rendelharris

Hare Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil > is for good men to do nothing.? > This broadcast has been made on behalf of the > Street Party and is sponsored by the Edmund Burke > Said It First campaign. > (Not really, I just made that up....) On a point of interest, Burke did not say it first or indeed at all, John Stuart Mill did; on a point of get a grip, if the council succeeds in getting you to pay ?2.50 a week to park your motor, that will not represent "the triumph of evil."

In - thanks for setting up again Alan.

Come down to the Peckhamplex, ?5 a go and plenty of decent well-priced eateries for your pre/post cinema meal.

i*Rate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Many more London residents with additional > noise misery if the third runway is built. > Our mayor's in favour of it, so probably it > will!? Where on earth do you get that idea from? Suggest you Google "Sadiq Khan third runway" and you'll find that he vehemently opposes Heathrow expansion and supports legal challenges against it: "While I believe in a better Heathrow, I do not believe a bigger Heathrow is the right answer for London and I remain committed to opposing such a short-sighted decision."

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I make no comment on your other points which > appear to have been written in a stressful frame > of mind. Would you like to borrow a torch, Keano? It must be pretty dark when you're that far up your own fundament.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m not quite sure what Rendel means by > > ?...the number who voted Leave are only 35% of the > adult population...? > > But if we confine ourselves to registered voters, > on my sums 72.21% actually voted. Of those 37.44% > voted leave and 34.71% voted to remain > > I?m not sure what this clarification adds to the > current impasse except perhaps to question the > siren voices who claim large support for a second > referendum. Is it that difficult? What I mean by those who voted leave comprising 35% of the adult population is that those who voted leave comprise 35% of the adult population. 35% does not represent "the will of the people" any more than the slightly lower percentage for remain does - it represents a snapshot of a particular point in time after an awful lot of lies had been told and election laws breached. And on that basis a hysterical clique of halfwitted Tory Europhobes who still seem to think we're fighting WWII are going to change the history and economy of this country for ever, and for the worse. Just to remind you, there was no legal obligation to hold a referendum. There was no legal obligation to make it first past the post. There is no legal obligation to follow its recommendation: it was an advisory referendum and has no legal mandate. So if you want to leave Europe, well done, you got lucky, hope you're happy. But don't bother with the "will of the people" bollocks as if not leaving would be akin to smashing up the Holy Grail, because it isn't.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does 51% count as the will of the people? Can we > please use other terminology. Obviously > May/Leadsome/Farage/RM and the like can't campaign > on "a small majority of the British population" > but the definitive use of "we" "the British > Public" and the like made a momentous decision etc > really winds me up. They can't even say that - the number who voted Leave are only 35% of the adult population. As Robert Harris (no relation, sadly) said, "How did a stable parliamentary democracy, granted a unique set of favourable opt-outs with the largest trading bloc in the world, including on the single currency and travel, throw it all up in the air on the basis of 52-48 yes/no vote in a referendum ? a margin not normally wide enough to change the constitution of the average golf club?"

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As in like cures like,is what I said. There is no "like" in a homeopathic preparation, it's so dilute that no trace of the original element is present, it's pure water. For homeopathy to have any scientific effect the water atoms would have to somehow be "imprinted" with the trace element, which is scientifically impossible.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've always seen homeopathy and vaccines as > supposedly working on same basis, like cures like, > in homeopathy it is to stimulate you natural > immunity, as it was with the first vaccines, the > only difference i can see is the quantity. Then you have no idea how vaccines work. Vaccines aren't a cure, for a start. Homeopathy is not a vaccine. Vaccines offer a small, fixed amount of a pathogen (antigen) to the immune system, which teaches the immune system how to react to larger quantities of the same pathogen when it turns up. Homeopathic preparations are pure water and stimulate no effect in the immune system. If the best you can claim for homeopathy is that it has a placebo effect, you're tacitly admitting it's balls. To refute this, please provide a link to one single peer-reviewed scientific paper proving that homeopathy works (you can't, because there are none).

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cyclists are a nightmare Great to see such an open-minded attitude. Please consider not driving.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One person is not allowed to sell 2 cars or more > on the street...so if a group of people get > together and sell one car each..... That's only true outside London. Within London selling cars on the street is covered by the London Local Authorities Act whereby offering even one car for sale on the street is illegal street trading; the LA has the authority to fine any offender up to ?1000 and remove and destroy anything being offered for sale.

jenny pink Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ..................What's so funny > about Prince Charles being the patron of > Homeopathy.............. Because it's utterly hilarious that to support your argument ("Why is Prince Charles the patron of Homeopathy, if it is a placebo") one of your strongest points is that a man with neither intellectual credibility nor scientific credentials, who has earned no right to have his opinions considered any more seriously than the average bloke down the pub apart from his accident of birth, supports homoeopathy. If that's the best you've got...(still waiting for a link to a peer-reviewed scientific paper that proves homoeopathy works on dogs, by the way).

rare_breeds Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This will cost us car owners hundreds of > pounds of year (1 car plus visitor passes for 12 > months) and you know as well as I that while > pitched at ?125 per annum now it'll probably > double in 5 years... On-street parking permits in Southwark have remained fixed at ?125 since 2012, so not sure on what you base that slightly hysterical statement.

Funny thing, I've just walked a 3.5 mile loop through the middle of ED - including through the junction you mention - to go and feed a friend's cat. I kept an eye out; middle of rush hour so I counted (give or take a few) around seventy cyclists. One was riding on the pavement - a six-year-old girl with mum riding in the road alongside. To be completely unbiased, I saw several light-jumpers (almost as many as I saw jump the lights in cars) but the swarms of pavement-riding maniacs were conspicuous by their absence. Having a day off, maybe?

Just because you have experienced it doesn't mean it happens as often as you claim it does, either. But I cede the field, if you're determined to insist that the pavements of ED are thronging with mad packs of kamikaze cyclists, so be it. I must be really lucky in the times I go walking not to see any.

How can someone's experience be "not the case" and "so wrong"? I assume you're implying my experience is made up, which is simply impolite. I'm not doubting your experience nor your perception of what you see, even though I have dozens of friends in this area and as far as I'm aware not one of them has ever been knocked down by a cyclist once, let alone twice, though several have been hurt in accidents involving motor vehicles. That doesn't make what you say untrue, you have a different experience and perceptions, is all. If by cutting across by the children's play area you mean the diagonal path from Adys Road to East Dulwich Road, that is actually a shared path.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That?s why I feel the cycling ?community? (I?m > assuming such a thing exists, as it were) is the > best forum to address the issue. Pressure from > one?s peers is more likely to be effective than > any pedestrian or driver yelling at them. To be honest Joe, now cycling's so mainstream, there's really no more a cycling "community" than there is a driving "community" - there are some subgroups like racers, couriers etc, but generally it's as diverse as drivers - that's why it's quite annoying when people tar all cyclists with the same brush.

Very well put rrr. Like you, I have never been "nearly runover" by a cyclist ("nearly runover" of course means "wasn't runover"). I simply don't recognise these descriptions of pavements swarming with cyclists; I walk round the area a lot and see maybe one a week, if that. You're quite right, it is all about perceptions - one cyclist running a red (not that I condone that) is observed as more heinous than a hundred cars driving in excess of the speed limit - that doesn't even register as something that's happening for most people.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Secondly, to have a clinical trial you need to > have sufficient subjects for any results to be > statistically significant. And you need to have > strict criteria on what is going to be considered > a "successful" result. > > And the trial needs to be extremely rigorously > controlled. > > Complementary medicine and treatments, by their > nature, do not lend themselves to that kind of > trial. That's the most ridiculous of all the homeopathic (specifically homeopathy, not other complementary medicines, some of which, as you note, can certainly be helpful) copouts - "Oh we can't be measured by standard means" - why not? Homeopaths claim that their preparations (which, let us not forget are water, pure and simple, derived from solutions so diluted that no trace of an original additional element remains) are efficacious in relieving or curing all manner of conditions. Therefore the results they claim should be achievable and measurable in randomised double blind trials, such as all conventional medicines have to undergo. That's not demanding that it be proved how they work, just that they do. If homeopathy works, it would pass such a trial - it never has, not once. Please don't give it the "I don't even know why I'm bothering" as if you have a monopoly on sense and understanding in these issues and anyone who objects is just being awkward. Some people are talking a lot of nonsense on here, e.g. "It has been proved that homeopathy works on dogs" and deserve to be challenged.

MarkT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendelharris > I think it occurs in the opening paragraphs of > several sections eg > DS 114 1.2.b. "Stopping distances vary with > vehicle type and speed. However, research now > suggests that providing excessive visibility can > also introduce dangers as it may increase the > speed that people drive or ride at." > > I noted this some while ago, so I was citing it > from memory, my apologies if I have overstated the > concern. > MarkT Thanks - can't actually find any phrases like that in the current Streetscape Design Manual, searches for any of the keywords in your phrase show nothing.

MarkT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your concern of higher speeds is confirmed by > Southwark Council's Streetscape Design Manual, > which states that research shows that increased > sightlines lead to increased speed. On what page does it say that please Mark? I can't see it.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe everyone has a responsibility to use the > road in an appropriate manner. Drivers should > exercise due caution, pedestrians should not > dawdle or walk out unexpectedly, and cyclists > should not jump red lights or ride on pavements. This appears to imply that only cyclists jump red lights - stand at any junction or crossing in this area and you'll see two or three cars driving through the lights after they've turned red on a regular basis. > My unscientific observation is that many cyclists > when politely challenged on clearly breaking these > rules become exceptionally aggressive and > offensive from the off, even though they are > utterly in the wrong. Whereas car drivers are exceptionally reasonable and open to criticism, aren't they? I've virtually given up trying to point out errors to drivers round here after having been spat on, threatened with knives, had bottles and boiling coffee thrown at me and had vehicles deliberately driven at me. Twats are twats, on bikes, in cars, walking or sitting in the saloon bar. Your post implies that somehow cyclists are a special case, worse than others. This is not so.

Look at my second post where I said it was acceptable if the lady in question was using proper equipment. Ap b has said nothing to suggest she wasn't. Here and elsewhere she's made it clear she wants kids carried on bikes or in trailers banned, full stop.

I said nothing of the sort.The entire debate of this thread has been about whether it's acceptable to carry children on bikes using proper equipment.Of course it's not acceptable to do so without it - nobody has suggested otherwise, so not quite sure why you're introducing the topic.