BrandNewGuy

Those will be ring-necked parakeets. Escaped once upon a time but now recognised as a breeding species in the UK.

Even the BBC managed to get this story wrong. The judge did *not* rule against Bideford Council saying prayers before a meeting. He ruled against them including it as part of the agenda and thus the "important business" of the council. If they want prayers before the meeting, non-compliant councillors can happily absent themselves, but if it's part of the "important business", it's not right for the council to allow councillors to absent themselves. So they're free to say prayers before the meeting, just as Tower Hamlets are free to say Muslim prayers before theirs - just so long as no one is obliged to turn up, listen and/or take part. Far from this episode being part of a "militant secular" attack on Christianity, the reaction looks more like a concerted attempt by the C of E establishment to muscle its way back into public life as in the "good" old days.

Heaven Is In Your Mind - Traffic

Yes there are.

A shout-out for Jimmy McDonough's Neil Young biography "Shakey" - and look out later in the year for Neil's autobiography "Waging Heavy Peace". Worst biography? Jerry Hopkins' and Danny Sugarman's hilariously OTT "No One Here Gets Out Alive": "My personal belief is that Jim Morrison was a god."

You can hear skylarks closer to home - try a sunny morning on Erith Marhes, which is walkable from Belvedere station. Spring and early summer are the best times for hearing the songs.

Great! When do we start...?

Huguenot, I'm not sure there's any more to be read into this happening at this time than that the government is hoping the double whammy of Hester refusing his bonus and Fred being publicly horsewhipped will give enough fresh meat to the ravneous public so that they don't clamour for real change - and it will draw Labour's sting on the issue. Cynically, I fear the government's right...

It's almost certainly a blackbird - or possibly a robin or wren. As Sue says, they're plotting out territories already. We have a male wren by our house who strikes up at about 5.00am - very loud and distinctive song: hit the Sounds button here.

Change the record, fazer71. If you have a "solution", why not get engaged with this thread instead of indulging in pointless sniping?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a bit like Cameron slamming down his hand and > announcing a tax on the UK production of Camembert > and Bordeaux. :))

And there's a certain irony that most of the positive contributions on the thread suggesting practical actions that we can take now seem to come from those who were opposed to CPZ. I suggest we all decamp over there and throw in our penn'orth. Only by looking at all the issues surrounding local car use, parking, public transport etc are we likely to improve the situation or at least stop it getting worse.

Misty Roses - Tim Hardin

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are no CAMRA beards in the CPT to the best > of my knowledge. Though I like a drop of ale > myself you'll find most of the regulars drink > lager or Guinness. They do however do a nice pint > of Doom Bar and when it's on Spitfire or London > Pride. You'll find plenty of those real ale buffs > in Hoopers though. And in mentioning Hoopers > there's one pub that has changed for the better > and still kept it "real". Agreed about Hoopers - it's the closest thing locally to my "perfect" pub, though Mrs BrandNewGuy pointed out to me that they have a troublesome licence review for "public nuisance" to contend with.

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BrandNewGuy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > it's the beer not the pub their judging. > > I went in the CPT once for a bitter. The barmaid > offered me a taste of the guest ales etc etc, it > was typical CAMRA pub style service. Problem was, > of the other two people I was drinking with, one > drank lager and the other was on spirits. They > didn't want to sit in the dingy bar with surly > locals and furniture that smelt a bit damp just so > I could enjoy a "good" beer (it really wasn't). > > Personally I welcome the change and I'm hoping > someone does something with The Castle as well! Fine, but herrd seemed to be suggesting that if they do up the CPT the "CAMRA beards" would be ruffled. All I was suggesting that belonging to CAMRA does not mean you prefer sub-standard pubs. I've made my feelings clear on here about the CPT, so any improvement is welcome. Personally, I don't think there's a really decent pub in ED, but given our "demographic" I'm not sure it's possible any more.

herrd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who cares if the CAMRA beards are ruffled? Eh? So a decent boozer shouldn't have at least one decently kept real ale? CAMRA aren't generally fussy about pubs - you might be surprised to find lots of Wetherspoons in the Good Beer Guide. But, as they say, it's the beer not the pub their judging.

Seven By Seven - Hawkwind

peterstorm - Hear, hear. At the conclusion of the C*Z episode, I was adamant that pro- or anti-C*Z residents should genuinely try to come up with short-, medium- and long-term ideas for East Dulwich's transport/parking needs. Let's throw all ideas into the pot, however crazy they might seem... Don't expect government (national or local) to solve our problems for us.

Oh, and it's very disappointing that the Council didn't lead/initiate/encourage/follow this sort of discussion instead of focusing on the C*Z...

I agree with much of that (except for The Simpsons-style monorail bit...), but there are things we can do now. I'm doubtful of the provision of extra parking (beyond the obvious action of bringing obsolete doctor's or disabled bays etc back into use). I suspect - without any evidence to back it up - that making parking easier increases the likelihood that more people will come and park and thus does not solve your problem in the long run. In the same way, it took planners decades to work out that building roads, by and large, adds to road use rather than eases congestion. Build it and they will come... But I suspect we can ease a certain amount of local parking without attracting further cars into the area. If we accept where we are at the moment in East Dulwich with regards to the number of residents' and local workers'/businesses' cars, and the number of available spaces, there are things we can do now. 1. The painting of bays in heavily parked roads. They needn't have any legal force, but they do encourage "tidy" parking. 2. The Council (and/or local residents with parking problems) should approach the bigger local schools and businesses and lean on them to produce a "green" action plan or whatever you want to call it. Part of that would be to ask how many of their staff drive to work and ask how many might be able to carpool or go by public transport (if necessary with some incentive). 3. Provision of car club places - I'm not sure to what extent, but I certainly intend not buying another car after our current (13-year-old) one conks out. We'll make do with taxis for local trips, car club for medium ones and car hire for long journeys, never mind using public transport whenever "convenient". If car owners take depreciation into account as well as tax, insurance, fuel, MOT and maintenance, they might be surprised at the real cost of owning and driving a car...

Maybe you could let us hypocritical fat lazy idiots and stupid cretins who are off their tits know what you would actually do.

gedwina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 47 pages on the CPZ > > 4/5 pages in the sales section about a local > resident facing homelessness > > Interesting contrast. In what way?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Since the Lib Dems voted for CPZ on limited > streets, and there was clearly at least one street > that wanted it, it strikes me that the Lib Dems > were the only councillors trying to find a > compromise solution for everyone - the very spirit > of democracy. The compromise solutions involved limited CPZs on an "experimental basis". When I asked the perfectly reasonable question as to how the success or failure of the experiment was to be judged, I didn't get an answer - because they haven't thought of one yet. No-one in their right minds would allow an experiment to go ahead without knowing the parameters by which it was being judged. But "experimental" sounds sort of cosy and votable for... Oh, and not all compromises are necessarily the right solution. > Why buddug thinks James is going to come out into > the foyer to be accosted by a furio who wants to > get their freehold for nothing is beyond me. I can > imagine buddug raising her voice and crowing as > she plays to the gallery... This is a thread about the CPZ - please take your argument elsewhere. > There has also been a ridiculous amount of > unnecessary attacks on the Lib Dems and > particularly James throughout this thread from > people using the CPZ as a vehicle for their own > issues. And what would those be? > Whilst Mscrawthew only wants to thanks those who > opposed the CPZ I'd like to state my admiration > for those residents who had the temerity to stand > up to the large numbers of aggressive bullies who > want to exploit their neighborhood as a free > carpark. "large numbers"? How many? Are these the "commuters" we're talking about? Let's get this clear - the council's own research counted 100 commuters in the whole area - but their definition of a commuter is someone who parks for more than 6 hours in a day but not overnight. So that includes local teachers, shopworkers, office workers, health workers etc etc. Not quite the thoughtless station users that were painted last night, though they don't know for sure because no-one tried to find out what proportion of these commuters used the station. "aggressive bullies"? Really? Show me some evidence of bullying. "exploit their neighbourhood as a free carpark"? Do you mean "park their car"? It seems to me that the issues talked about last night including freeing up spaces in the area, looking for other parking options, encouraging the use of public transport by local schools and employers etc etc have been ignored or downplayed throughout the CPZ process. I only hope they get the prominence they deserve to see how much they can help. > That took some balls guys. Maybe they could have done with your gracious praise last night, H. Why weren't you there? Oh yes, I remember...

But the zone residents won't be the only ones affected by a trial, therefore all non-zone residents affected should have their views tken into account. Otherwise it's not democratic. And I don't know why anyone would believe that the trial period would be reversible. Southwark would see it as a foot in the door for CPZ-creep and more lovely cash in the bank for them and no overall improvement in the parking situation for East Dulwich.

milk76 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Brandnewguy. > > I don't and have not advocated universal parking > restriction. Yes, you said it was OK to ban you from nearby streets. Who would be administering this and who would pay? You?