JoeLeg

Disclaimer - I?d had quite a lot to drink when I was told this, and I could be wrong, though a quick google seems to support it. Under English law, ?assault? is the threat of use of force, as distinct from ?battery? which is actually physically attacking someone. Depending on what they said, those people may well have committed assault - obviously I?m not aware of exactly what was said or threatened. Regardless, I think by any reasonable definition it can be considered a form of ?attack?, in common parlance.

ollieloudon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Being gay isn't a physical trait so it's not like > having red hair and isn't relevant even if your > wife was correct To be honest, if my wife had been attacked like this I would have no hesitation in using every possible avenue to identify the assailants. No one is saying they did it *because* they were gay. He?s justifiably furious and isn?t going to hold back in trying to locate them. There?s a lot more I could say but I don?t want to drag it off-topic. Suffice to say I spent a LOT of time in the London gay community during the mid/late-nineties, and unless certain things have changed massively, I think Lee was justified in mentioning it. (Anyone who wants challenge me on this is welcome to PM me, I?ll happily back up my position)

Toffee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What a vile, offensive thread. Ah, you?re back. Didn?t think your flounce would last.

Hey Uncleglen... ...you?re mental. Proper mental.

There?s a dedicated area in Burgess Park, if I recall correctly. I appreciate that?s not Brockwell, though it?s a great park to spend a hot day in; gets pretty busy though.

Night tube, Hopper fares, no increase in the actual bus fare, excellent service on the Overground. Not sure what part of this you think is bad? The 176 is certainly a joke, but when the government is trying to shaft you amd you?re trying not to raise fares, what would YOU do Foxy? It was the rail companies who raised fares, not him. TFL has no authority over them; they even offered to take over Southern when it became apparent the management couldn?t organise the proverbial party in a brewing establishment. Me?thinks you do him a disservice.

hammerman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Don?t be a twat. No I?m not. > > > > I?m insulting the Leave voters who can?t think > for > > themselves and lap up the rubbish that comes > out > > of the Express. Just them. No one else. > > > > ?Insulting 17 million people?...FFS...Did you > > actually READ my post? Plainly not. > > Yes I did READ your post and thanks for calling me > a twat and FFS etc. Well no you obviously didn?t read it, at least not properly. I?m not going to stand for being told I insulted all Leave voters when that's explicitly not what I said. And you?re welcome!

Come on now, be fair. You?ve asked a straight question and Foxy has obfuscated, whatabouted and outright ignored them both, instead putting across a politicians answer that seeks to paint him as the victim rather than address the issue in front of him. What else can you ask of him?

Don?t be a twat. No I?m not. I?m insulting the Leave voters who can?t think for themselves and lap up the rubbish that comes out of the Express. Just them. No one else. ?Insulting 17 million people?...FFS...Did you actually READ my post? Plainly not.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sidiq Khan is a Saboteur. > > He discourages the use of private cars, > introduced emission fees for some vehicles > made parking virtually impossible BUT continues > to degrade our Public Transport Services. > > DulwichFox Absolute rubbish. The rest of your posts on the subject aren?t worth the pixels displaying them, save to say please provide evidence for your opinions or be considered to be making it up.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Express (and Daily Star) got taken over by > Trinity Mirror (the new company is called > "Reach"). The editors of both Express and Star > resigned the day after the takeover and got > replaced by Mirror staffers but the editorial > leanings of the Express were staying the same. > > The Express now just seems to be trying to wind > Leavers up IMHO > The Express is so desperate for readership that it will print practically anything. Stringent Leavers who don?t have the ability to think for themselves are it?s principle market now. I know several Leavers who all admit they are embarrassed every time the Express runs one of it's lunatic headlines. While they steadfastly defend their position in an argument, they all feel the Express does way more harm than good for their cause.

So suddenly Liam Fox has a problem with us having an unelected upper house. He seems to think it exists purely to rubber-stamp government decisions. Some of us have had a problem with that for a long time, I find it a bit rich that only now he decides he doesn?t like it!

1/10, dull...there?s been much better trolls on here.

I?m really not sure how you?ve interpreted my comments, but let me clarify them for you. The point I was making - which the OP gets and I think you didn?t - is that there is often the perception that the countryside is free of all the problems that we face in inner cities, particularly with young people. This is not the case. Of course as you point out, the crime rate is proportionally lower because the population density is much lower, but it?s not like the world is crime free outside the cities. If you have a good life where you are then that?s fantastic. However, not everyone who leaves the city on search of the quiet life gets what they?re looking for; the presence of fields and trees and farms does not inhibit drugs, jealousy and crime. A quick google has thrown up several cases of crime which would not be unusual in Peckham, which I could link to, and you could then link even more cases that actually did occur in Peckham, and we could go round and round. I don?t think either of us want to do that, and I think you?d probably agree with me that crime exists everywhere, as does idiotic behaviour by young people. To repeat the point you made, of course it happens more in cities because there?s more people, but there?s also more of everything else in cities, like jobs, shops, museums, emergency services and schools. We all make our choices about where we want to live based on our own personal needs, which is why I said it comes down to what problems someone is willing to face each day. I?d love to live in a quiet village somewhere, chatting every day to my neighbours and walking in the fields, but I have two small kids so I need to work and in my profession the jobs are in the cities. Also, the primary schools here are really good, so we accept that troubles that inner city living brings in exchange for what it gets us as a family. That?s our choice, and other people choose differently, which is fine. I don?t object to those who move out of London (or Manchester or Norwich or wherever), but whenever anyone talks about how the same problems don?t happen outside those things places I tend to sound a note of caution, because I think they?re setting themselves up for a fall. I?ve seen rampant drug issues in a small Cornish town, gang troubles in Staffordshire, and the results of gay bashing in Yorkshire. My point is that there?s humans everywhere, and where you get humans you get some level of trouble, in some form or other. Small towm living brings its own challenges, which not everyone is comfortable with; you don?t have to go too far past zone 6 to encounter some fairly outdated attitudes, as both my black wife and gay friends will attest to(though fortunately such things are slowly declining), cities tend to be more inclusive. Your life sounds pretty idyllic, and I?m very glad for you. But not everyone gets so lucky, and often it?s down to unreasonable expectations of how life will be in the countryside.

Aaaand whooooosh again cella...!

That ?wooshing? sound you can hear is the point flying waaay over your head...

If the A Boards are not on their own property then that?s a different matter, as I?ve conceded repeated times. My issue is with shops being told what to do on their own private land, as well as a wider disagreement that I have with the idea that Lordship Lane is somehow one long trip hazard. The pavements at crowded, but I?ve yet to see evidence that pedestrian are at risk. Cella - I don?t object to you disagreeing with me, it?s your refusal to engage in actual debate on the issue that I think undermines your standpoint.

But it?s clear on some of those photos the A boards concerned ARE placed on the public highway, which is a different matter to that espoused by cella, who seems to believe that *all* A boards be so proscribed. If businesses are doing that then it?s a matter for Southwark to intervene; that?s not the bone of contention here and never has been. Though I still maintain this is hardly a matter of grave concern, and I?d genuinely be interested to see evidence of the public being overly obstructed by this signage.

Cella, your whole position from the start has been based on what you personally believe, and you?ve not once directly countered any points other than those made by Monica, so I?m hardly surprised by your refusal to back up your position with anything past ?I?m right and you?re all wrong? levels of argument. You?ve got this utopian view of how the local area should be, and now I don?t feel bad in saying that you?re being unreasonable in your assessment of the impact on local pedestrians. This kind of attitude is divisive and unnecessary.

cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My original concerns remain - the pavements are > too narrow for the amount of people, cyclists, > joggers, buggies, cars etc using them. Possibly the weirdest statement I?ve read on here. The pavements are too narrow for the amount of people who use them? This is London. Space is limited, very limited. It?s the same all over London. You want space? Move somewhere else. When I was a kid we didn?t have these problems around here, then loads more people moved into the area and it got a lot more vibrant and less crack-heady. That?s the price we all pay for living in a place like this, it was never designed for this many people and there?s frankly very little anyone can do that won?t require nanny-state legislation. Added to > the users is the range of random street furniture, > chained cycles, signs, etc all taking up space. > And yes some A Boards too. So why are you singling out business owners? Is it because you think they?re an easy target? You?ve just listed a myriad of obstacles that are, bluntly, part and parcel of daily life ins busy metropolis. We share this city with many others. The concerns on here > for shopkeepers and business owners legitimate > outside space is connected to this but has > dramatically overridden the original post Well that?s because you started going on about it; don?t start what you can?t finish. > However, though personally I'm a firm supporter > and frequent user of many of the local businesses > in LL in particular, due consideration has to be > given by Southwark to the needs of pedestrians. Ah ha! Right, so you recognise it?s Southwark that makes the laws and not bunisses? Maybe you?ll redirect your efforts to the council then? > How they do this will be challenging and some > people have wrongly interpreted this as an attack > on local businesses and their space. Read your own posts and you?ll see it looks very much like you telling other people what they can do on their own private land. Nobody has > suggested that they should give up any land at all > as far as I can see. No, you?ve just said that they should prioritise pedestrians. But that bit of paving *isn?t a public highway* (no matter how often you ignore this point, it isn?t going away), so you?re wrong. Really though, things have to > improve for pedestrians and shops have a vested > interest in their customers being able to reach > them easily and safely. You really think things are that bad down on Lordship Lane that this merits some kind of lobbying campaign? You must have a lot of spare time...Seeing as you do, could you tell me how many people have been injured in the last, say, 12 months by A Boards, chained bicycles, buggies, people jogging and cars parked partly on pavements? I've been sent a couple of > suggestions for routes through to Southwark so > will pursue after elections. Again I ask, do you really think the public highways down there are so treacherous, so mis-managed, that it requires this? Thousands of us use them every day and with a little consideration for others we all seem to rub along fine. There?s plenty we can be berating Southwark Council for, I?m frankly astonished someone thinks this is a reasonable complaint.

Well cella, what can I say? You?re determined to attack a local shopkeeper whilst ignoring points made by Penguin68 which demonstrate the innate flaws in your argument, and you have the gall to call her patronising? You should re-read your own posts! Oh, and please don?t pretend you haven?t been getting wound up by this too. It?s your kind of nimbyism and presumption which makes me sad for the place where I grew up. This kind of unreasonable attack on people who just want to run a business is bizarre, frankly. A Boards? On private land? This is really something you feel needs tackling? To me it?s the thin end of the wedge, when we try and control independents in this manner. They aren?t doing anything legally wrong, and as far as I?m aware no one has been injured by a carelessly positioned A Board. So what does it matter? Do we want to end up with a high street dominated by big name chains with no local soul or character? Or can we allow these people the leeway to do what they?re entitled to do anyway, and perhaps realise it?s all a bit insignificant in the grand scheme. But then you?ve had PM?s from the silent majority, so maybe the A Board Watch Scheme will be coming to the Lane soon. Well, much satisfaction may it bring you, but I still think you?re being a nimby.

Just asked a professional forager I know about this matter. He said the leaves are fine to pick, so long as they?re not on private land, but taking the bulb is a big fat no-no, ?both legally and morally?.

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am not wrong here nor is my comment in any way > misplaced. Well I feel I backed my argument up, so I?d be interested to read it if you do the same?

What on Earth...?? All we?re talking about here is shop owners putting out A boards on land they own. It?s being turned into some kind of crusade against savage A board placement that somehow interdictes the rights of fair ED denizens to perambulate wherever they please. It?s a small wooden sign, for heavens sake?! Perhaps you and cella can form some kind of A Board watch scheme, naming and shaming those who you feel aren?t showing the proper respect for the locals? Honestly, these are people just trying to make a living, and they?re invariably little independents scraping by on thin margins, run by people passionate about their business. Why can?t we just recognise that? As I said before, if the whole road goes to the big chains, they won?t give a rodents backside what any of us think. Just look at the sly way Nero got its licence? We say we want these people running these kinds of shops. This is part and parcel of it. So many Nimbys in ED, yet so much unnecessary righteousness remains.

Just gone past these roadworks, I?ll be amazed if it?s finishes tomorrow. The lights aren?t working properly either, one of the guys was directing traffic by hand.