Huguenot

New Topic, new topic.... admin, anything you can do? Where, when, how???

The Lightning Seeds to play a live set every Saturday morning in North Cross Road. Anyone.. anyone .. Bueller.. Bueller.. anyone?

Okay, next one was Joni Mitchell - Big Yellow Taxi! Deffo.

I just listened to 'Birdhouse in Your Soul' by 'They Might Be Giants' and reflected in my vaguely camp lost in the eighties kinda way that this should be on DM's mix tape. Say I'm the only bee in your bonnet? DM, what else is on your mix? PS yes I know it wasn't an eighties song, but Sinead O'Connor came on next

jeez Mockney, is third in the table not good enough?

Hurrah! Polly's back!

Concern appreciated - come find the love on March 16th!

Lol! Clever use of important references! I would imagine that someone with your sense of social responsibility would have offered himself to adimn as an advisor before threatening the members of the forum? But then you wouldn't sound so smart perhaps? Well Bawdy old feller, you won't pass your post-graduate with this one. My orginal observations remain accurate. Your challenges and speculative position owe more to Poirot than Kavanagh, and draw more from the former in presentation than the latter. I note that your insight reflects the educated position of 'Dr' Gillian Keith, as does your PR twittishness. If you manage to sustain your current skill set and ego, I wish only that you do not fuddle in the cadaver of your putative career. Were that TV could provide a postgrad. Mind you, given my experience of media degrees, it may do yet. In what peculiar backwater did you imagine that your continued baseless threat to the administrator would support your cause (whatever that may be?). Please give us an insight into your mature motivation?

Zigackly, there's plenty of love from yours truly, from Mockney, from Admin, from Crystal Carrington, from Keef, from Shambles, from Georgia, from Nero, deffo from Quaywe, DM, Batdog, Cap'n, Snorks, OT... even MattC etc. etc. to name but a few (sorry for those I haven't recalled!). Come meet us and find the love! There was even a lurker's brother who showed the luuurve (you know who you are)... The Dave. The Sixteenth!

Okeley Dokeley. BTW is MattC coming - honestly we're not all WI!!! ;-)

See all about the Dulwich Hamlet EDF Supporters Club

:))

I never heard the case put fairer...!

BREAKING NEWS *** Acording to the NHTSA study of 2003, 44.5% of accidents involving cyclists were the direct responsiblity of cyclists who were breaking traffic law or riding recklessly. Of these two thirds involved cyclists travelling on pavements, or failing to stop at red lights. In around 25% of these accidents it was fatal for the cyclist. The majority of these cite that because the cyclist was in an unexpected place travelling at unexpected speed in an unexpected direction, neither pedestrians nor drivers could reasonably anticpate their behaviour. If you bear in mind that the vast majority of cyclists use the road lawfully most of the time, then that's a huge kill rate for those taking MattC's recommendations..

I did ask - but it's so small there isn't an area to reserve in all practicality. If we rock up reasonably early we'll dominate the place anyway - but I don't feel it's fair to ask the place to be a private party if we can't guarantee numbers!

Well, of course, if cyclists were to walk their bike, they would be able to cross a red light.... :))

No Matt - I see your point quite clearly. I've just not accepted that one can contrast aggressive cycling with some other lawless act to prove that the former isn't anti-social. It's a specious argument - I'm not being puritanical, just refusing to allow you to move the goalposts. If I were to accept the premise (which I don't), I would say that some of those crimes you are listing are at a different scale of lawlessness and antisocial behaviour to others. Speeding (for an example of relativity) fits into two areas: 75mph at 3am on a motorway, and 40pmh (when 80% of pedestrian accident victims die) in a 30 mph limit (when 80% of victims live). My conviction in this context is that cycling on pavements fits into the 'bad' area of anti-social behaviour. Parking on double-yellows, blocking disabled access ramps and littering would be other offensive 'petty' crimes. They elevate one's own selfish priorities far beyond those of other members of society. In order to exact these offences one needs to demonstrate the kind of egocentrism worthy of a 4 year old child. The reason I don't accept your premise of relativity is that it delegates the decision making to the people often least capable of making good choices, exhilarated by the moment and positively bursting with their own self-righteousness. I don't believe cycle-couriers should have the discretion to choose under what context they may hurl themselves onto the pavement screaming at passersby to get out of the way leaving a trail of destruction in their wake. Boateng should not be recommending a course of action which would leave them unprosecuted. As for nasty Guardian readers, you're mixing your metaphors. Middle England reads the Mail, and are often referred to as nasty. You left them behind I think? By contrast Guardian readers are worthy but dull. I suspect it's the dull bit that you are fighting ;-)

A question to the traders - all the squashed cardboard boxes seem to be mixed in with general plastic and other cr@p. Do you guys separate out recyclable goods? How responsive would you be to a low-cost local trader who took just your recyclable goods separately to the recycling unit on Walworth Road?

Great article here: Paxman on Litter. I know it's a bit Women's Institute to think about anyone but myself, but can we find a better place for local traders to dump their litter for collection than heaped in carrier bags on LL? When the wind blows etc....

Lol! 'Don't cycle on the pavements' is 'middle english' and 'Women's Institute'? So what are pavement cyclists? Edgy? Right On? Do they 'Own the Streets'? Do they swerve in and out of traffic and pedestrians at will because they are modern day heroes? Are they immortal? I take from these postings that their incisive intuition, their supernatural foresight and catlike agility mean that they (more than most) are capable of making the split second decisions that deliver them to their destination ten seconds sooner to save the fair maiden in distress.. Pavement cyclists are real men... Your post reminds me of one of those road safety ads that cover 13 year-old boys before they're plastered over the tarmac. The things is that really cycling like this isn't heroic, it's cowardly. Pavement cyclists probably know it too, and that's what really chafes.

And there it starts... people stop walking down the street, the absence of witnesses eggs on the crims, the absence of customers closes the shops, closed shops push out residents... Come on everyone, we should be using the street more when things like this happen?

Aha! A CPZ for moths... ingenious.

How incredibly selective of the cycling community. Just because Paul Boateng has wound out some nincompoop observation that the law isn't the law when you don't happen to agree with it, you choose to cite his brilliance because it meets your needs? Do cyclists agree with flexibility in law when it applies to Iraq? Or arms sales to Saudi Arabia? Or cash for gongs? What tosh. People who support this position should be embarassed. Discretion is the watchcard for useless law - the only people to whom discretion would not be offered are the ones with the attitude to abuse it and the devious wit to get away with it. Walk your bike because it's rational, safe, fair to other pavement users and socially inclusive. Don't choose to ride it because you think you can get away with it - believe it or not, it's not all about you.

We used RDA - Richard Dudzkicki Associates on Lacon Grove. I thought they were excellent, helped us source good builders at a great price and project managed throughout to keep things on the right timeline and to budget. Excellent.

Cycling's a great environmentally friendly form of transport. Yet I really struggle to believe that anyone thinks cycling on the pavement is justifiable under any but the most exceptional circumstances. I can see how the cycling community could build themselves into such a mob hysteria at the constant threat they face on the road that they decide to visit the same crime upon pedestrians as some sort of warped quid pro quo. This is deranged. The 'coast is clear' argument is almost cretinous - I've been hit at least twice recently stepping out of a shop and my own front gate by cyclists who perceived an empty pavement to be a free run. If I'd have been less spry it would have been broken limbs. To not recognise this shows limited capacity for rational thought. Pavements are for all: kids, young mums, the elderly, the disabled. Allowing cyclists to use them with impunity prioritises one minority group above the needs of 95% of the population. The only reasonable speed for a pavement is walking speed, and the law recognises that by asking cyclists to walk their bikes. You cannot 'give way' to a pedestrian unless you're matching or slower than walking pace. If you need to put your bike on the pavement, fine, no problem, walk it. Or perhaps I've missed the point, was this a joke??