rendelharris

Rupert dear, you make a fool of yourself virtually every time you post. Scroll back through your history if you need examples. ETA: if you need a current example, I just said I could never afford to live on Camberwell Grove. You came back accusing me of saying you could never afford to live on Camberwell Grove. Making a fool of yourself, right there.

I said I (that's me, you see, personal pronoun) will never be able to afford to live there. Slap on the old reading glasses and/or engage brain is my advice. Traffic conditions haven't changed in the last seventy years? You've frequently tried this "you're a bore" line since you were made rather a fool of some time ago, rest assured you may continue with it as I couldn't care less, it's a meaningless insult which I presume you think makes you superior - better than having a proper argument I suppose. You actually think Camberwell Grove has been a major road since 1770, despite the fact that it would have been entirely impractical for the traffic of the time. That says as much as one needs to know about the validity of your opinions.

Quite right, by golly: nothing should ever be changed, ever, ever, ever, because someone can remember what it was like fifty years ago when traffic conditions were utterly different. Especially when they're a declared car lover and cycle hater. I hold no brief for Camberwell Grove residents, I'll never be able to afford to live there, but the idea that you have better knowledge of how traffic flow should be managed, simply by virtue of your birthdate, is utterly risible. ETA "It was never a short cut but a major road and always was from the time it was constructed." Camberwell Grove came into being around 1770. The majority of houses there were built before 1850. Are you seriously claiming that horse and cart traffic would deliberately choose to use such a steep road when (and this is in fact what they did) they could go round the flat route through Peckham Rye? Laughable statement.

Well said Mr.B. Any chance of a "give way to the right" sign on the McNeill Road junction?

Can I just point out that although the bridge is closed to motor traffic, it's still open for cyclists and pedestrians, so drivers joining Camberwell Grove from McNeil Road should continue to treat it as a junction, not just a new curve. I'm sure most do, I mention this particularly for the benefit of the gentleman [sic] in a green 4x4 who came haring round there this morning, clearly without looking at all to see if any traffic was coming up the Grove, who would have collected me on his bonnet had I not been aware enough to take evasive action. If you're reading this sir, thanks for the hooting and the gestures, as is well known they completely absolve you of any responsibility for your rotten dangerous driving.

I think (not much of a petrolhead, as you might gather) this can be easily adjusted on modern cars by changing the engine mapping through a computer. But then it'd mean losing the top end for illegal speeds, would people be willing to sacrifice the 150mph top speed for which they'd paid a premium?

'Cos it'd be nanny state interference with individual freedom, innit? Even though the freedom in this case would appear to be the freedom to break the law... By the way Jeremy, I agree with the rest of your post but powerful engines for overtaking horses?! One should slow right down for horses and pass very slowly with as little engine noise as possible, the last thing a rider needs is a powerful motor whizzing past with a roar!

Oddly they don't vote either, as apparently only God, not man, can decide who leads us - I remember when Obama was first elected Serena Williams saying she was so thrilled to have a black president but she hadn't voted for him as it wasn't permitted. Not sure what they think of God's choice for the next four years...

Very sensible post that Sally - I'm at a loss to understand why it's permissible to buy a car with a top speed of twice the maximum speed limit or more, I know one needs a little in hand in case there's a need to accelerate past a potential incident on a motorway, but really having a car which can do more than 100MPH in the UK indicates either an ego trip or a definite intention to break the law.

There's an awful lot of this going on and you're right to find it infuriating - been seriously considering investing in a GoPro or similar dashboard cam just to document some of the insane behaviour. Trust me, as we witnessed when we used to live right on the Denmark Hill/Champion Hill junction, there have already been any number of very nasty incidents on this stretch of road. However I'd disagree that the 20 MPH limit is too low as from Tulse Hill all the way to Camberwell the only advantage in speeding is to get to the next set of lights quicker - time and again we'll be undertaken by someone doing forty when we're doing twenty and we'll still be right behind them when we get to Camberwell or even Elephant. I'm too old and unfit to be much cop on my bicycle but in the rush hour I often find I'm still with the same group of cars over the whole stretch from Herne Hill to Camberwell and beyond, faster speeds don't actually get anyone anywhere faster. I know there will be plenty who disagree, but in my opinion the fact that a lot of people choose to disregard the speed limit (especially when, as above, it's entirely pointless so to do) is not a reason to change the limit, it's a reason to bring in better enforcement. Average traffic speeds in London are so low anyway, anyone who chooses to roar past in a 40MPH undertake isn't going to get to their destination any quicker, they're just displaying the macho aggression that's making the roads so unpleasant for drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. Just my two penn'orth!

Still an excellent joke though.

Oh yes, I do apologise...well you've got lots of four tries or more points there, so maybe everyone gets fourteen points and Scotland win on points difference.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rh: Ireland losing to Wales, and also to England > away. > > That will be interesting. Well, now they draw to England! All theoretical - I don't really believe there will be two draws on the final day. I have a feeling, if the teams remain roughly as they were for the autumn internationals, that England Ireland will depend on the weather as much as anything, a mucky rainy day in Dublin and England will keep it tight and edge it, a nice mild spring day and Ireland will throw it around a bit and should exploit the fact that (I think) England still haven't got the middle of the back line sorted.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For your homework RH would you find out if it's > possible for all 6 teams to end up with the same > number of points? If you think I've got nothing better to do...you'd probably be right. Not sure if it can be done with "regular" results, but chuck in a couple of draws and with these results every team would end on fourteen points: WEEK ONE Scotland 2 v Ireland 4 England 4 v France 1 Italy 2 v Wales 4 WEEK TWO Italy 2 v Ireland 4 Wales 0 v England 4 France 4 v Scotland 2 WEEK THREE Scotland 2 v Wales 4 Ireland 4 v France 2 England 4 v Italy 2 WEEK FOUR Wales 4 v Ireland 0 Italy 5 v France 2 England 0 v Scotland 5 WEEK FIVE Scotland 3 v Italy 3 France 5 v Wales 2 Ireland 2 v England 2

Bit bored so had a look at the fixture list, under the new system we could end up with these results (figures points awarded, obviously): WEEK ONE Scotland 2 v Ireland 5 England 4 v France 2 Italy 2 v Wales 5 WEEK TWO Italy 2 v Ireland 5 Wales 2 v England 4 France 5 v Scotland 2 WEEK THREE Scotland 2 v Wales 5 Ireland 5 v France 2 England 4 v Italy 2 WEEK FOUR Wales 4 v Ireland 1 Italy 5 v France 2 England 0 v Scotland 5 WEEK FIVE Scotland 5 v Italy 2 France 5 v Wales 0 Ireland 0 v England 4 Which would end with a table of: England 16 points Wales 16 points France 16 points Ireland 16 points Scotland 16 points Italy 13 points Really must get out more.

Yes, I meant more we don't have jetpacks which would be any good for practical transportation, whereas driverless cars are already out working on the roads (without any of the infrastructure you mention above). I really don't know, but I can remember twenty years ago people saying hybrids and electric cars would never become widespread due to the extra cost and lack of infrastructure, now one can stroll into any showroom and pick one up.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But rendelharris, your argument could just as well > have applied to jetpacks or colonies on Mars... or > anywhere else in the galaxy. And nowhere have you > mentioned cost. Our roads, canals and railways ? > which were nearly all built by speculation via > public subscription - a model for which profit is > the driver. Interestingly, many if not most > schemes went bust but we still ended up with the > infrastructure... as we did most recently with the > Channel Tunnel. With driverless cars, is it a > breakthrough technology in economic terms? I'd > suggest not, so no-one's going to want to pony up > for it. But we don't have the technology for viable mass rollout of jetbacks or colonies on Mars, whereas driverless cars are already here! I think Jeremy's suggestion above is probably how it'll develop, a multiapproach system of cars sensing what's around them with autonomous sensors, working with other cars through car-to-car communication, other control via GPS etc. Driverless cars are already being trialled on the roads... You mention the investment needed for canals, railways etc: I think the investment for driverless car control systems would be a fraction of that, more akin to the investment required to establish mobile networks. We'll see.

It does mean there could be a situation where a team which wins two games and loses three could draw with a team which wins four and loses one, I think that's right: Team A wins two games with four-try bonus points, 5x2=10, loses the other three with two bonus points in each, 2x3=6, total 16. Team B wins four games without scoring four tries in any, 4x4=16, loses the other game by more than seven points and without scoring four tries, 0 points, total 16. Be interesting to see how they're split then, back to points difference I suppose? Or most bonus points, in which case team A comes out on top despite winning half the number of games! Interesting.

Hopefully it'll work and could make for more exciting ends to matches where the result is already decided but a side might decide to go for a penalty to improve points difference, if they've scored three they'll really pressure for a fourth. My only worry is a slight one of equality: for example next year Ireland are playing Scotland at Murrayfield on February 4th, England are playing Scotland at Twickenham March 11th. The latter game is far more likely to have conditions propitious for running rugby and try-scoring, so England would have a far better chance of collecting bonus points. But I guess that's just the rub of the green.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Won't happen ? far too expensive to put all the > infrastructure in place. Who is going to pay? > Everyone whizzing around in driverless cars is no > less a fantasy than jetpacks and holidays in > space. I daresay in 1880 the idea that there would be 250,000 miles of paved road in the UK and that virtually every household would own a motor car seemed ridiculously farfetched, or the idea that enormous flying machines would enable people to travel anywhere in the world...it'll happen slowly, but eventually it'll happen. Manufacturers will start releasing cars with more and more self driving features (which we have already to an extent with cruise control, automatic emergency braking automatic parking etc). Eventually fully self-driving cars will become commonplace, but they'll most likely be autonomous, i.e. running off sensors inside the car, as the prototypes now are. Then cars will start being sold with "network ready" capabilities, a few control networks will be built in large towns, these will start to link up...it'll be just like any other major network, I'm sure people ridiculed the idea of electricity being carried all over the country, or gas. I can remember in my lifetime people saying that mobile phones would only ever be useful in major cities as there's no way anyone was going to build up a network right across the country. It will take time, but it'll happen.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Self checkouts at the supermarket, it's not hassle > free and slower than a normal checkout along with > the soulless experience half the items failed when > scanning... > > Shan't be doing that again anytime soon, > especially as chatting to it like it was a real > person got me loads of funny looks (apparently > they have done nothing recently and plan to do > nothing but work this weekend!) I think it was asking it for a date that got you the real funny looks Dogs.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To say that sending 'petty' thieves to prison will > make them worse criminals and introduce them to > drugs is ridiculus. I disagree, but here's another perfectly practical, no-bleedin'-hearts-here point for you: each prisoner costs in excess of ?40,000 per year to keep incarcerated; starting salary for a police officer is ?22,668. So for every prisoner, we could have two more police on the street - something that has been proven the most effective crime deterrent. Criminals aren't scared of prison sentences because nobody commits a crime if they think they're going to get caught: more police officers make the likelihood of getting caught increase, so crime decreases. Offenders should, where feasible, be made to do rigorously enforced community service (i.e. with proper penalties for non-attendance) and at the same time, if appropriate, given training in anything which might discourage recidivism. Again, that's not bleeding heart liberalism, it's hard practicality: 75% of the prison population cannot read, write or do simple arithmetic at end of primary school level. Recidivism rates in the first year after release in the UK are 60%; for those trained and put into work it falls to 10%. This isn't about cosseting the poor little criminals, it's about protecting ourselves by reducing crime and deploying resources in the most effective manner.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bawdy-nan Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rendelharris Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Is that film available online anywhere b-n? > > > > > > I don't think so - but it has a website here > ... > > http://www.thepublichousefilm.co.uk/index.html > > > > I;d LOVE to see it again, on a big-screen, at > the > > ED Picturehouse say - it's absolutely > wonderful. > > I'd love to see this film too. Anyone from the Ivy house on here? Sounds like you might have a market for a screening night?

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe because they haven't been victims. My son > had his mobile grabbed in Camberwell a few years > ago. He gave chase and fell over. His hand was > very badly scratched by the thief and he damaged > both knees....so yes the bleeding hearts aer > responsible for the awful crime imo because they > will apologise for them while the crims are > laughing at us and p*ssing all over us. I've been violently mugged at knifepoint and I've been injured intervening in an attack on a woman. I'd far sooner the perpetrators in both instances (neither were caught) were made to do meaningful, severe and properly enforced community service than be sent to jail where the odds are in favour of them emerging drug dependent, brutalised and/or radicalised and gang initiated ready to commit further crimes. All prison does to petty criminals is turn them into bigger and better criminals with which we as a society then have to cope. That's not being a bleeding heart, it's just common sense. I don't care that much about the perpetrators, I care about having to face what we turn them into through kneejerk bang 'em up reactions.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/a_to_z/service/360/garden_waste_collection