rendelharris

katanita Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You do indeed have to walk the foot tunnel at > Greenwich (and carry your bike down the steps if > the lift is out). Many seem to ignore that, which > I find intensely annoying! > > The route that TFL's journey planner suggests for > this is pretty much what I'd do, it's all on quite > quiet streets apart from where you cross over New > Cross Road (just get off and walk it over if it's > hairy). I don't know a nice route the other site, > but there may well be one. Going along the A1206 > is ok until an ugly roundabout, though. The foottunnel have been trialling a system for a long while that automatically counts the numbers of cyclists and pedestrians present - when it's safe to cycle the signs read "Consider pedestrians" and when not "Cyclists dismount" - but apparently it is still a trial so yes you are supposed to walk (I do when there are any pedestrians present, I ride when (for example early Sunday mornings) there's nobody there. This thread reminded me to email Greenwich to ask when, if ever, this system will go live, I'll report back if there's a response. I must say (in response to Tom) I now find E&C completely unstressful - ride (legally) across the plaza in front of the Faraday memorial, cross over at the Toucan crossing, up St.George's Road (segregated) to join the Blackfriars Bridge Road segregated lane, no sharing with motors at all, it's a joy (in my opinion)!

Blackcurrant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Going via Elephant will add some unnecessary > distance as it takes you in the wrong direction > from Portland St/Burgess Park. I'd look for a > cycle lane or quiet route through > Borough/Rotherhithe to London Bridge or Tower > Bridge. > > Or go via Greenwich foot tunnel, but that's a less > scenic route - lots of suburbia and not much > Riverside. 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.

Good luck! To get to Elephant from Burgess Park, leave at the exit next to the BMX track and ride straight up Portland Street (quiet and speed controlled). At the end of the street take the cycle cutthrough to the right and cross over Rodney Street into Rodney Place, at the end of that join the pavement cycle lane along NKR to Elephant. Once you're on the segregated lanes you have two choices, you can turn right onto Webber Street about a third of the way up Blackfriars Bridge Road and follow Quietway 1 through to Greenwich, then go through the footunnel and round to Canary Wharf, but I'd say the far better choice for you would be to go over Blackfriars Bridge, follow the segregated highway to Tower Hill then join the one down Royal Mint Street and Cable Street, over the Limehouse Link, then you only have to ride 100 yards or so of Narrow Street (safe and quiet) before you can cut into Dunbar Wharf on your right and ride the last small stretch on the riverside. Really hard to imagine a safer or indeed more pleasurable ride for any London commute! In general terms, obviously despite some publicity against recently you're best off wearing a helmet and some form of high-vis (anyone who disagrees, let's not argue about it here!), be positive with all your hand signals and road positioning, never ride up the inside of large vehicles...that's about it really! If you want to get a bit more confidence before you start avail yourself of some of Southwark's excellent free cycle training: Mrs H did two sessions, one off road and one on road, and they turned her from a nervous wobbler into a confident rider virtually overnight http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/info/200123/cycling/446/cycle_with_confidence Good luck and enjoy, with that route I'm sure you'll become addicted in no time and wonder why you ever used any other form of transport. ETA: Really sorry that you've known two cyclists who've been killed, desperately unlucky - I have lots of friends who cycle and not only do I not know anybody who's been killed in London, I don't know anybody who knows anybody, or even knows anybody who knows anybody...mile for mile, you're more likely to be killed as a pedestrian than a cyclist.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't know what he said on trial but in his > autobiography 30 years later Mandela describes the > MK as having adopted terrorism and why he thought > it was justified. I'll have to take your word for that as I haven't time to re-read the whole book - however I just ran a search on Kindle for the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" and nothing like that appears. If he did say that it doesn't alter the fact that when Mandela was imprisoned MK was still following its campaign of sabotage, not terrorism, and so it is simply incorrect to label him a terrorist. The MK unquestionably became a terrorist organisation and there's no reason to suppose that Mandela would not have followed that path if he hadn't been imprisoned - he said that if sabotage didn't work they would have to consider escalating into terrorism - but at the time of his involvement it was not.

I must say I agree with Joe here Mick, nobody has expressed anti-Irish sentiment or denied that the UK government's behaviour in Ireland has been atrocious at times. All some people have done is refuse to agree with you that Martin McGuinness was as good or as innocent a man as you claim him to be, and any fair minded person would agree that there is at least a debate to be had on that issue. However, you have basically insisted that anyone who disagrees with you must either be a rampant loyalist or uneducated about the problems of Ireland. You started the thread saying it was a time to reflect, but apparently only the reflections of those who unquestioningly accept your point of view are welcome.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > We are fighting for a South Africa > > in which there will be peace and harmony and > equal > > rights for all people. We are not racialists, > as > > the white oppressors are. The African National > > Congress has a message of freedom for all who > live > > in our country. > > > > I can't find any records of deaths caused by MK > > before Mandela was imprisoned, can you? And if > > there were some, Mandela and his comrades were > > fighting against apartheid > > (and only turned to the > > sabotage plan after the Sharpeville massacre) > > > Sorry - is this post being used to differentiate > Northern Ireland from SA ? or highlight the > similarities? Neither - I was refuting DKHB's assertion that Mandela had called himself a terrorist. There are clear similarities between Sharpeville and Bloody Sunday in terms of being pivotal moments in the revolt against oppression, obviously.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > In short, don't be fucktard Rodders. > > There are always people who will choose to insult > the person, rather than address the argument. > > Of course few people in England will accept > similarities between the situation in NI V SA or > McGuinness and Mandela the person, as has been > made clear on this thread. I don't think anyone was arguing for or against that case Mick: what was being objected to was the simple-minded characterisation of Mandela as a violent man who was drawn to a violent movement in order to indulge his love of violence, and I'm sure you'd say the same about McGuinness.

murphy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Latest projected opening date is early June but > that's still not confirmed. Can someone remind me > what date it closed? Late summer 2014, wasn't it?

rodneybewes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have sympathy for Mandela and his fighting > against apartheid and admire him for turning that > into something remarkably positive. I feel pretty > much the same way about Martin McGuinness. I'm not > reducing either of them. I have admiration for > both. What utter rubbish, under rahrahrah's post: rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > OF course it is speculation, yes. But like I say, > I've always had a suspicion that certain people > have violent tendancies and if they can will > gravitate to violent movements. You wrote: Like chummy old Nelson Mandela in that respect I suppose. So you were explicitly saying that you thought Mandela was a person of violent tendencies who gravitated to a violent movement. It's rather too late to try to take that contemptible remark back.

rodneybewes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Tripe, he was leader of the MK and pleaded guilty > to scores of acts of public violence. Amnesty > International wouldn't take up his case because of > it. It's odd how the hagiographists can't accept > that he was a man who embraced violence and later > became a man of peace, and you know what, it > worked. The similarities between him and > McGuinness are large - both men of violence who > became men of peace and made a massive difference > to their societies, both getting the peace prize > for what they did. I won't bother with the young > conservative jibe. Pathetic. Martin McGuinness won the Nobel Peace prize, did he? No he didn't. Nelson Mandela pleaded guilty to scores of acts of violence? No he didn't, he admitted four charges of sabotage. Your unpleasantness is thoroughly matched by your ignorance.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mandela explicitly said the MK was a terrorist > organisation. The MK were more careful than most > terrorist groups in selecting targets but > civilians were still killed. And, y'know, the IRA > and MK had joint operations, and happily > collaborated with other dodge merchants: the PLO, > Gadaffi's regime, Honecker, the Soviet Union... That's funny, as at his trial Mandela quoted the MK manifesto: Our men are armed and trained freedom fighters not "terrorists". We are fighting for democracy?majority rule?the right of the Africans to rule Africa. We are fighting for a South Africa in which there will be peace and harmony and equal rights for all people. We are not racialists, as the white oppressors are. The African National Congress has a message of freedom for all who live in our country. I can't find any records of deaths caused by MK before Mandela was imprisoned, can you? And if there were some, Mandela and his comrades were fighting against apartheid (and only turned to the sabotage plan after the Sharpeville massacre) - he was not, as the very stupid post (not yours) above claims, simply a violent man joining a violent movement for an excuse to be violent, as his actions upon his release amply proved. I actually find it quite extraordinary that this point even has to be argued.

rodneybewes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > OF course it is speculation, yes. But like I > say, > > I've always had a suspicion that certain people > > have violent tendancies and if they can will > > gravitate to violent movements. > > Like chummy old Nelson Mandela in that respect I > suppose. Sorry, can't let that pass: Mandela did not actually carry out any terrorist activities as he was captured and imprisoned while they were still in the planning stage. However, the activities he was planning were specifically acts of sabotage, chosen to eliminate casualties as far as possible - it was planned to bomb railway lines and other infrastructure at night when there would be nobody around to be injured. To lump Mandela in with those of violent tendencies who join violent movements as an outlet for their violence is frankly shameful, I haven't heard that sort of cr@p since the Young Conservatives were going round wearing "Hang Nelson Mandela" T-shirts in the '80s.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendel, I reckon your appearances on United > Ireland marches (in the 80's?) must've been one of > the earliest forms of VS, you were ahead of the > curve, I salute you :)... Somewhere around 86 or 87 I think, though that was in another century, indeed millenium - remember support gigs at the Mean Fiddler and (I think) the Swan in Stockwell better...if there's virtue to be signalled I'm always head of the queue! ETA God almighty I've done the maths and realise I was eighteen thirty years ago, blimey that went quick...

In the absence of a like button I'll just have to liberal knicker wettingly virtue signallingly tip my hat to you Seabag - well said and well put.

Well that was necessary.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > An issue I have with the IRA stuff is that they > would tell anyone that would listen that they were > soldiers at war. Well there are rules to war, and > taking women in the night and murdering them > because they'd shown compassion to a wounded > British soldier... Well that's kind of outside of > the rules. > > Plus it's just plain nasty and unjustifiable to > anyone but the most blinkered fucktards. I agree 100% - but then so is gunning down a bunch of unarmed demonstrators. The fact that both sides have managed to put this behind them offers some hope.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And he was British born. Just like the > terrorist > > that actually managed to kill an MP (Jo Cox) > last > > year. Absolutely no difference between the two. > > > I absolutely agree with you. But the lone nutter > story is adapted by both left and right when it > suits them and dropped when it doesn't, as > Wednesday's attack and Jo Cox's murder show. Agreed - but it's worth remembering that most Islamic extremism is lone nutters or at best a small group of nutters, even in Syria etc ISIS is a minority group ruling through fear and violence...I've been quoting a lot recently comedian Adam Hill's statement: "Listen, there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. If they all wanted us dead, we'd be dead."

That's a fair point Mick (that the IRA should be compared to the UDF etc). I guess the whole thing about McGuinness is that even many people who agree that what he had on the credit side of the ledger outweighed what he had on the debit side don't think the two things cancel each other out. Still... Let's just hope we never have to face the same choices ourselves (I certainly can't say for sure that if I'd grown up a Catholic in Belfast in the 60s and 70s I wouldn't have joined the IRA) and that there's a brighter future for all, despite a few eejits who can't let go (vide the police bomb the other day). When I was younger I was quite passionate (well, to the extent of going on the odd march) about Irish unification, now in my dotage I feel more like (former IRA man) Brendan Behan in "Confessions of an Irish Rebel" (apologies for any inaccuracies, I know I have a copy but can't find it just now): "We're a group of small islands in the Atlantic that Europe doesn't like and America doesn't want; you can't help thinking we'd be better off clubbing together than keeping on fighting each other."

Mick, aren't you turning the whole thing around? This thread started about Martin McGuinness. I entirely agree that British conduct in Northern Ireland has been utterly disgraceful over the years, but if you can't excuse that by saying "Ah the IRA did this" then surely it cuts both ways - especially as many in the IRA and their supporters would say the IRA are/were only "terrorists" in the eyes of the UK government, in their eyes they were a legitimate army fighting an invading force? I respect your passion for your beliefs and to an extent I share those beliefs, but you can't say: "If your best defence against the abuses of our UK government is to say "but the terrorists did this" we are on a sticky wicket." without "If your best defence against the abuses by the IRA is to say "but the UK government did this" we are on a sticky wicket." being the obvious flipside of the coin.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > L - didn't mean to suggest ALL places on the list > are there because they're considered trendy, but > certainly some are. Frome... I've no idea, never > been there. > > RH - we're showing our age... I don't think anyone > under the age of 40 would consider FF even vaguely > cool. Even my dad likes them! Nooo, you mean I'm no longer a hep cat, daddyoh? But I've got all the latest skiffle platters and everything...

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Isn't this a case of Sunday Times just pointing > > out places that are vaguely trendy at the > moment? > > (See also Bristol) > > > > It will fall off the list soon enough. > > > Since when was Frome in Somerset vaguely trendy? > > Louisa. Foo Fighters did a "secret" gig at the Cheese and Grain there last month, that's quite trendy!

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Returning to the > original subject I was going to post "Ah diddums, > are we a likle bit upset because Peckham is more > desirable than SE22" Not me squire, being 150 yards into SE15 I'm quite happy!

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh FFS - Katie Hopkins mouthing off on the Fox > news too, doing the extremist's job for them. Yep, she had an article in the Mail this morning saying that the real war is between liberal London and the patriotic rest of England. That this attack is only to be expected in "a city with a Muslim mayor whose greatest validation is his father's job." Oh and in some amorphous way the Home Office and the BBC are to blame as well. Worth remembering that when Jo Cox was killed by a rightwing nutter with views perilously close to those espoused by Hopkins all she could do was accuse "liberals" of "milking it" for propaganda. Hopkins is lower than a snake's armpit.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm having difficulty in placing the Normnan > Hurford photograph in 1950. > > http://dulwichonview.org.uk/2014/08/27/recycled-wa > r-stretchers/ > > > Attached is a wartime photo with white paint > black-out rings on the trees. > > Anyone? Well, there's a 56 tram so that puts it before October 1951 when that route finished, so there's your upper limit. Comparing the pictures I'd note first of all that the trees in your wartime picture look considerably more mature than the Hurford shot, also in your wartime shot there appear to be brick walls round the gardens, which wouldn't have been removed even if the railings were - the Hurford seems more likely to be a 1930s shot soon after construction, with temporary fencing awaiting the construction of proper walls. Only guessing though.

Yes lots of them try to trick you into downloading this or that program but this one seems OK, didn't try any tricks, got through the virus checks and works.