rendelharris

Inkmaiden Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually rendelharris, I have to disagree with you > about Harris' attitude to their pupils' out of > school behaviour. We (myself, friends and > neighbours) have contacted the school on several > occasions recently regarding incidents. Firstly, > repeated verbal and physical bullying of younger > children by someone who has actually been > identified. Secondly, the school has been > repeatedly made aware of the Barry/Upland > Rd/Oakhurst Grove situation, which- just one > example- involved fighting, fireworks being let > off in the street and verbal abuse from the > students at 4pm a couple of weeks ago. > > The response every time has been that as they are > not on school grounds there is nothing Harris can > do and they recommend calling the police. And > that's it. I was really surprised as I thought > they would react more as you described. Sorry to hear that - I have no experience, despite my name, of any of the Harris academies, I was just going on how schools reacted when I was a teacher - dull afterschool evenings patrolling Oval tube station to make sure our lads behaved!

Dulwich61 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris > > A) I agree > > B) Nor had I, and it's Labour but I make nothing > of that > > C) Forsooth gives you away maybe ... > > Not sure there's anything between us. Damnation, given away by a single word, you've got me. What you think you've got me on, I'm not sure. Oh I think there's quite a significant difference between us. I hope so, anyway.

Dulwich61 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris > > Your hysterical tone betrays your leanings and > loyalties. A) I think the road scheme is a waste of time and don't support it; B) As stated above, I'd never heard of Ms.Ali before her post this evening and have no idea even what party she represents; C) The sentence above betrays you as someone who would have been at home with the late senator McCarthy, "leanings and loyalties" forsooth!

Dulwich61 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let's wait and see. If the answer is "no" or > there's no answer, that'll likely tell us all we > need to know. What an extraordinary sense of self importance - if she doesn't answer your hectoring post she must be in the wrong. Did you go to the meeting? Have you tried engaging with the council or individual councillors apart from having a pop at them on here?

Dulwich61, why do you assume that you have a right to demand that Ms.Ali answers your questions? Local councillors appearing on here is simply a courtesy and they can choose whether or not they should. It's much appreciated when they do but they're under no obligation to answer questions from you or anyone else. If you demand replies then go through the proper channels. Your suggestion that she's obliged to publish her notes from yesterday's meeting on a public forum as part of her duties as a councillor is risible. Your tone is worryingly aggressive, as is your posting of Ms.Ali's LinkedIn profile, which you apparently think counts against her, though to me it shows a pretty acceptable record of public service. As stated above, I don't think there's a problem with the roads in question and regard the proposals as a waste of time and money when other highways issues are far more pressing; neither had I even heard of Ms.Ali before she posted on here. I assume, after your hectoring, demanding and borderline bullying response, she'll think twice before posting on here again. ETA Ms.Ali has also provided her email and asked people to contact her with any issues they may have - but clearly it's better to play the big man and try to "call her out" on a public forum.

Burgess Park BMX track? Runs novice sessions with equipment loans then once confident open rock up and ride sessions. Open 9-9 all week.

It's Harris Boys' Academy East Dulwich (http://www.harrisdulwichboys.org.uk/), and yes well worth informing the school: all schools take their public image very seriously and will send teachers out into the streets to check up on things if their kids are letting the school reputation down, to identify and deal with pupils either then or when they're back in school. Schools have the power to sanction pupils misbehaving on the way to and from school, particularly if they're representing the school by wearing the uniform, it's part of the school/pupil contract. Let the school know, they honestly will thank you for it.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fox, are you suggesting that one day, we might be > able to do our weekly food shopping without > leaving the home? Tcha, that be foolish talk be that.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually I think you can only fill in 3m of the > side return under PD. Obviously this is not enough > for most houses, but it will be enough for some > (e.g. the houses on Tyrrell Rd which have a tiny > kitchen at the back). Apologies, you're quite correct (got confused by people saying side extensions (which can run the length of the side of the house for a semi or detached) rather than side returns) - the point at which the side return starts is considered the back wall of the house for that purpose, so three metres out from that, the maximum rearward development allowed. Though as above until May 2019 the maximum rear extension for attached houses is 4 metres, so presumably that also applies to side returns.

The three metre max length is for extending at the rear (4m for detached houses and 4m/8m respectively for rear extensions up to May 2019) - side extensions can run the length of the building. Newish regs I think - been looking into them all recently as mother's neighbour has been asking her about adding a large extension to his house.

pop9770 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > pop9770 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > If it's a side extension it won't be > permitted > > development you'll need planning. > > > > If it's a small kitchen (under 3m long) then it > > will fall within PD. > > NO if it's on the SIDE it will require planning.! > > ONLY If it's directly on the back is it permitted > development. > Not the case, single storey side extensions less than 50% on the width of the original dwelling definitely come under permitted development. The only exceptions are if the side of the house fronts a highway or the house is on designated land. https://ecab.planningportal.co.uk/uploads/miniguides/extensions/Extensions.pdf

Pop, it's a roundabout, clearly marked and highly visible. Regardless of whether you think it's badly designed or too big, if people hit it that's because they're either incompetent drivers or were driving too fast for the road and traffic conditions. If the size of the roundabout were reduced, that would enable drivers to drive even faster into the junction, the very problem with which Louisa began this thread. It's selfish and aggressive driving that causes the problems, not the road design. How many cars would have accidents at the roundabout if they slowed and prepared to stop if necessary, carefully checked for pedestrians and gave way to traffic coming from their right then waited for a suitable opening before joining the roundabout? None.

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why does all this traffic instruction have to be > spelt out these days when in the past it seemed to > come naturally. > > As someone said this roundabout has been there > since the creation of time. > > Do people these days always need to be instructed > or lead? Way more traffic and, one suspects, way more aggression. ETA plus no bus lanes back in the day.

The road on the left (Tintagel Crescent) comes after the roundabout and the zebra crossing, so I'd say indicate to show that you're taking the first exit, but cancel it as soon as the front of your car reaches the zebra crossing. Not ideal but if you don't signal at all there is a danger that cyclists and motorcyclists might wrongly assume you're going round the roundabout and try and squeeze up your inside (they shouldn't but some will).

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The fool on the Denmark hill train to Victoria who > replied, "why don't you get up earlier ?" when > people trying to board the half-full train asked > those already on board "could you move down the > train please". Ha! Possibly the same person who said to me earlier this year "some of us are going to work" when I squeezed onto that same train in the morning carrying my snooker cue - as it happened I was going to a meeting and planning to get a quick game in later, but I didn't feel they deserved an explanation!

Well, speaking as a cyclist who would normally welcome any cycle lanes, I can see absolutely no purpose in any of the proposed lanes on those plans. Solving a problem which for me at least just doesn't exist - the road is quite wide enough for cyclists to be safe. If they've got money to chuck at this area I'd far sooner it was spent resurfacing the disgraceful stretch of Lyndhurst Way between Peckham Road and the junction with Highshore Road, trying to hold a clean line over that Swiss cheese surface is by far the biggest hazard for cyclists in this area, in my opinion.

pop9770 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > in order to get your vehicle through you are > required to jump through several hoops > > 1. Avoid bus lanes > 2. Avoid bus stop > 3. Avoid buses > 4. Avoid smashing your wheels against curbs > 5. Avoid roundabout > 6. Avoid idiot drivers who straddle two lanes > 7. Avoid indecisive drivers navigating roundabout > 8. Avoid pedestrians who amble across roundabout > 9. Avoid cyclists If you find these things difficult ("avoid roundabout" - what, not crash into the big round thing in the middle of the road?) or an encumbrance perhaps you should consider whether piloting half a ton of lethal metal through the streets is for you. The problems at LL roundabout are caused by selfish drivers heading into the roundabout too fast and failing to follow the rules of the road by slowing, preparing to stop if necessary, indicating properly and selecting the correct lane for their exit. ETA and giving priority to a) pedestrians and b) traffic from the right.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can you take a nap whilst 'not actually driving' > the car. Not at the moment, nor sadly are you allowed to have a few pints - at present where they've been introduced a licensed and competent driver must be there at all times to override the computer if necessary. But one would imagine, given the exponential growth in technologies, that ultimately it will reach a point where the human driver is totally redundant.

Toffee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I blame local councils. What idiots would place a > zebra crossing on or near a roundabout? The most > dangerous being the crossing by the Mind shop. There's a great line in the Half Man Half Biscuit song "Breaking News": "...People who blame the council for litter, never stopping to think that it's people who drop litter, not the council..." Personally I blame the drivers who refuse to obey the Highway Code by slowing and preparing to stop as they come to a roundabout and also checking zebra crossings for people waiting to cross. What makes these crossings dangerous is drivers refusing to obey the rules of the road, not the siting of the crossings. It's actually quite logical and commonplace to have zebras on or near roundabouts, as if drivers are complying with the law they should be slowing/stopping there anyway.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Will only driverless vehicles be permitted - in > one big switchover? The clever optimisiation of > vehicle movements will be impossible if there are > pesky humans also on the road, making their own > decisions. That's going to be the big problem, as I understand it what's being trialled at present are autonomous vehicles, so they make their decisions based on what they sense around them. To have full optimisation using central control then yes, human controlled cars would have to go. It'll happen in a few generations I think - 50-75 years maybe - when people have become so used to driverless cars that driving them yourself will seem as big an anachronism as having a chap with a red flag in front. The big advantages from a personal point of view would be that a) they'd presumably be programmed to give cyclists "as much room as when overtaking a car" (that's what it says in the Highway Code!) and b) one could whistle up one's driverless car after a night on the ale and get home safely.

I think the actual title could do with changing - "Driverless" sounds random and out of control. They'll still have a driver, it'll just be a computer. Something like "computer guided cars" would sound way more reassuring. Personally when I see the rage, aggression, selfishness and inattention displayed by a significant minority of car drivers I think they can't come soon enough! Take LL as an example, think how many blockages, near misses etc are caused by people trying to push through, computer guided cars all linked to a network which calculates the optimum way for all vehicles to get through would work far better.

I had a Virgin engineer round to sort a landline 'phone issue last week, he checked the internet connection as well and found all the settings were wrong (no idea what they were but he showed me a screen with about a dozen red/green lights and they were all red). Since he fixed it I'm getting 60mbps on an advertised speed of 50mpbs (previously was getting about 20mbps), so worth asking them to check one's personal installation if possible.

I imagine it's the Royal Parks who levy the majority of the charges as it's on their land. The prices do sound rather a gyp but on a positive note the fees paid by the organisers do go to the Royal Parks which is a charity which has seen its direct grant from government reduced by over 40% this decade, so it helps keep the parks open and in good nick.

Not even ?20 - Title Summary on the new "Basic Service" at the land registry will tell you the owner for ?3. You may get a good owner who deals with it, but your other option would be to contact Southwark noise abatement when it happens on 020 7525 5777, they claim they'll respond within an hour of a complaint.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You don't have a right to other people's > conversations. What an overblown sense of > entitlement you people have. If you don't speak > the language I feel like speaking to someone > that's not you, you don't get to hear it. This is > one of the most linguistically diverse cities on > earth. You're not going to get far huffing and > puffing and insisting that other people only speak > a language that you know when you're around. There are valid arguments on both sides here, but I think most people would say that when you're providing a personal service such as barbering to someone a) your focus should be on your client, not on chatting with your workmate and b) you shouldn't make your client feel uncomfortable wondering if they're being slagged in a language they can't understand over their heads. On a bus, in a pub, on the street, by all means speak any language you wish and nobody has a right to say otherwise, if you're being paid to provide a service and you're capable of speaking the client's language I'd say it's common courtesy to use it. Paris is one of the most amusing places for this - having been brought up for a few years on the continent my French is reasonably good, it's always fun to listen for a bit to waiters being rude about the English tourists then start speaking to them in French...though nothing on earth will puncture the arrogance of a Parisian waiter!