rendelharris

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ETA: One may not be able to change a situation. > But if it wasn't possible to change one's approach > to it/thoughts about it, there would be no need > for counsellors or therapists. Yes of course, but that's a highly complex and skilled business, and it isn't reducible to glib platitudes. I just imagine people suffering from loss or depression looking at that trite quote - would it really be of any use to them, or would it just make them feel worse?

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry Rendel, but despite your example (which is > clearly tragic) I agree with Gardenman and I don't > think the actual principle is either New Age > drivel or victim blaming. > > He (I assume it is a he from the name) is not > suggesting that somebody has caused their illness > - or any other difficult life situation - by their > thoughts. Good job I didn't say they were suggesting that then. What they are suggesting is that if you're unhappy about a situation, your unhappiness is down to your thoughts, not the situation - "the primary cause of unhappiness is never the situation" - and in myriad cases, including the example I've given, that is nonsense.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @RH, I guess my point is that those that wish to > have a CPZ on Copleston Road are asking all car > owners on that street to pay for a permit when > there are adequate parking spaces at certain times > of day. > CPZ's are emotive subject and IMO I think that > most people will have already made up their minds > based on the impact on themselves. Most people > will not be swayed by air quality arguments or > care about the knock-on to the neighbouring > non-CPZ areas or the affordability for other car > owners. > If you regularly experience problems parking near > your own property, believe a CPZ will solve this > issue and are happy to pay for the permit then I > guess you'll be in favour. If, like my household, > you don't use your car much during the week (in my > case there are usually more spaces at the weekend) > then I guess you won't. There are adequate parking spaces for a few minutes around 8.30! Looking up and down the street now I can see a single parking space for a small car... I don't drive and my wife goes to work by train, so her car frequently stays in the same spot from one weekend to the next, on the "I want a parking space" level we're not affected. However, I would like a CPZ now as the CPZs in surrounding areas have driven much commercial parking to our road - lots of builders' vans etc (it's become a habit now for some builders working within CPZs to drop off tools/materials in the morning, then go and park in one of the boundary roads - I know this from talking to them), commercial vehicles (someone who obviously sells/rents black cabs is using the street for storage, half a dozen last time I looked, none with TfL licence plates), and the aforementioned commuters. Frequently these vehicles are parked dangerously around junctions, making the area less safe for residents. The commuters are especially irksome as many, especially in this cold weather, drive up and then sit with engines running while they make their 'phone calls, do their make up, sort out their paperwork etc prior to departing for the station. In December I came across one chap, suited and booted, sitting in his Merc with the engine running whilst enjoying a bowl of cereal! He seemed genuinely surprised that I should object to his diesel fumes filling the street whilst he tucked in... So although I'd rather not have to pay for a CPZ (though as Reg sensibly points out above, ?2.50 a week is hardly extortionate), and I'm more than happy to walk a fair distance to the car on the rare occasions I ride in it, I feel that the surrounding CPZs have more or less forced us into having one if we want to maintain a quiet and healthy urban environment.

How exceptionally platitudinous. I'll tell that to the young mother of two I met in King's recently who's been given three months to live - oh it's your thoughts that are making you unhappy, not the situation. Sure it'll go down a treat. For heaven's sake. This sort of new age drivel really riles me, it's a soft form of victim blaming and effectively no different to telling someone "pull yourself together".

mrwb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark have to pay those 44 fat cats on 100k+ a > year somehow! Urban myth territory: the forty-four employees on ?100,000+ figure was put around by the ever-reliable-and-never-cherrypicking Taxpayers' Alliance, extrapolating from the 2014-16 figures. Twenty-five of those ?100k "salaries" in fact represented redundancy payments - the "fatcats" were, in fact, being laid off. At the time of that report (don't know the figure now) Southwark in fact had nineteen employees on over ?100k. You may well think that's too many, but let's keep to the facts.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Large numbers" would imply that there are lots of > empty places for them to park in ! Yes there are, because they tend to pitch up, I assume deliberately, about the time those who drive to work have left and parents are on the school run and take the vacated spaces. What's your point?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What evidence is there that commuters are using > the side streets off Lordship Lane? I can't > believe that people drive to ED from outside the > area in order to park up and then get on our > 'amazing' public transport services into central > London. I don't know about around Lordship Lane but I can definitely say that in Copleston Road - about equidistant from ED station from the bottom of Lordship Lane where we are - large numbers of commuters come and park up and walk down to the station every morning.

jenny pink Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Homeopathy means literally 'cure like with > like'........ > so even 'if' it were a placebo,.....no harm done > > It is proven to work on animals,so can not be a > placebo. Oh please! Can you point to a single peer-reviewed paper that "proves" homeopathy works on animals? Seeing as no reputable double-blind trial has ever been able to demonstrate any proof of it working in humans... The harm done is that millions of people are being ripped off by unscrupulous snakeoil pedlars, that the NHS was wasting (until last year, thank goodness) a fortune on this nonsense, and that vulnerable patients, including children unable to make a choice for themselves, have had their illnesses worsened, and in extreme cases have died, by rejecting conventional treatments in favour of homeopathy. So, quite a lot of harm done, really.

se22cat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Both drivers said the works will take up almost > all this year! The e-sign on Bellenden Road says next thirteen months.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The OP says > " I asked them before and they said that there > does not seem to be a problem as they only > received 7 complaints of breaching of the clean > air act last year!" > I was under the impression that there are > monitoring stations around London since the > 'powers that be' are forever going on about us > breaching EU rules...and then WE have to pay the > EU a fine for doing it. > So if London is annually breaching the EU > levels....how come Southwark is passing the buck > on to the residents to do what should be THEIR > job! Could a sane person provide a translation of what this means, please?

On a point of order, MrB, St.Saviour's and St.Olave's and Notre Dame RC Girls are neither academies nor private. No more derailing. I think I may have an old flute in my mother's attic, will have a look for it next time I visit.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Can you tell me if the same > trust runs both dulwich schools Yes, they are both run by the Charter Schools Educational Trust. Got to say, I don't like the academy system any more than you do, but with 75% of English schools now academies, that battle is lost (for now). Hostility towards a school solely because it's an academy is pointless.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James, Do you know if this a common problem in > other schools within the borough. If by chance > hundreds of instruments are available would you be > willing to deliver to other schools if needed. > Sounds like a great idea as long as there is > transparency with expenditure, is buying > instruments a problem for the charter school. No state school has anything like a sufficient budget to buy enough instruments for all pupils to learn, new school or otherwise. Not quite sure why you're taking this tone with James, who's admirably taking this initiative to try to get some more instruments for a school in which he has an interest. Parents and other interested parties in other schools are quite at liberty to launch their own similar initiatives.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now let me think ... if Remainers were to win* a > so-called ?people?s vote? you would expect the > decision to be honoured and implemented? > > * translation for Remainers: ?win? here means a > majority decision, ie, a least one more than the > losing vote tally That would depend if it was constitutionally set up as a binding referendum, by the result of which the UKGov was legally obliged to abide - which the last one, as you well know, wasn't.

By the way, back to Brexit: keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Further you always quote figures to support your > arguments that purport to show a majority in > favour. Yet one of the main things the Brexit > referendum showed is just under half the > population do not understand, or refuse to accept, > what a majority vote means in a democracy. Another thing it's shown is that just over half the population don't understand, or refuse to accept, that the result of a non-binding, non-mandatory, advisory referendum is non-binding, non-mandatory, and only advisory.

We're getting a bit away from Brexit here, aren't we? However, to answer your point, yes most of the traffic in the CC is supply services, and the ULEZ is a measure to restrict the pollution they cause by the not exactly stringent means of making sure all vehicles adhere to the standards mandated thirteen years ago. So your last sentence implies that making vehicles cut emissions won't, um, reduce emissions pollution?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I didn?t expect you to know the answer Rendel, it > was an unfair question. My point still stands with > these polls/surveys. We don?t know who answers the > questions or why so they should be treated with > caution. > > If the 59% in favour all rode bicycles, used > public transport or commuted into London by train > you?d have to question the result in favour of yet > another money making racket using vehicle drivers > as cash cows. They'd still breathe the same air and so have as much right to influence measures related to improving air quality as anyone else. Reputable polling companies (Gallup, MORI etc) use a raft of sophisticated scientific sampling techniques to ensure that their polls are representative of the population as a whole, weighted for a wide range of variables (and give their margins for error with them). You can't simply dismiss all polling on a "I don't know who answered the questions" basis just because the results don't concur with your particular worldview. I'm fairly sure that if a poll showed, for example, that 75% of Londoners thought Sadiq Khan was doing a bad job and should resign immediately you'd be quoting it with glee.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of the 59% in favour you quote Rendel, how many > owned and drove cars and were likely to be > affected by the charge? Please tell. Ah, do you believe only affected drivers should be consulted on measures aimed at improving air quality? Presumably only those earning over ?100k should be consulted on the top rate of tax? Perhaps only burglars should be consulted about sentencing guidelines?

Ah, so polls are "dodgy" because you don't know people who've participated in them, and yet your assertion that "people are calling it Kahn's [sic] poll tax" is some form of evidence? You surely must have something -really, anything - better than that?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You seem to have difficulty grasping that > Londoners are British on your distinctions above > but never mind. Oh come on, you're better than that, surely? Or maybe you genuinely don't know the difference between monies paid by citizens of a city to their city government and the monies they pay to their national government, in which case it's you who has difficulty. > Kahn is toast anyway and once his > ULEZ scheme comes into force he?ll be dead man > walking re the 2020 mayoral elections. 59% of respondents in the last poll I saw supported the ULEZ within the CC zone, and the extension won't take place until after the elections, so I would think it will have a minimal influence on the 2020 poll. Khan has never had a negative popularity rating in any poll since becoming mayor, and has been consistently between 5% and 15% ahead of the Tories in the polls. You seem to be confusing what you wish was the case with the reality.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On your figures 40% of Londoners should demand a > substantial council tax rebate if a Remainer mayor > is misusing their hard-earned cash for dubious > political purposes. I'd swear you said above you were OK with the message? And on your dubious logic, when the government spend however many tens of billions they've set aside to deal with Brexit, can I have a rebate on my income tax as I didn't vote for it? > I?m sure most of regional Britain would not be > happy with Kahn?s sucking up to the EU being being > representative of their views Tough, to be honest - this is London, it was our money, our display, it reflected the views of the majority of our citizens and he's our mayor. If we don't like it, we can vote him out.

Are you going to tell Mancunians, or Glaswegians, or Liverpudlians, or Novocastrians, that London's NY celebrations represent the UK? Good luck. You said "I don?t have a problem with Kahn?s welcoming message as such, although spending British taxpayers? money on an EU-themed, London-centric message is questionable." OK, I've just pointed out that it wasn't British taxpayers' money being spent, it was Londoners' council tax money (to our benefit), and as you don't have a problem with his welcoming message, we're all good. Happy New Year!

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The firework display was great and I don?t have a > problem with Kahn?s welcoming message as such, > although spending British tax payers? money on an > EU-themed, London-centric message is questionable. Seeing as the money came from London taxpayers, not all of Britain, and we voted 60% remain, it seems fair enough to me. Also the net cost to us (after ticket sales) is ?2.3M, and the estimated tourism benefit of the display is ?6.5M, not like it was being wasted.

mancity68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Similar question: where are the best high points > for fireworks viewing? Living in the Peckham > lowlands the only plac I can think of is a street > corner in Crystal Palace village (which would be > fine). Crystal Palace is great, if you want to go less far Ferndene Road on the south of Ruskin Park has a terrific unobstructed view of London from the City to Battersea, you get a spectacular display from there.

Mscrawthew Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How very dare I, must remember to google > absolutely everything before joining in a > discussion! Happy New Year to all on EDF Not necessary, just pause and give it a moment's thought before writing nonsense. Happy new year to you.