rendelharris

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A photo on this forum is not going to prejudice a > trial. I mean, apart from anything else, there is > no trial and nothing to be sub judice yet. Taking > the photo down does mean that witnesses might be > missed, though. I think you're absolutely right - however if a picture is posted of an innocent person that could open the forum up to actions for defamation.

Not a new flight path, but they're concentrating more planes into the old one: http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/02/changes-brought-in-by-nats-on-february-4th-means-new-noise-ghettos-in-east-london/

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The problem with the stretch that runs up to > Sainsbury's is that the dotted line starts far too > late. If the inside lane was 'buses and left turn > only' (and very clearly marked as such) - as it is > in the stretch of Lordship Lane which runs up to > the Barry Road left turn - people (buses, cars > etc.) would be in the correct lane for their > allowed manoeuvre. Then photograph and fine any > (non bus) vehicle which is in the left hand lane > and doesn't turn left. As it is, the very short > stretch of dotted line looks like a revenue > generation road marking, rather than one concerned > with traffic direction and through flow. This way > you also avoid late turns by cars which may put > cyclists in jeopardy. This makes good sense.

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "why not just put a dotted line down the middle of > bus lanes, cyclists to the left, motorcyclists to > the right?" > > Because hugging the gutter isn't something you > want to encourage cyclists to do, most of the > time. If I'm doing 15-20mph in a 20, I'll be in > the centre or towards the outside of the bus lane > - less swerving to overtake stopped buses; two > possible directions to avoid potholes, drain > covers etc. Uphill at low speed is a different > story of course, as are busy 30mph bus lanes. I see your point but I think, even at high speed, half of an eight foot bus lane gives me enough space for safety and certainly doesn't force me to hug the gutter. ETA the lines could just be for guidance rather than compulsory...just an idea, anyway.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi rendelharris, > I find myself often buzzed by motorbikes hen > they're allowed in bus lanes. > When I chaired Southwark Cyclists clear mandate > from the active membership that they were against > sharing. The reports I read suggested greater > crash rates between both types of two wheels when > they share bus lanes. I can only say that's not my experience James, I think there's a problem that because cyclists are in a bus lane they feel they are being passed too close by a motorcyclist who's maybe three feet away, when on non buslane roads they're accustomed to being passed much closer without even noticing it. I have no axe to grind - I doubt I'll ever buy another motorcycle - but they don't bother me. Interesting report from TfL in 2008 when they were considering opening up bus lanes: "The evidence from casualty and collision data shows that cyclists' concerns that their casualty rates would rise, and use of their mode would decline, were unfounded in practice... the safety records for cyclists significantly improved where the measure was deployed. Results also show that cycling rose on trial sites - despite the presence of P2W riders in bus lanes and a significantly above-average rise in P2W use of trial routes. The report concludes from the evidence that conditions for cyclists did not significantly deteriorate....The sum of casualty evidence shows that fears of significant rises in pedestrian injuries during the three-year trial were not well founded, with the overall figures demonstrating a significant net safety benefit to pedestrians when considering the collision rates." (P2W = powered two wheelers) I know it might seem counter-intuitive, but it seems that cyclists are less likely to be surprised by motorcyclists sharing the bus lane than by them weaving in and out of traffic. A thought which has just occurred (and this would be one for the wider environment) - why not just put a dotted line down the middle of bus lanes, cyclists to the left, motorcyclists to the right?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Adding motorbikes to slow moving cycles going up > hill along with buses doesn't sound a smart mix. As a cyclist and former motorcyclist I wouldn't have a problem with this James, we already share most bus lanes with motorcyclists in London, including on some hills - on the south circular running up to Forest Hill, for example. I don't know how other cyclists feel about it but in general (there is always the odd exception of course) I find that motorcyclists, knowing they will suffer almost as much as a cyclist in a collision, are careful and courteous around cyclists.

Can't help thinking the tabloids have missed a headline by not using "BIG TWAT SAM"

Chief Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Subway will be good for the ever-increasing band > of selfish, laptop squatters in East Dulwich - > they generally don't eat anything at the venues > that they occupy, so they could all congregate in > Subway ..... and still stay healthy! > PS the added bonus would be that they wouldn't > irritate the rest of us who actually enjoy > purchasing food and drinks in Lordship Lane, > rather than using commercial outlets as a 'free > good'. Given the size of the outlet as detailed in Louisa's original attachment, which shows Subway will be taking over half of a small newsagent's, I doubt there'll be any sit down space for either eating or using a laptop, it looks like a takeaway only outlet to me. Which, sadly but inevitably, will probably increase litter problems on LL...

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Subway... definitely not healthy, but when you > look at the fast food outlets you'd realistically > pitch it against, I certainly don't think it's any > worse. It is what it is. Pretty much true - the 6" meatball marinara is almost identical in terms of fat, salt and calories to a Big Mac (though that doesn't take into account the free cheese and extra sauce on offer). What I find objectionable about Subway is that they portray themselves as a healthy alternative with their salad bars etc, even working with Heart Research UK and the government to say they promote healthy eating - I've known some pretty sensible parents say they were pleased their kids were getting Subways for lunch as it was so much better than them eating in MacDonalds. So no, they're not much worse, but they sucker people in by pretending to be much better.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They might not have very healthy components to > their offering, but I reckon almost all local food > options - including the new MEATLiqour and Franco > Manca, are not exactly 'healthy', cheese, fatty > meats, bread bases. When you're on a budget > something like Subway is a good addition compared > to fried chicken and greasy kebabs, the other > local budget options. At least it contains salad. > > > Louisa. With all due respect (seriously) Louisa, I hate the way unhealthy food outlets are portrayed (generally I mean, not by you) as being a friend to the poor, giving them something to eat when otherwise they'd have to go without - for the cost of a Subway you could buy two lots of relatively healthy M&S sandwiches, or a Sainsbury's pulled pork and sweet potato mash, Spanish chicken with patas bravas etc. It's up to people what they choose but let's not pretend they're forced to eat crap on economic grounds.

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendel, you advised people that parking on your > street was ok a while ago so maybe that's why the > coach turned up? > > I remember somebody asking about parking outside > ED train station and you offered your street? I said that there was usually space there when someone asked about parking for one night, for a car, when they had to get an early train from ED, yes - oh, must be my fault then. Well, don't I feel a fool now.

ontheedge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Remember reading subway food is on one of the > worst type of foods to eat lists, ranks way lower > than McDonalds, but tries to dress it self up in > something healthy! The 12" meatball marinara contains more salt than the recommended daily total for an adult, 42 grams of fat (18g saturated, almost 100% RDA for adult women) and over 1000 calories. Never eaten anything from them myself but friends who have tell me it's actually pretty revolting too!

B777 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The purpose of my original post was to highlight > to dog owners and users of PRP of a potential > problem with poison in the park. Successfully done > as over 2800 views. > It was not to start a discussion for pedants > arguing about the poison. It was unlikely to be > rat poison the parks put down as they are aiming > to poison an animal weighing 300g not an animal > weighing 40 times that. The dog had never eaten > mushrooms before or bark from trees......I think > it safe to assume it didn't start that day. And well done for doing so, but I don't think it's that objectionable for people to discuss what the cause might be - I've actually learned a couple of useful bits of information from this thread which I've passed on to my dog owning mother - it's a discussion board!

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > OK, so there rules and operator's obligations, but > outside that it's open season as far as I can > tell. > We may not like it and it may irritate us, but > that's tough. > I do have an interest in this because I sense we > will see (the greater London area) a huge increase > in folks living in large camper vans / converted > vehicles as the cost of accommodation is so > expensive that renters cannot save to buy. I'm all > for it as it's a logical solution for those not > wanting to be forced out to the further > suburbs/provinces to commute in. Any council can pass a byelaw forbidding sleeping in vehicles on the street in designated areas or across their jurisdiction - this happens quite often in popular tourist spots. Pretty sure that's what would happen if there was an explosion of on-street campervan living.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > yeah but it's not down to what we prefer is it ? > If it's illegal or dangerous then fair enough, it > can't park there. Otherwise it's fair game, no ? > Also we need to keep it real. Where around here > has "a double decker bus parked for weeks", or > "lorry company had half a dozen artics....to stash > somewhere" actually occurred ?!! I'd say not at > all, and, surprisingly, there's also been no > rocket launchers, submarines or SNR1 model > hovercrafts parked around here either, whether in > units or "half a dozen"s. > All your extreme examples just don't happen, so > why posture them ?! > I'm aware of no bye-laws about where larger > vehicles cannot be parked, at least as far as > residential ED goes and notwithstanding safety / > highway code rulebook. > If someone parks a larger vehicle outside your > house for a few days and as you allege 'block your > light' (sniggers down sleeve) I think it's just > tough luck isn't it ? You seriously think your > kids will get scurvy and your indoor plants will > die as a result ?! > The curtain-twitchometer is heading off the scale > here me thinks !! It was you, KK, who said that anybody should be allowed to park any vehicle wherever they want, so I've just given a couple of extreme examples to see if you hold that position no matter what. Funnily enough a mate of mine did have a situation similar to what I've described in Leeds: a removal firm parked a double height lorry outside her back to back terrace for over a month, completely cutting off all natural light in her home. It's hardly net curtain twitching (a rather cheap way of dismissing perfectly natural concerns, I'm sorry to say) to say that that is unreasonable. 'Where around here has "a double decker bus parked for weeks"' - the coach on Soames Street was there for almost a month, and according to you nobody should have complained even if it was a double decker, given that you think everybody should have a right to park any vehicle anywhere they like provided it's not a hazard. Larger commercial vehicles (over 1.5 tonnes) need an operator's licence on which the owner has to show an operating centre at which the vehicle will normally be kept, so it's not permissible to leave such vehicles for long periods on residential streets.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can understand dangerous parking being an issue, > but after that surely ANY vehicle should be able > to park wherever they want without being stalked > by locals - don't you agree ? Not really KK, though my original complaint, as you can see from the photos, was that the coach was parked in a dangerous position on a junction and was sooner or later going to cause an accident. But any vehicle, anywhere the owner wants? So on a street of terraced houses without front gardens it would be acceptable to leave a double decker bus parked for weeks, blocking not only parking for three or four cars but cutting light to the affected properties? It'd be like someone building a two storey house right outside one's front windows! Or say a lorry company had half a dozen artics they needed to stash somewhere, would you be happy for them to use the street right outside your house or flat? Obviously there has to be some give and take amongst residents of an area, but simply depositing very large commercial vehicles for long periods in residential streets isn't really on, in my opinion.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the media have treated him very poorly. > But equally. seeing rendel try to defend the > submarine "idea" is just funny. And seeing the use > of the word "rightist" to describe someone that > has just pointed out that a Corbyn idea was > stupid, is typical. I wasn't particularly trying to defend the Trident idea - I think they're a waste of money with nuclear or conventional arms - but pointing out to *Bob* that he'd fallen for the press lie that Corbyn wanted to send the subs out without any missiles at all; we were discussing the way the press turns everything Corbyn says into something else - Corbyn wants to ban afterwork drinks, Corbyn wants to send the subs out without missiles... *Bob* wrote: "And then of course there were the Trident submarines without any missiles on them. However, I expect this was just a small sliver of a well thought-through and multi-faceted defence policy which had been leapt upon and quoted out of context by THE EVIL MEEJA..." I was pointing out that yes, it was not only quoted out of context by the media but in fact they made up downright lies about it. However, *Bob*, I shouldn't have made that assumption about your political views and I apologise. Attack Corbyn all you like - I'm no great fan - but attack him on what he has actually said, not what the media has told you he said, as they're often two completely different things.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > yes, yes.. Regular missiles not nuclear ones. I > remember. Just swap one for the other and hey > presto. Like having a new exhaust. > > Woolly, harebrained, uncosted nonsense. Sorry *Bob" but it's perfectly possible to exchange warheads between conventional and nuclear ones on the same missile - the US has done it for years with Cruise missiles and the US Navy - those woolly harebrained liberals - are currently developing a conventional warhead for Trident. Notice you performed the usual rightist trick of, when proved wrong (for you repeated, did you not, the press myth that Corbyn wanted to send the subs to sea without missiles?), simply ignoring it and trying an attack from a different angle.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And then of course there were the Trident > submarines without any missiles on them. > > However, I expect this was just a small sliver of > a well thought-through and multi-faceted defence > policy which had been leapt upon and quoted out of > context by THE EVIL MEEJA because, er, well.. > because it's completely bonkers. Yet another example of falling for a lie, I'm afraid *Bob* - you're proving the point! Corbyn didn't suggest sending the subs out without missiles, he suggested they could be used for conventional defence by patrolling with missiles but with conventional, not nuclear, warheads. Which makes perfect sense, and is a lot less bonkers than paying a fortune to be able to reduce Moscow to ruins once it'd obliterated the whole of the UK. But then the press got hold of it and it turns out Corbyn wants the army to have guns but no bullets etc etc.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Possible Edward Wakelin, London 1753.. > > Googled Edward Wakelin silversmith porringer > > This page should be of interest.. > > https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=edward+wakelin+s > ilversmith&rlz=1C1AFAB_enGB570GB572&biw=1600&bih=7 > 70&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmpPmjy63P > AhUpI8AKHS0NAl0Q_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=edward+wakelin > +silversmith+porringer > > > Foxy Damn you Fox, beat me to it! Does look a contender though his hallmark seems usually to have included a fleur-de-lys - early work perhaps? Worth a bob or two if so, let us know what they say at the museum KK.

I agree motorbikes should be allowed in the bus lane, but that leaves the problem of motorists diving across the bus lane to get into Sainsbury's. Is it too simplistic a solution to say stick the bus lane on the right hand side (there are no bus stops on that side between East Dulwich Station and the crest of the hill) so car traffic could either go straight on or turn into Sainsbury's from the left lane, and higher up turn into Champion Hill? Just thinking aloud and sure there are objections, but on the face of it it would appear to be a workable solution.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you say something silly, it gets the press > coverage. > > > Solution - stop saying silly things. He didn't say anything silly though, he made a perfectly valid point(whether one agrees with him or not) that the laddish afterwork drinking culture in many firms militates against women with childcare responsibilities progressing as well as their male colleagues - it only became silly when the press completely lied about what he said! There's video of what he said online, he never said afterwork drinks should be banned!

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If a family choose to follow traditional gender > roles, that's their business. Not appropriate for > JC (and lobbyists) to get involved. Really. What about single mothers trying to hold down a job and provide childcare then?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And then he starts saying frankly bat-shit-crazy > stuff like after work social events should be > forbidden... and I start to imagine some sort of > dystopian nightmare... You see this is the trouble (and I speak as, shall we say, a former JC fan) - Corbyn didn't say ban afterwork drinks at all: he highlighted the fact that a lot of companies have a culture where networking at bar after work is a good way to advance oneself, which was unfair on women who often had to return home for childcare. Anyone who's worked in any sort of company will have surely seen this. He never said ban afterwork drinks, he just intimated that they should not be a place where people can advance their careers. Perfect common sense. But if you Google it, virtually every news outlet reports that he called for afterwork drinks to be banned, which he didn't. The desire of the press in this country to ridicule anyone on the left, with outright lies if necessary, is breathtaking.

turtle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This argument is not helping the situation and , > in my opinion, is in very bad taste. No one has > said the dog was deliberately poisoned, just to be > aware. Dogs have been deliberately poisoned in > other areas of the country, so all possibilities > have to considered. If, in the likely event, it is > from a broken trap then the council need to be > aware and check their equipment more often. But > how sad that a beautiful dog has died a sad death, > lets remember that and all dog lovers be aware, as > that is all the original poster was trying to > ensure. thinking of you JJ. X Oh for goodness' sake, how is it in bad taste? There's information that a dog has been poisoned in a park and concerned people are discussing what may have caused it, at the same time as offering their sympathy to the dog owner.