JoeLeg

And the govt has agreed to give Parliament a final vote on the deal. I wonder what horse trading went on today...

That's a real shame. To judge from what little I am find online from my phone right now it looks like a financial issue, as opposed to a result of the noise issues? Although the two could well be linked. Anyone got any more concrete info? This place has (had) such great character.

Champ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes cars are indeed more dangerous than cycles, > thanks for stating the obvious. That's all the > more reason why the parents irresponsibility in > the above is such a problem. Yes, but it is worth pointing out what seems like the obvious, because as Rah mentions cyclists are on the receiving end of what sometimes feels like cmcerted lobbying, which is wrong. But a dangerous small minority go too far the other way, believing that being cyclists they are somehow able to be more aware, perhaps, of their surroundings, maybe they think they're more responsive, or perhaps they just know that without a licence plate they can speed away from mishaps, I don't know. But they make it very hard for the law abiding responsible majority, and though it shouldn't be like this, cyclists still have to be overly careful that they obey the rules of the road. The dodgy ones, like the example given by the OP, go a long way toward damaging the cause of cycling in general.

I agree entirely Rah, cars are demonstrably more dangerous when mishandled and cyclists come in for far too much negative press. However, Rendell hits the nail on the head when he points out that jumping reds on a bike hands a propaganda victory to ignorant motorists who see them as a nuisance.

I wasn't asking if they do, I was asking if you think it's ok for them to do so?

So it's ok for a motorist to decide for themselves if they should ignore a red light?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > The whole account is outrage at > someone jumping a red light and having their > children do it too. It is incredibly stupid and irresponsible to jump a red light, and you seem to be making light of it. This is further shown by his > admission of trying to pull up another cyclist for > doing the same thing. So this to me is an > obsession with reprimanding cyclists who go > through red lights irregardless of whether there > is any danger in doing so. Irregardless of danger in doing so? Red lights are not a matter for subjective interpretations under any circumstance, and it is foolhardy in the extreme to suggest that ANY user of the road might ever have grounds to do so. Does the OP reprimand > drivers on their phones? Or pedestrians that cross > anywhere but at designated crossings (because that > surely is wreckless too)? Drivers who use their phones while driving are also guilty of stupidity and recklessness. I do not believe there are any grounds for ever running a ref light. You are of course free to disagree.

There better be, otherwise people are going to feel that there is no chance for a fair hearing for the accused. I broadly agree with Loz; new allegations are emerging all the time and while it's of vital importance that legitimate harrasment can be reported, challenged and dealt with, I worry there will be an automatic assumption that there is "no smoke without fire", a phrase I have often used thought is dangerous, and untrue.

I just want to clarify something. Are you saying that groping people, harassing them and aggressively trying to seduce them are all "peccadilloes". Because that infers something individual but ultimately harmless, whereas Spacey (and many others) seem to have been far more predatory, and I'm not sure the two are the same. I haven't seen any account of stripping Spacey of his awards, though I suspect his career is over. I share concerns of over-reaction in general, but in the specific cases that have so far come to light it looks to me much more that the chickens are coming home to roost on certain powerful and sexually predatory men who shouldn't have done it in the first place.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > I disagree - I don't own a car and hold no brief > for the motor industry, indeed I've long believed > > the 'law of the sea' (big gives way to small) > should apply on roads > > At sea, it's generally seen that 'might has > right'. In reality, power gives way to sail and > small gives way to large and there are rules as to > which applies when. > > Obvious, really, as smaller and/or powered vessels > are more manoeuvrable - if a small outboard is > approaching a cruise liner, which do you think can > change course or stop quickest? AH, I stand corrected. And what you say makes sense of course. Still, my essential point is that on the roads makes sense to me that larger (and likely more powerful/more dangerous) vehicles should always give way to smaller. There may well be some gaping holes in this theory, but it's one I've always been in favour of.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why are you posting here? Yes sadly some cyclists > jump red lights. This is a societal thing unless > we want to live in a police state. Write to your > MP, the Met Police, your Borough, the Times, > rather than on this site. Then when you've got a > response you can discuss that. > I disagree - I don't own a car and hold no brief for the motor industry, indeed I've long believed the 'law of the sea' (big gives way to small) should apply on roads, but I fume at cyclists who think it's ok to jump red lights.I regularly see examples of this at the cross roads of East Dulwich Road, and even nearly got hit by one while crossing with my daughter. A car driven carelessly is of course a far more dangerous thing, and the vast majority of cyclists are careful and considerate, but I despair of those who think that just because they're on a bike they aren't likely to hurt anyone. > Today I saw a motorist forward of an advanced stop > line, a pedestrian cross the road whilst looking > at their smart phone, and a car across the > pedestrian crossings whilst the lights were red. > Just a normal day, nothing to see here people, > move on. None of those things are good, and I would point out that none of them involve someone jumping a red light. Red lights are one of those inviolable rules of the road, they are not a subject for debate or personal, subjective interpretation.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Taking back control Doing what Uncle Sam tell us > to do... Yup, here we go. Trump said we would do "a great deal", and Leave voters en masse pointed to it as an example of how we'll be fine. Yes, once we've abandoned food safety and let US healthcare companies run riot across the health service. The NHS; flawed and in need of help, but you'll miss it when it's gone.

Whatever Robbin. Enjoy your moral authority, but I'm afraid I - personally - see so many holes in your arguments that it's like Swiss cheese, and for that I refer you to my comments earlier on this thread.

Bullying? Really? I guess we have different tolerances Robbin.

What Loz said!

Well as we found out last year, a referendum has a tendency to lead to more problems than it solves. The binary nature of such a complex question cannot hope to cover all the issues. In terms of Catalonia specifically, it's a funny one if viewed by outsiders. I've known a few Catalonians and I don't think most Brits would understand their fervent desire to be an independent nation. The sense of nationhood as Catalonians that runs through them is deep and abiding. I don't really understand why they wanted a referendum, because I can't see how they would be better off independent, but that goes straight back to the point I just made; a lot of us don't. However, I accept that many of them do. The referendum was a terrible move, because Spain refused to recognise its legitimacy; ergo, it's no more valid than me asking three people outside Londis if they favour independence for SE22, getting two 'yes' votes, and promptly declaring seccesion from the UK. Hyperbole on my part maybe, but it makes my point - a referendum that is not recognised by higher authority is nothing more than a PR stunt. Where Spain goes from here, I have no idea. I can't imagine it coming to violence, but then I don't see it being resolved amicably either. Likely the will thrash it out round the negotiating table, but yes, it's already gone farther than it should've. Regarding the issue of any constitution allowing regions to break away, hmmm...I agree and disagree. How far can it go? Isn't the logical end of that collections of fiefdoms and city states? Would what became Germany (Prussia, technically) and Italy have been better of if Bismarck and Garibaldi never tried to unify them? Would the USA be better if Texas and California went through on their occasional threats to secede? Should Quebec really be ruled by Paris? Ultimately we are stronger united than divided, and its human nature to band together in tribes. Yes, I think on the whole I agree that any constitution needs an opt-out clause, but they need to be really carefully written, and therein lies the danger.

Fair enough Loz, you're a more forgiving individual than me, and that's a good thing. Indeed Gaynor, apologies, this has gone waaaay off-topic.

Loz, those are some pretty bad comments that RH has used as examples. Also, I don't buy this 'play the ball, not the man' argument, not always. Sometimes why people say is so consistently, coherently of a type that one begins to feel that one is actually dealing with an unpleasant, hateful individual. And if that's so then why, when we would plainly say it in real life does online etiquette demand that more gentle treatment must be given? I do not agree (and I respect those that disagree with me on this) that everyone is always, no matter what, entitled to be treated equally online. I never say anything I wouldn't say to someone's face, why should I behave differently? I think it gives a legitimacy to divisive and dismissive language which is then allowed to stand with no need for it to be backed up or proven. And yes, I know this is just da interwebz, but discourse which seeks to challenge and enlighten, even if uncomfortable, is welcome. That which simply wishes to vent its spleen over those it perceives to have done it wrong needs, at the very least, to demonstrate some level of proof. Otherwise all we have is a general level of hatred of immigrants, academi and the middle class, and I feel comfortable looking back at recent history and seeing where that had led nations on the past.

He grinds my gears, probably intentionally. For all I know he's a 16 year old boy enjoying winding up the local liberals. But I've worked with many immigrants throughout my life and I believe fervently on the benefits they bring, and have had enough of people pretending we don't need them. They aren't the whipping boy for all our ills, we do most of it or ourselves. The 'ED bubble' comment really riled me, the idea that because I come from SE22 I'm somehow an ignorant fool who has no understanding of the wider world? No, not letting that pass, and especially not from someone who seems to run on hatred.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > uncleglen wrote > > Please feel free to pm me, or post publicly- ANY > examples of bigoted and hateful responses as you > call them from me- you are just jumping on the > rendelharris bandwagon who puts his OWN slant on > whatever I've said. I have repeatedly asked you for proof of your comments about immigrants so on. You post bigoted nonsense but whenever you're pressed to back it up with anything you disappear from the thread. Your assertions would fail the rigour of anything outside the Daily Mail comments sections. I like debate, I like hearing the opposing view; as I always say, I might learn something. But from you we just get opinion passed off a truth. Your post history speaks for itself.

I object to the assumption that because I grew up in East Dulwich (back when it wasn't the same kind of place it is now) I have no life experience. So yes, I jumped at that.

I'll give you this much UG, on this subject you're correct. I don't really understand how you square this with your other views, but you are right about the frankly appalling 'de-seclurisation' (is that a word?) of the education system. It has to stop, and be reversed.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seabag Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > Uncleglen wrote > > I've said this before, and I'll say it again- NONE > of the situations I have ever posted are made > up... And neither are your bigoted, hateful responses. it is not my fault that you have little life > experience in your ED bubble. Well firstly I think we all do, it's just that you can't stand people disagreeing with your narrow-minded view of society, and secondly that comment just goes to show why a judgemental fool you are. I've said it before and I'll say it again - you're a teacher? Wow, I hope my kids are never taught by such an individual as yourself.

Antibacterial wipes will clean whatever is on your hands at that moment - the best if you can get it is the stuff your wipe over your hands when entering a hospital ward, but again it will only sanitise your hands from that point - touch a handle on a bus or the door to your office building and you're back to square one. This is why constantly sanitising is a road to OCD which is not a fun place to end up. And of course there is the point you make which is essentially that a certain level of exposure to germs is actually healthy (not 'hanging around Porton Down' level of course); the body needs to build inherent resistance as far as it can.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What rah said. Odds are that if any germs are on > the toilet door they will have been transferred > elsewhere e.g. the next door you use etc etc. Not really, no. In fact not at all the case. The only way to be sure is to carry your own antibacterial wipes. However... > Life's too short... Very true. Very true indeed. If you're going to star worrying about toilet door handles theN the list of things you should also worry about will have you doing a Howard Hughes, and OCD behaviour is less fun than it looks.