BrandNewGuy

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There will be great interest as to whether Conway > hit the advertised date of 31st August for > completion of Townley works. Last time I spoke to > guys on the ground they said no way. Full term begins at both JAGS and Alleyns on Sept 3rd (staff and young ones in on the 1st and 2nd). If the works aren't completed by then, it will be chaos... oh, no, wait, everyone will be happily cycling in, so it won't be a problem. As you were...

This is local and sounds hilariously awful. This wasn't the place, was it? http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/04/the-pub-where-standing-is-forbidden-the-white-hart-in-tulse-hill-draws-terrible-reviews/

And only five signatures can be shown to be in support of the deputation request.

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi BNG > > The document is in fact a 'deputation request' - > almost a full side of A4 stating concerns about > the speed and volume of traffic on Melbourne Grove > and asking for a barrier, more double yellow > lines, and any other traffic calming measures that > the council can come up with. This page is signed > by five people. Attached to this document are a > further five and half pages of signatures. There > is no statement at the top of any of these pages > indicating what measure the signatories are > supporting. This means that these pages of > signatures do not constitute a 'petition' in > favour of a defined measure. The rules on > petitions are clear. Tnanks, Jenny, that's what I thought. So can we not refer to a petition given that it clearly did not exist in the form that some claim it did?

James Barber Wrote: > hi BNG, > The submission from the deputation at June DCC > showed a majority of residents of Melbourne Grove. > So perhaps I over egged when I said most and > should have stated majority. This assumes non have > since changed their minds. I thought you'd said they wanted traffic calming of some kind. That's got nothing to do with preventing cars from using the road. Until we see the petition, we won't know for sure. Please can someone post it here.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi P68, > That seems unfair when residents just don't want > so many cars - I'd imagine mostly from outside the > area - rat-running down their street. Let's unpick that. When you say 'residents', you mean 'some residents'. You can imagine they're from outside the area, but you don't know. So not really worth adding, unless it's a faintly nasty 'us and them' thing. And 'rat running'? You mean 'driving'. So some residents don't like so many cars driving down their road. That doesn't seem quite so community-minded any more when expressed in plain English.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm particularly keen to see the terms and extent > of the so-called "feasibility" study on the > Melbourne Grove separation barrier. I really hope you're not holding your breath, because you won't get an answer.

Back to the notion of a 'rat run', which is one of those 'boo' phrases that's deployed to prevent thought. Having cars avoiding main roads/congestion does not necessarily lead to greater speeding or more dangerous driving leading to accidents. From what we know, Melbourne Grove does not have a speeding problem and does not have a problem with accidents. On top of that, there's no evidence of a recent increase in traffic. So unless residents' real objection is to cars simply driving down 'their' road, they have no privilege to trump the desires of others living in the area or of road users, who have a perfect right to avoid congestion in a safe way.

Given that the last incarnation was 'independent', give me a chain any day, as long as its not one of the big pubcos. Some of my favourite boozers are owned by chains ? notably Antic and Late Knights, locally.

I don't want to speculate about the cause, but from what I saw (we walked past just after it happened), the car involved looked like it had been turning right out of Frogley Rd.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > General issues don't generally interest me. > Someone next door farted when the wind was blowing > in my direction. To be fair, there are several long-running threads in General issues which cover important decisions about local planning, building, roads etc. And I think the admins allow more 'lounge'-type debates in General issues as long as they're close enough to the topic of the thread. Agree about the bloody games in the Lounge though...

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would think that most Chains are PLC's and have > 100's of stores. Boots. Tescos. > > I was under the impression that outlets like > Franco Manca were franchises and not chains ?? > > Happy to Stand Corrected if not the case.. > > DulwichFox Not necessarily. Chains could be private companies running the businesses directly.

Read it aloud with an Inspector Clouseau accent and it all makes sense.

And some people are perfectly able-bodied, get on the bus, stand in the exit doors and travel for more than just a few stops. The reason? They're lazy and selfish numpties.

Looking forward to it :-)

But, hey, let's not worry. Two years ago, Southwark Labour promised free swim and gym for every Southwark resident if they got into power, which they did, of course. http://www.southwarklabour.co.uk/latest-news/southwark/news.aspx?p=102279 And what's happened so far? http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200087/sports_and_leisure/3689/free_swim_and_gym/2 "At the moment this is a pilot scheme for 18s and under and over 60s, which started on Saturday 23 May 2015 for Southwark residents. The general offer for free swim and gym is planned to begin in July 2016, and will cover all Southwark residents." Did anyone say "fraudulent promises"?

cmck83 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm also really annoyed that > you cannot just join the gym. You have to pay for > swimming and the gym as part of the membership. Indeed. And I don't want a gym, but they no longer offer a swimming-only membership like they used to. Crazy.

Brum here too, when I was a kid. First curry would have been my Mum's crockpot chicken curry. Pretty good. Came with a side of sultanas and desiccated coconut ? hey, this was the 70s. First eat out curry would have been in one of the cheap curry cafes on Ladypool Rd in Balsall Heath, Birmingham ? now the heart of the 'Balti Triangle'. Chicken off the bone curry with naan and lassi for less than the price of a pint...

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BrandNewGuy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > They do for us and we're SE22. You can check > > here: > > https://groceries.iceland.co.uk/login > > > > This is internet ordering/delivery, not instore > > purchase/delivery. > > That's where I did check. Got a 'sorry we don't > deliver in your area' response. Weird. Ah, just checked some postcodes and it looks like SE22 west of Lordship Lane (and north of Townley Rd) is fine, but not east.

They do for us and we're SE22. You can check here: https://groceries.iceland.co.uk/login This is internet ordering/delivery, not instore purchase/delivery.

JesusMaryandJoseph Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Going further afield for things is a bind as I > have no car, and carrying heavy goods back in the > bus is a no no, even with a shopping trolley. Iceland do internet ordering with free delivery on orders over ?35. If that's too much, perhaps you could go in with a neighbour to shop for the cheap basics and save yourself the carrying.

Really? No-one in this country has read Ayn Rand, never mind know who the hell she was. And Thatcher's comment was perhaps harsh, but in context makes more sense. If 'society' is going to solve your problem, then who do you actually turn to? Here's what she said: "I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it: 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation." Some would argue that industrial relations in the 1970s perfectly exemplified the 'sod you' attitude you mention. And don't forget that the film "I'm All Right Jack" came out way back in the 1950s. And FYI I hated Thatcher and think Ayn Rand was a weird psycho.

My father did legal work for Birds/General Foods back in the 70s when they were set to launch 'Honey Pudding'. He pointed out that it didn't contain any honey at all, so they couldn't call it that. Within minutes the marketing team had come up with 'Hunny Pudding' and the rest is (very unpleasant tasting) history.

Wow. Cheap shop bread is crap as are most electric breadmakers. Most of us settle for crap, but I admire those who want real bread in the way that I want real ale. More power to their (kneading) elbow.

Might be a whole cellarful, though, Foxy :-)