rendelharris

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You don't need to help the poor to be a charity in > the legal sense. Again, people are conflating the > common usage of "charity" with a legal charity. Didn't think I was P.O.U.S! Rather making the point that although they aren't helping the poor they're still entitled to charitable status under the rules. Nothing smoky about it - whether the rules should be changed is of course an entirely different matter.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd imagine the charitable status has been in > place since then - it's not a charity for the > poor, more of a not for profit, although the > schools do have to provide bursaries etc to those > who cant pay fees, presumably therefore meeting > their current day charitable obligations to a > certain extent that way. Indeed, though it's questionable as to how much they're helping the poor - most bursaries go to pay part of the fees for those who can't afford the full amount - for Eton financial help is available for those with a household income of less than ?80K, at Dulwich College it's ?60K. So it's more of a helping hand for the middle classes than fully funded places for the genuinely poor, but it still counts as part justification of the charitable status.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I find potatoes a wonderful vegetable > > Especially when shoved up an exhaust pipe > (although I am not suggesting anything here) Enough about your hobbies Dogger!

It is illegal to leave your engine idling whilst stationary for any appreciable period (Road Traffic Act section 42 says Google) - ?40 fine. If it's left idling unattended I believe I'm right in saying that the absent driver can be charged with driving without due care or failing to maintain control of a vehicle, something like that. Though as POUS says, a polite word or note first might do the trick.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rh, come on. If cycling is on the rise then means > to reduce bad behaviour should be considered and > people free to relay their experiences and > frustrations. You cannot every time dismiss a > complaint simply because it has not been > 'balanced' by a similar anecdote about bad driving > in a car. True, but I'm very much getting the impression that LadyNorwood is fairly typical of the car driving anti-cyclist brigade who has several times shoehorned complaints about a cyclist's bad behaviour into replies about pollution etc - and as for the comment about "the Dutch know how to cycle, the British do not," that's just silly. If someone wants to attack cyclists as a body then as a cyclist I have a right to defend them.

LadyNorwood Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >... the Dutch know how to cycle, the British do > not... No generalising there then. It's interesting that a few posts ago you said you acknowledged there are bad drivers and bad cyclists but all your complaints are solely about cyclists...the plural of anecdote is not evidence. By the way, how did you know the person who allegedly spat at you was a member of Dulwich College staff, and why, if you knew them, did you not report them both to the College and the police? Spitting at someone deliberately is an assault.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Menu online is essential, surely? > > Do they have a website? Google only returned a > twitter feed and I clicked through on a link from > their twitter and my browser wouldn't take me > there warning of malware. http://www.spinach.london/ but as above, nothing of any real use on it as yet.

I assumed James' statement "every week after half term" means it's a new arrangement beginning in November?

Sorry for your loss, never easy. You don't have to go to your own vets to ask them to dispose of the body, any vet (I think) will do it for you for about ?20-?30. Lordship Lane Veterinary Surgery is open until 8PM tonight if you're back from work by then, you could call them to check they can help, 020 8693 4677. ETA answered before saw previous

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendell, looking at their Twitter, I think they're > on a reduced "soft opening" menu at the moment. > I'm sure once they're doing their full menu, they > will include it on the website. Fair enough so, but I'd still say opening a new restaurant these days with a website which has nothing on it but three lines about the type of restaurant it is, directions and a booking form is a bit of an error.

The missing menu on the website is a real blunder - I was looking forward to this opening but not having as large an entertainment budget as I'd like I'm a bit chary of booking without knowing a rough cost or what I might get to eat. If the nice gent who was on here before is still looking I'd say that's a bit of an essential!

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RH, > > Well the Dutch manage it, so perhaps we will have > to at some point! Maybe so, and if we went down their route (pun intended) nobody would be happier than me, however the Dutch model involves very heavy restriction of motorised vehicle access, one way systems and urban areas where the car is regarded as a guest with no rights over cyclists, mobility scooter users, children playing in the streets etc. That would be wonderful, but as it stands at the moment the Dutch system is so different to ours that we can't just say they do this so why can't we, we'd have to take on their whole ethos and rebuild our infrastructure to match theirs.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RH, > > Many using the Blue Badge scheme would say it is > not fit for purpose. Someone can be elderly and > have mild balance issues or arthritic joints, > either making cycling problematic. However, even > they would not necessarily be defined as disabled > I would still support their use of a mobility > scooter. As would I, I'm not suggesting the BB scheme should necessarily be used to define scooter use, just saying a scheme something like that could be developed to stop them being used unnecessarily (just as an example, a perfectly able-bodied 73-year-old friend of my mother's has just sold her car and bought a mobility scooter as it needs no insurance, is much cheaper to run etc, I don't think that's a desirable road to go down) - if it's needed it's needed. Just not in the cycle lanes!

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, I may be wrong but I see this could be an > issue down the line. It is certainly something to > think about. In my view the able-bodied should not > use mobility scooters but defining the degree of > disability is quite tricky. > > To return to the speeding issue, if I go out on a > bike I am more likely to 'fordle' along (to > choose another posters expression). Being made to > feel I can only use cycle lanes if I am fit and > able enough go at a speed that pleases those who > are commuting etc.. is most definitely off > putting. I agree, defining who should be able to use a mobility scooter would be tricky, though we already have the system determining who should be permitted a blue badge. I don't think anyone's suggested you have to be fit and fast to use the cycle lanes and I hope that wouldn't put you off. I only intermittently use them at rush hour but I've not seen any conflict between those who are quite nippy and those who want to fordle (good word) - the slower stay to the left and the faster overtake towards the centre, just as with motorised traffic. I've only suggested that if you want to ride in rush hour traffic on the roads with motor vehicles it's best to be able to keep up a reasonable speed or you'll find yourself the target of aggression and also being pushed dangerously towards the gutters. Hopefully as more segregated provision is built this will become less and less of an issue.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RH, > > I had though mobility scooters are allowed into > cycle lanes in Holland? > > With an increasing ageing population I'd have > though mobility scooters will be on the rise as > will campaigns to open up cycle paths to users. It > is probably something that needs thinking about. > If a significant amount of investment is being > made to creating cycle ways then in the interests > of equality of access, these other users should be > considered. I am not sure access to pavements is a > real solution. I don't really see this as much of an issue at present, FM: where there are segregated cycle lanes - Blackfriars Bridge Road, Victoria Embankment - there are massive wide pavements both sides of the road which can easily accommodate mobility scooters. If it becomes more of an issue in future maybe it will have to be looked at (possibly the whole issue of anybody, regardless of age and health, being permitted to use mobility scooters might need addressing), but in my opinion it would be ridiculous to allow them onto cycle lanes. The lane along Victoria Embankment, for example, is just wide enough for two mobility scooters to pass each other, so at rush hour you'd have hundreds of cyclists coming in both directions being forced to come to a standstill to allow this to happen. It'd be dangerous for both the people using the scooters and cyclists. I'm not trying to be unsympathetic to those who have to use mobility scooters but I just can't see allowing them to block up the new cycle lanes, which are currently working so well, as a viable option. ETA if some future administration wants to widen the paths to make room for mobility scooters so that they don't impose on the free flow of cyclists, fine - they're just not wide enough at present.

Phlox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for posting that link. Maybe it's out of > date. That car park is definitely free at the > weekend, unless it's changed in the last few > weeks. It gets rammed by late morning on a > Saturday. No, I didn't mean it wasn't free at weekends according to that link, I meant that according to that link it's always free in the disabled bays with a blue badge, which I believe is the case in all Southwark carparks and on-street pay and display zones.

Not according to this: http://www.postcodearea.co.uk/postaltowns/london/se145af/car-parks/

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think some mobility scooters are allowed to go > on the roads and so I'd have thought it would be > in the interests of those users to allow them in > cycle lanes. Class 3 invalid carriages are allowed on the road (but not in bus lanes or cycle lanes) where they're allowed to do 8MPH, but they have to switch back to 4MPH to go on the pavement. Cycle lanes are for cyclists, adding wide powered vehicles will hamper cyclists and also create a safety hazard. If a driver of a Class 3 invalid carriage decides the road is too dangerous then they have the option of the pavement, and that's where they should go.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mary123 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rugby, Cycling. Festivals, Indiemusic, food , > > tattoos. > > > Rotary Heaven is a tattoo studio on Maple Road > (Penge). I don't know how close you are, and how > much you want to spend (tattoos are not cheap, at > least not good ones), but I know they do gift > vouchers. > > The main guy there (Dave Wilson) is an absolute > artist. He specialises in realistic images. I gave > him 2 photos of my daughters and he reproduced > them on my arms. > > http://www.rotaryheaven.com/dws-portfolio > > I've attached one of the pics I gave him, and the > tattoo he did of it. That is staggeringly good.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely mobility scooters should have access to > cycle lanes, otherwise how can they also get > around safely? Obviously motorbikes and scooters > for able-bodied have no business being in cycle > lanes. On the pavement, as they are permitted to and as they do everywhere there isn't a cycle lane. I can't think of anywhere there's a cycle lane but no pavement which a mobility scooter can safely use.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are mobility scooters allowed into cycle lanes? > The roadworthy type have a top speed of 8mph, I > think. > > The notion that cycling slowly is dangerous and to > be avoided confirms my suspicion that cycling in > London is for young or fit people only. Cycling slowly isn't dangerous provided you choose your routes carefully - it's certainly safe enough on the quietways and cycle paths, I just wouldn't recommend going round the Aldwych or along the Euston Road if you can't get above 10MPH. But there are always alternative routes if you look and you don't have to be particularly young or fit to ride between 15 and 20 MPH - I do and I'm neither! Mobility scooters aren't allowed in bus lanes or cycle lanes but I'm seeing an increasing number there - not a major problem at present but they do seem to be coming much more prevalent.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- ... in the past I'd see people like > the Sea Monster (I'm being clever here) and Mark > Thomas, both rude but a bit more subtle in their > insults. I remember the Sea Monster, used to see her regularly thirty years (God help me) back at clubs like the Screaming Blue Murder at the Rose & Crown in Hampton Wick. Whatever happened to her I wonder... ;-) As for audiences, I really don't know what's wrong with them these days. When alternative comedy started, audiences could be rough as hell and only people with really good material survived...now when I listen to some of the godawful rot Radio 4 put into the 6.30PM slot with audiences apparently expiring with laughter...my personal theory is that as prices have gone up and up people feel obliged to find it hilarious or else admit they've blued a lot of money on rubbish. A friend who frequents fancy restaurants to entertain business clients says it seems to work the same way there, if people are paying a fortune they convince themselves that what they're getting is good. Just an idea.

All the time, anything from the last movement of Beethoven's Ninth to Stanley Holloway singing "Wiv a little bit of luck" - had both this week - if you listen to a lot of music the old subconscious will always spill it into dreams.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > By the same logic Shakespeare (had he not > written > > the sonnets etc) couldn't have won a Nobel as > his > > words are written to be spoken by actors? Is > > drama not interchangeable with poetry, i.e. is > it > > susceptible of standing alone on the written > page? > > Then why not a song lyric? > > I make no judgement on the awarding of the prize, > watevs. It's just my opinion on song, which IMO is > absolutely distinct from any other form of written > or spoken word. A song, for me, is a magical (yes, > Mick - magical I say) intertwining of words with > melody, harmony - and sound / production. > > This combination is why it's possible for the same > half dozen chords to be set to the same dozen > notes and - when combined with words - sound > infinitely different every time. But it's the > combination that counts, that's where the magic > happens. > > I love lyrics but I have no interest in reading > them as some kind of standalone element outside of > the aforementioned magical combo. To me, that > defeats the purpose of what a song is. Having said good night...*Bob* we're singing(!) from the same hymn sheet, I would only listen to Dylan's lyrics, not read them - I do have his collected lyrics but they're only really a source of reference (and hundreds of ballsaching poor guitar renditions). The point I was trying to make, probably badly, is that many forms of "literature" require more than just the words on the page - when Harold Pinter won the Nobel, for example, he clearly didn't win for what his words are when read by one person alone in a room, he won for the effect they have when performed on stage. Same for songs is all I'm saying, I agree it's not words plus music, it's words times music, but when it's Dylan we are in the hands of a poet, just for his wonderful words. The fact that they're set to such perfect music makes them a thousand times more powerful...all great poetry is made to be read aloud, it's only with the advent of cheap print (and poor overhyped poets who neither scan nor rhyme) that we've forgotten that tradition. Poetry and song have been inextricably linked throughout the history of human culture - e.g. Homer - all great poems are songs and all great songs are poems. On which poorly expressed note, now I really must go to bed!

Otta, I can't really debate the point I made with you, much as I'd like to, as "Er, that is not the same logic at all" doesn't give me much of a clue as to why you disagree. But saying his voice is hideous, while clearly a personal opinion you're very much entitled to, I think misses the point. Sure, his voice isn't a thing of beauty, but it's the perfect voice for his songs, just as Bowie's, or Tom Waits', or Robert Johnson's is for theirs. While I enjoy cover versions of Dylan (I grew up in the '70s with my old man playing Joan Baez covers of his songs incessantly before I even knew who Dylan was) for sheer soul it has to be the man himself for me. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one! Great to have a chance to talk about him though, too often when I start ranting about Bob my friends tend to move in the general direction of away, possibly understandably. Night all.