BrandNewGuy

... and it's all your PERSONAL belongings - any you have that you share with others or you've nicked, just leave 'em on the train...

On the subject of "sorry", I loathe the pre-recorded station announcement telling us (yet again) that the 08.45 to London Bridge is delayed by xx minutes and: "I am sorry for the inconvenience this might cause to your journey". No, you're not sorry - you're a pre-recorded announcement. No human being has felt the slightest twinge of remorse or regret about the delay, so shut up and run the service better.

Santa's Got A CRB - Sly and Reggie ;-)

regal

petal

I'll Try Something New - Smokey Robinson

irked

enter

Love Goes To Building On Fire - Talking Heads (Happy birthday, Tina Weymouth - 61 today... blimey!)

rates

Pale Blue Eyes - The Velvet Underground

Praise

Arise... ;-)

Fakin' [As in "Fakin' It" by Simon and Garfunkel]

Going Back West - Jimmy Cliff

Token

Tuner

------------------------------------------------------- > Woman - The Scorpions Sometimes It Takes Balls To Be A Woman - Elizabeth Cook

... and those in the proposed CPZ area could also be accused of being NIMBY for not wanting commuters to park in 'their back yard'. But as Jeremy says, it's an absurd and unhelpful accusation and one designed to shut down discussion. By and large I think this thread has been informative and constructive - which is more than can be said for the council's approach to the issue.

toned

Bully

Beat The Retreat - Richard Thompson

Rolls

Life On The Line - Eddie and the Hot Rods

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think arguments that no problem > exists has'nt helped with this issue. James, I really don't think anyone is still suggesting there isn't a 'problem' with parking near the station. I certainly haven't, despite you implying it in a previous post. What I have suggested is that it's possible that this parking situation is a predicament, ie a problem that doesn't currently have a solution. If any alternative course of action is either worse or no better than the current state of affairs, then we have a predicament. To assume that there *must* be a solution is not necessarily right. It seems to me that the CPZ has been proposed as the 'solution' and the data and local opinion have been and are being shoehorned to make that solution look like the right one. And it's worth repeating that those opposed to the CPZ are not obliged to come up with an alternative to it. The current state of affairs may well be currently the best option for all those who would be affected by the CPZ. I know that's no comfort for those whose complaints led to the proposed CPZ, but in some situations there's no getting around that there will be winners and losers. IMHO, it should be the Council's democratic obligation not to favour one group of potential 'winners' over any other group, but to try as far as possible to pursue the general good. The lack of transparency and the inadequacy of the data so far has made that process much more difficult.