Huguenot

73

73

It's ridiculous to talk about a European experiment without reducing every political decision to an experiment. The reason you don't is because you're trying to deliberately diminish and dismiss European politics as part of your foolish Euroscepticism. Europe remains our runaway leader in trade exports, in a boom driven by the economic benefits of political detente and the single currency. To snootily patronise the efforts that others have done to deliver this is insulting to their efforts and their sacrifices. As for the speed of convergence, you'll note that most world economists are recommending that it be accellerated not decellerated. The 'views' of Europeans regarding this are difficult to identify, but I'd be wary of taking the views of people like Tarot as an example of British sentiment when looking at other European nations. If you don't imagine that the European arrangements are also allowing themselves to be modified by a series of amendments that refelct reality then you're in cloud cuckoo land. As for 'head in the sand', don't be stupid - you weren't discussing the challenges, you we throwing up doomsday scenarios as a fait accompli, and you were delberately doing it to raise anxiety. Pathetic attempt at justification.

When did you last get catapaulted back in to the dark ages Tarot? When was the last time anyone dictated to you that your beliefs should take back seat to a primitive way of thinking? That'll be never. Nobody is forcing on you any mumbo jumbo crap. What you have is a deep seated negative prejudice that principally targets people of other customs, religions and nations.

Yay! Tarot on another anti-immigrant bender...

BTW your logic regarding controlled parking zone issues still doesn't stand up. CPZs are created in areas immediately adjacent to accessible and effective public transport or central London commercial areas - exactly the areas that attract residents who cannot afford or do not need or want a private car.

Amicus Curiae will do me - but my interest is from my time living in East Dulwich, the often aggressive sense of entitlement that people applied to the parking space outside my house, and my experiences running the first parking survey on this forum. I remain shocked by the number of people who tried multiple entries and lied about their location to try and influence the survey. I was staggered by the extraordinary actions of individuals who rammed parking notice signs on LL. I was disappointed by the number of traders that claimed that the spaces outside their shops were needed for customers whilst using them themselves. In particular the traders refused point blank to do the kind of surveys that could resolve parking problems intelligently - for example spending a week asking buying customers how they came to the shop, and what distance they travelled. At a shot they'd know how much of their business came from pedestrians, local or distant trade and could build an appropriate strategy. I reached the conclusion that they wouldn't do this because they actually didn't care - the car issue was about their personal needs not their customers. Above all I'm intrigued by how obsessed people are with their private cars that they will bully, lie and manipulate others to try and leverage their own convenience. I support Southwark's desire to build a community and successful economy not dependent upon private cars - it's building for the future. Now in my forties I've never owned a private car.

I don't understand your final calculation peckhamboy? Surely if CPZs only covered 11% of the borough's roads that would be 100% of people living in them who buy a permit? I admire your rather tedious strategy regarding where I live with some humour - the first evidence of somebody with an unpersuasive argument is that they try and prevent other people from expressing an opinion. Please consider me as a helpful contributor to the discourse, allowing those people who will finally decide the outcome to refine or clarify their opinions, and casting light upon some inconsistencies in the arguments or claims of others. In that sense I am no more or less than 80% of the other people on this thread. I'm sure you'd only seek to prevent that if you thought insight, honesty and transparency were not something that you valued :)) Returning to some of the arguments - it should be noted that those outside the area will not be affected as much as those within it simply because the area outside is larger - in mathematical times around 3 times larger. This means that a reduction in parking density inside by 10% would result in a theoretical increase outisde the zone of only 3%. It's just maths. That doesn't take into account the commuters who would get the message that using ED as a free parking lot is no more than being a social parasite. Removing these leeches is likely to have a very positive impact on the ED community. I look forward to the days when people realise having a car with the subsequent environmental impact (both in terms of our streets and our planet) that it does, is a selfish privilege not a right, and decide the price is not worth paying. With that I leave you in peace to mull over this rather unpleasant 'some people aren't entitled to speak' strategy.

Stinking drunk?

I was a resident of Crawthew Grove when the first parking restrictions on LL itself were put in place. It was a sensible strategy to alleviate the jams caused by selfish motorists, 'just popping in' shoppers from 5 mins away and the local traders blocking traffic by selfishly and irresponsibly trying to park and double park immediately outside their destination. Seething local traders insisted on a militant 'direct action' campaign to stop the restrictions - trotting out the usual garbage about disabled people, geriatrics and young mothers crippled by their young family. It was no surprise at all to see on the day following the installation of the parking signs some bright spark had driven into three of them and knocked them down. Now of course we have a more freely moving LL, a better, safer environment for pedestrians, a more attractive public transport system AND - God forbid - a thriving local shopping community. Frankly it seems to me that opposition to the controlled parking zone is being pursued by people outside the zone who take advantage of these streets for their own convenience. There is no surprise that these people would reject it - they get the downside but not the upside that local residents get. A 'tight' time period would target predominantly daytime commuters, and John K is having a laugh if he thinks that restricted parking in such a tiny time period is going to have any impact on his store.

Ameliesmum don't worry about the angry wierdies - it's perfectly natural to ask around friends and acquaintances in the first instance. With 20,000 daily users in a community of only 5,000 residents it's highly likely that someone on here would know about what had happened. Moreover if I had been a mugging victim I would probably find it even more reassuring that someone in the local community was looking out for me in addition to the police. So that's a great thing. :) It does sound like it was stolen from a pub or something, so if nothing comes up in the next 48 hours it might be worth alerting the Safer Neighborhood Team. Maybe check in at the Herne?

I don't think you're paranoid HAL9000, I think you get off on creating stress and unhappiness. In your last post you suggested everyone could lose all their savings. Not only is this such a marginal probability that we'd be better off worrying about asteroids, but you couldn't possibly hope to gain anything by making these claims. These claims, and you in making them, are pathetic. Why would you want to make people feel anxious, sick and distressed?

And how you'd love a collapse wouldn't you HAL9000? I'm pleased to see that it's just business as usual. Little bit of stress, but largely unless people like you can drive a panic there'll be nothing much to talk about. Good heavens, the Italian parliament working on a Saturday to make sure it all goes smoothly - doesn't really fit into armageddon, but I'm sure you'll find a reason to prove it's a presager. The rates are steady because confidence is high and business is average. Tin foil hat pillocks are praying for a disaster. ;-)

I guess that the easiest way of finding their aims and objectives is to ask them - and they don't seem to have an answer according to any journo (left or right) who has asked them. That makes your second question a wee bit redundant - it doesn't have to be futile if it doesn't achieve its aims (it's a journey after all), but if it doesn't have an aim then it cannot even partially achieve it.

There are doctors and nurses on this site who know a lot more than me, but there are several human vaccines that require more than one injection over a period of time. These include diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, haemophilus influenzae type b, polio, MMR, meningococcus and Hepatitus B for example. Some of these are lifetime: for high risk indidivudals tetanus requires boosting every 10 years. It's a good example of where something sounds believeable, but your mates might not have the best advice. Jean Dodds appears well informed, but I do notice she suggests homeopathic alternatives (so long as you sign a disclaimer).

That's right acm, and asking children to wear poppies to a remembrance service where they can discuss and explore its meaning is part of the process "to educate our children so they can make informed decisions" when they are adults. As you've seen in the comments above, events like these are often used as opportunities by people who don't give a shit about the sacrifices of others to use children as proxies in an infantile attack on authority. That in itself is a tragedy. I share your sadness with the daily deaths of individuals on national service.

You need to be really careful with this kind of debate - it's not any old opinion that you're looking for, it's an educated independent medical assessment of risks and benefits. The MMR debate created a crisis in UK childcare precisely because of people drawing conclusions from fabricated scare stories without reference to medical advice - principally on the advice of their mates and general gossip. Your dogs are predominantly safe now BECAUSE most people vaccinate their dogs. If you start a debate suggesting it's vaccination isn't necessary, then the percentage of vaccinations will go down, and the incidence of viral canine infections will rise dramatically. The odds that your own dogs will get these infections will also rise, and this debate will prove pointless. It's noticeable that most of these debates kick off with some completely unjustified and abusive claim that doctors are just there to steal your money. So be warned.

The figure of speech is called metonymy - when something is not described as itself, but by a thing closely associated with it. Hence you don't have to be after 'fish' to go 'fishing'. When trademarks are involved it often is as a result of a product becoming so widespread, that it becomes a generic name for the product rather than it's source. When the trademark achieves this, it becomes an 'eponym'. Hence 'searching' is called 'googling', and 'vacuum cleaning' is called 'hoovering': this is using an eponym metonymically.. Most marketers spend their career trying to drive trademarks and brands down the road from distinctive to generic, because it shows they've won the battle of public awareness. It's somewhat ironic that in doing so, they lose control of the trademark...

Broadmoor

Really? It seems like an unspohisticated schoolboy pun with distinctly noisome undertones. Dreadful name. *shudders*

Who 'think Germany, France, italy etc are such beacons of deceny and morality'?

Hannibal Lecter?

Chener Books, is it odd? You can provide people with information through their door, nailed on lampposts and knock on doors as much as possible, but there will always be people who ignore this, and there will always be people who pretend not to have been informed just to cause trouble. It seems you don't live in the affected area, so can I take it that your campaign is either politically motivated, or simply to guarantee more parking space for your customers? Penguin68, is your campaign politically motivated too, or do you live in the zone? Just asking, like.

I do think I'm being reasonable. I've just reread the thread and can't see anything I've said that's unreasonable. Meanwhile, BB100 has taken the perfectly insignificamt and worthwhile enterprise of a school Remembrance Day ceremony and equated it with brainwashing and child abuse, and DaveR is furious with me because he incorrectly thinks I want to force people to wear poppies with threats of violence. He does this without reading my posts so I have to keep repeating them.

What is the matter with you? How many times do I have to say it? I'll just copy and paste my previous answer shall I? On this thread, responding to your previous ridiculous comments 7 posts ago: "So I don't agree poppies should be compulsory, but if a school has made that choice it's within their remit, and not for some little oik to start strutting around talking about his 'rights'. He should grow up and learn to get along with other people."