rendelharris

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes it is illegal- but if they are not English > they may not know the law. All builders etc would > do it if it was allowed- it obviously saves a lot > of money in proper waste disposal. I've had > run-ins with builders before and the foremen in > question were English and when spoken to about > infringements they used the general builders'lack > of English as an excuse. Stone the crows. You're getting beyond parody now Uncle.

Current odds Murray 9/4, Konta 16/1, 36/1 combined, quite tempting...

April Fool, right?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When's national meaness day? Under the current administration, every day of the year.

Thanks for the alert, will have to get down and see them. Envy you that kingfisher!

We shall see! I can assure you I don't want things to go wrong, if we could avoid the troubles which I see ahead I certainly wouldn't want the troubles to come just so I could say told you so. I agree, there is another side of the equation, but if we're saving ?5BN a year and losing the same amount over the next decade, that's not going to be a zero sum game, as at the same time we'll have lost tariff-free access to Europe and possibly a lot of inward investment. You do know that's a Photoshop amendment of the Leave bus, not a real bus?!

Why is that such crap, Robbin? in November the Office for Budget Responsibility published its estimate that the government would have to borrow exactly that figure - ?58.7BN - to cover the costs of leaving the EU. You can disagree with that by all means but you can't just dismiss it, it's not some figure pulled out of the air. Note also that the prediction was just to cover the negative economic effects and doesn't include any "divorce settlement" payments, which most experts seem to be agreeing will end up somewhere between ?20-?40BN.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > steveo Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Although, I suppose, if you are employing the > > argot of the yoot and are countenancing > > 'shout-out' as the noun, then I concede > > Yep, it's like High Five, you don't have Highs > Five... That's because high in that construction is an adjective and five is the noun, so the noun takes the plural, just as in shout out the shout is the noun and out a preposition, so the noun takes the plural, shouts out. However, one can make shout out a compound noun as either shout-out or shoutout, in which case the plural shout-outs or shoutouts is quite correct. I would get out more but me anorak's in the wash.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When I was little and picked buttercups etc., my > nan would tell me that they're beautiful but so > much more beautiful outside where they belong. > > Consequently, having fresh flowers is something we > don't do but we have lots of pots and a beautiful > garden because of it. > > And going out for a walk is lovely. Seems to be a > habit that isn't so commonly enjoyed anymore (and > no, I'm not particularly 'old') - it's just how I > was brought up... Nancy Astor: Why Mr Shaw, it's the height of summer and yet you have no flowers in the house! Aren't you fond of flowers? George Bernard Shaw: Very fond indeed, madam. I'm also very fond of children, yet I don't cut their heads off and stick them in bowls round the house.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I got the notion of it being a joke but it was a > pointed barb ...lacked any humour for me.... Sorry, can't see it - just a joke about the nature of being in a couple as far as I was concerned.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seabag Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > jaywalker Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > womanofdulwich Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Haven't we all made mistakes? > > > > I don't mean murder, but as we get older > and > > > > worldlier don't we all realise we treated > > > people > > > > badly/misinterpreted others actions? > > > > I would not make the mistakes again-but I > am > > > > guilty - the list is long... > > > > > > The sentiment is admirable. But who have you > > > installed in the tribunal of your own reason > to > > > find yourself guilty? Did you think that this > > > phantasm was of your own devising? > > > > You're single, right? > > Why the snide attack on the person..? I don't wish, and I'm sure s/he wouldn't wish me to, speak for Seabag, but I took it that s/he was making a rather amusing joke that if you've got a partner you've got someone to make you feel guilty, no need to devise your own guilt - pretty sure s/he wasn't making a personal attack.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lloyds of London (NOT to be confused with Lloyds > bank)is a bunch of insurance brokers sitting in a > building in the square mile- where they work from > does not matter. All that matters is that the > 'names' underwrite the risks. The building is > horrible and started the trend of vile > architecture dominating the London skyline > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd%27s_of_London I don't suppose anybody did confuse them with Lloyds Bank, do you? However, to say that from where the brokers do their work doesn't matter is nonsense: the average broker salary at Lloyds is around ?150,000, so for every one they send abroad that's around a ?60,000 loss to the UK exchequer. OK, they're only planning to send around a hundred to Brussels at present, so that's "only" ?6M in lost tax/NI revenue, but if that's replicated across the city we're talking many billions lost in direct revenue, plus their purchasing power. It matters rather a lot, the UK economy is heavily shored up by London's position as one of the world's most important financial hubs, when they go elsewhere we all lose out.

Black Btwin Triban 7 road bike or a black Btwin flatbar, usually wearing an "I pay road tax" jersey and shouting at cyclists who jump reds, do say hi! Maybe you're right about the traffic from the Bricklayers, I lived in Camberwell until sixteen months ago so used to go straight up the Walworth Road, traffic there seems to have definitely eased so your point about evening out makes sense. I must say for me, a fairly experienced and keen rider who has no problem riding positively/aggressively Elephant used to be one of the only places in London by which I felt intimidated, perhaps because I had a number of close run things there and saw a couple of nasty accidents. Interesting stat about the balance between traffic reduction and congestion, hopefully as people get more and more used to the concept of being able to ride to work without risking one's life the scales will start to tip. I do think something needs to be done about the "sod it I'll take the car" brigade - a lot of people would hate it, and me for suggesting it, but I wouldn't object to the congestion charge zone coming down to Elephant. See your point about Vauxhall for the inexperienced, but it's still a lot better than having to circle the Vauxhall gyratory! Yes the light at the bottom of Rye Lane - you mean the one at the bottom of the one way stretch, yes? - has the most absurd hold, I ride down Bellenden Road specifically to avoid it!

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > picking a flower for your mum is a delightful part > of childhood. so you haven't got a garden. what to > do? Get a window box and teach kids to grow flowers for mum. Teaches life skills, natural history, patience and nurturing and means much more to mum and leaves the park flowers in situ for everyone to enjoy.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- It just seems like a diversion off of > the motorway, which leads us onto some A road > heading in the same direction. What's the point? > > Louisa. Nice simile Louisa, may have to pinch that one.

Try putting the job on Upwork, you should easily find a competent translator for $15-20 per hour.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > keano77 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ???? Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Hermits Cave Otta - (no apostrophe for the > > pedant > > > of the thread) > > > > > > Actually there should be an apostrophe after > the > > s, hermits' (cave of hermits). If if were > plural > > it would be hermits caves (I think). > > > > And I agree with Otta above. > > Actually, I was being literal - there is no > apostrophe on the sign or hanging board of "The > Hermits Cave" (Sic) in SE5 and wouldn't the > "Hermits' Cave" be a paradox wot with them being > hermits? Obviously short for "The Hermits Cave In" - i.e. such is the available bonhomie they stop being hermits - so no apostrophe required. No? Oh well. When I first went in the Hermits twenty odd years ago I asked why it was called The Hermits Cave and was told, with a slight tone of pity for one so stupid that they had to ask, "Because that's its name," so a followup about the apostrophe probably wouldn't have got far. Nice pub though I was embarrassed (my fault) last time I took my dad for a pint there to find they don't (or didn't as of last November) take cards, so I had to borrow off the old man to get my round in.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > well, the sun has come up this morning, and the > power is still on..... ...and the UK is still a member of the European Union...

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This forgiveness thing confuses me. At what point > do you go "actually, I was right, you really are a > cutn". How many goes at forgiving the past do we > give? > > I'm all for seeing people evolve, but sometimes > they do carry on going the wrong direction. Hence, > the past stays in the past, along with the > immediate and distant future, for some people. I think a good example is Antoine Leiris whose wife was killed in the Bataclan massacre and who said almost immediately afterwards, in an open letter to the terrorists: "So no, I don't give you the gift of hating you. You are asking for it but responding to hatred with anger would be giving in to the same ignorance that made you what you are."

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Just to note re something I mentioned above, I > had > > a response from Greenwich today saying that > though > > they are working to change the bylaws it's a > > lengthy legal process and so cycling is still > not > > permitted in the foottunnel, but it will be - > no > > word on when though! > > Everyone used to scoot along with one foot on the > pedal > when I lived there 10 years ago. > > > That place could be so lonely after midnight :) Spooks me out very early mornings sometimes - 6AM in the summer - when it's empty. Good place to practise opera singing though! It's a matter of great debate on many cycling fora as to whether that sort of "side saddle" style makes one a pedestrian! Don't think it does, it'd make an interesting legal case though. Did they have lift attendants when you were there? I can't for the life of me pinpoint the time the lifts became automated - I do remember though that if they saw someone cycling they wouldn't let them in the lift, so the time saved by cycling through was lost having to carry a bike up the stairs.

Blackcurrant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyone who can get to Rodney place without > segregated lanes can cope with the backstreets > leading to Southwark bridge Rd. > > Incidentally I wouldn't recommend E&C to a nervous > cyclist. It's much improved but not fully > segregated and definitely not for the faint > hearted. There are very easy ways to avoid it on > traffic free backstreets. There's nothing in the route to Rodney Place comparable to the junctions on Southwark Bridge Road nor the pinch points leading up to the cycle lane on the bridge. I've taken several nervous cyclists round Elephant and Castle recently and if you know what you're doing it's incredibly safe - the only non-segregated stretch is the 100 yards leading to Walworth Road, which the OP wouldn't be using anyway. Rather than somewhat obsessively coming on here and telling me I'm wrong and daft why don't you just let the OP choose their preferred route?

Just to note re something I mentioned above, I had a response from Greenwich today saying that though they are working to change the bylaws it's a lengthy legal process and so cycling is still not permitted in the foottunnel, but it will be - no word on when though!

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What exactly is the problem with fake coins ? They increase the money supply, thus increasing inflation and devaluing the currency.

Blackcurrant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Blackcurrant Wrote: > > ------ > > Not to be contrarian, and yes going via > > Elephant/Blackfriars will add about an extra > 1.5 > > miles to going directly over Tower Bridge, but > it > > will all be on totally segregated cycle lanes. > I > > would most emphatically not recommend Tower > Bridge > > or London Bridge, nor the junctions at both > ends > > of them, to a nervous new rider when adding ten > > minutes to the journey removes the need to share > a > > space with motor traffic anywhere between > Elephant > > and Limehouse. > > Even if you want to stick to segregated cycle > lanes, looping via blackfriars is daft when you > can cross at Southwark Bridge. Thanks for that, contrary to popular opinion I'm not entirely stupid - of course going by Southwark Bridge is shorter (only by about 0.7 of a mile, or about three minutes for a very moderate pedaller) but although there's a segregated cycle lane on Southwark Bridge there's none leading up to it, so to get there the OP would have to mix with heavy traffic and cross several busy junctions, something s/he specifically said s/he wanted to avoid. Cautious, as requested by the OP, but not, I would submit, daft.

I suppose it depends what the aim is: if the aim is totally segregated cycle routes then they're pretty much going to have to go on trunk routes as they're the only place with space for them. I personally think where they've been put in they work very well, though certain motorists on here and elsewhere have made it quite clear they don't agree. I've yet to see, and maybe you could point me in the direction of, any authoritative study which has proved that the segregated lanes have worsened congestion. Empirically (though subjectively) I've found that some of the remodelling, particularly at E&C, has improved the traffic flow considerably - similarly on the rare occasions I've come through the Vauxhall gyratory in a car it seems less congested than before. I know that in the last couple of years traffic speeds have dropped, and the anti-cycle-lane brigade (not you) obviously only point the finger in one direction, but from what I've read the massive increase in building works in London, with the rise in HGVs as well as contraflows, closed streets etc, plus the growing trend to have Amazon et al deliver to one's office rather than one's home, are making a huge contribution to the slowdown. What's the problem with the right turn onto Vauxhall Bridge? Coming along the Albert Embankment one can either stay left outside Metropolis, leave the road at the lights and cross on the cycle lane with the lights, or alternatively if it's clear get right and ride onto the traffic island cycle path from there. Either option's a good deal better than previously, where the only options were to get off and walk across two sets of lights or go all the way round the four lane snarling madness of the Vauxhall gyratory.