancy agreement is there grounds for eviction, and there are specific definitions of what might be classed as anti social behaviour. Keeping a diary for a considerable length of time is part of the process of gathering evidence after you have contacted the landlord and made them aware.

There are lots of homeless organisations that provide food and most rough sleepers use them. It's usually quite obvious when someone is newly homeless, as their capacity to cope breaks down very quickly and eventually they find their way to one of the organisations that can help, usually by referral. If someone is begging, I always ask them what they need the money for. That gives me the opportunity to buy what they need for them. If they won't allow that but insist on having the money, then it's likely for alcohol, drugs or some other reason, and I don't give them it.

That sounds then as though his mental health issue leads to anti-social behaviour. He might not even be homeless. One of the problems with care in the community when it was introduced is that it is far more difficult to monitor behaviour and medication etc in that environment. But targetted in patient treatment is very expensive. The Police do have a procedure for referral, but short of locking someone up (or sectioning them), their power is limited. What often happens is a merry-go-round of exlusion, behaviour orders, overnight stays in a cell etc, If alcohol or drugs are a factor, then it becomes even more difficult (and expensive) to fix. Many people claiming to be homeless for the purposes of begging, are not homeless at all, but need the money to feed an alcohol addiction. Homeless charities and support services do not tolerate anti-social behaviour. He may well be beyond the help of available services to him. It's a difficult one.

Good post KidK. Next weekend we have a family gathering for a parent's 70th in a restaurant. There will be at least six kids, among 10 adults who will all probably be drinking. There will be noise :)

Why did the man throw money at the OP and tell them to shove it up ..... etc? What happened the moment before that? That's why I wrote that it's hard to know what really happened. The OPs own words suggest to me that something else may have happened? Just on homelessness. The number of rough sleepers, and people in temporary accomodation is rising significantly directly as a result of this government's policies. The number of people in need of treatment for mental health conditions is also rising. But there is no increase in resources or central funding to accomodate this. If we don't want people like this 'littering' the streets then some thought needs to be given as to why they end up there, and why there are no resources to change their circumstances. A letter to your MP might be a more appropriate response than criminalising clearly unwell people.

Many homeless people (rough sleepers) have mental health problems. It's one of the reasons why they end up being homeless. He may be known to mental health services, he may not. People with certain types of psychiatric conditions can be very frightening for some people as well. Hard to know what the full story is from the posts above.

Wagon wheels bigger than your hand.

Alice, at some point later last year, a pedestrian was killed by a lorry while crossing no more than ten metres away from the pelican crossing on the High Street. That's what can tragically happen when someone takes a risk. I don't know if you are trolling here or not, but anyone can see how ridiculous your reasoning is.

But I could equally point out that pedestrians don't look before crossing. What must we do to stop them doing that? Cyclists have every right to be on the road and pedestrians need to be as careful when crossing as cyclists should be when cycling. I think you mean the shared path at the North of Rye Lane Sue, the lane on the pavement? Many cyclists have complained about this path too, because even when cycling at walking speed, it's too easy to almost collide with a pedestrian if they are not aware of the path. Having said that, I've had cycle bells ringing at me for cycling to slow along it! The answer to some cyclists riding in a careless way is not to ban all cyclists, any more than banning all cars because of a few wreckess drivers. The same goes for the few wreckless pedestrians too.

Why on earth would anyone want to ban cyclists from Rye Lane? Why not ban buses, cars, and pedestrians too?

We got rid of BT some months ago after continued problems. It seems with BT that if you are near enough to an exchange, you get the service they promise. If you are not, then it is poor. Also they prioritise business customers over residential customers. With Virgin now and much happier.

Not all junior doctors are members of the BMA and it was also agreed that there would still be emergency cover by some junior doctors.

This is the same government that claimed tax credit cuts wouldn't leave people worse off and tried to hide deaths of people found fit to work by their flawed work capability assessments. I wouldn't place any credability on government claims. They are very poor on impact assessment.

Medicine and law have always been seen as lucrative, respected and stable professions by parents, but as with most things it depends on speciality. That's not really the issue though. And housing is something that affects everyone, and both New Labour and the Conservatives are responsible for the place we are in. With more of the same to come, you have to wonder how bad it needs to get before government does something meaningful about it. My own feeling is that ultimately, income tax will need to rise - although it's worth pointing out that NI has risen over the years, which amounts to the same thing (they both go into the same pot).

Broadly I agree with that summary LondonMix. Retention is a huge problem for the NHS and Jeremy Hunt seems to have no understanding of that. Similarly, the nursing bursery scheme was also introduced because of a shortage in nursing recruitment. A third of NHS staff are from overseas. Srisky though is also right. Those higher levels of pay are dependent on length of service and experience. No-one walks into a higher level consultancy job. As for junior doctors, ?40k with overtime isn't unreasonable.

Nurses start on less than that (?21k) and the government is set to replace bursaries with student loans. Uncleglen, it takes at least 10 years to qualify as a GP, and much longer to reach consultant level. It requires a lot of hard work, study and student debt. Renumeration reflects that. And GPs btw, start on salaries of ?55k after qualification. Salary will rise according to experience and length of service. Junior doctors on the other hand earn between ?22k and ?28k. It's very easy to pluck out the salaries of top consultants and think that is the norm for pay scale, but it's actually not true. Most people working within the NHS are on very average salaries for their levels of skill and expertise.

This is terrible. One of the reasons people feel safe walking across there and cycling is because of the CCTV. But if the CCTV is no good then what is the point of it being there? I hope you are ok Righty.

Agreed. Vaping should not be advertised as an alternative to smoking, but as an aid to quitting. It's also worth pointing out that E-cigs only started appearing after several countries/ states etc started to introduce smoking bans in public places. Proof as if any were needed that only legislation can force manufacturers to change. We shouldn't be afraid to demand regulation.

Family gathering for us, so a house party I guess. Never been one to do New Year in a pub full of strangers. Don't see the appeal of that.