rendelharris

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mscrawthew I hope you?ve learned your lesson (you > naughty poster) for generalising when making a > point on the EDF ! > How DARE you. > You could have said ?trains are always late? but > then you would run the risk of one train being > found to have arrived on time and the conclusion > that you?re a deceiver. > Why oh why didn?t you just come straight out and > say only ?89.24937688% trains are on time in my > experience? ?! Yes jolly funny - except the point under discussion was that people's perceptions of transport in ED being appalling and the reality can be very different, so in that context it was entirely relevant to point out that the lady's perception of what goes on and what actually happens had no correlation.

Mscrawthew Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do love literal people, maybe we should all take > things just as seriously as you do. I didn't mean > this to be a literal fact finding statement. It > feels like more are cancelled than run when you > are caught up in the middle of it every day and > are often late or have to re-route. Wow, I must > remember to ensure that I find out all possible > facts before I post anything ever again. Or you could not make silly generalised patently untrue statements in the first place, of course. Shouldn't you make some kind of beeping noise when you reverse so quickly? Still, nice try but no save.

As BNG points out, if more trains are cancelled than are run, that's over 50% cancelled. Bizarrely you appear not to understand what you yourself have written. No I do not commute daily from ED, but my wife does, and she's fairly certain that there is not a 50% cancellation rate. If that's not what you meant, then admit it, but as your statement stands you are claiming that 50%+ of trains from ED are cancelled.

Mscrawthew Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry if you can't just read something without > adding imaginary figures. Hope you had fun trying > to find them! So as the facts don't match your perceptions, you accuse the person offering you the facts of making them up? Rather a pathetic way of conducting a debate, isn't it? You can check the facts I have offered you above for yourself at www.recenttraintimes.co.uk. Alternatively you could offer a scintilla of evidence for your claim that "Trains from ED are cancelled more than they run"? But if you can't either refute my facts or offer any of your own, don't embarrass yourself trying to bluster your way out of it by accusing the evidence of others of being "imaginary" - that's both childish and impolite.

Mscrawthew Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's reality everyday when you are trying to get > to work. As always the pedant rendel. It's not pedantry, when someone makes an utterly ridiculous and demonstrably untrue claim that over 50% of trains from ED are cancelled, to offer the facts demonstrating this isn't even close to bring the case. It may be your perception, but it very definitely is not the "reality everyday". Sorry if the facts are not to your taste.

Mscrawthew Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are a lot less buses at the times when they > are needed most. Trains from ED are cancelled more > than they run and from 7.40 onwards the buses are > packed to the rafters! This comment rather illustrates the perception/reality conflict that makes people think that ED is poorly served for public transport. There are plenty of sites where one can view historic train data; for example, for the last month, the morning services (6-10AM) between ED and London Bridge had around 98% of timetabled services running. The worst service (7.53) had 13% cancellations. By no means satisfactory, and the rail companies should be held to account (and renationalised!) but to suggest that more than 50% of scheduled services are cancelled is ludicrous.

krustyloaf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thank you for message, I?m so sorry to hear you > had a similar incident, especially after seeing > what it?s done to my friend, she?s in bits. There > are just too many what if?s (a child, car crash, a > fatality) not to ask the community for help. I?m > just reporting what happened as my friend is in no > state to do so. KL, really sorry to hear of this obviously genuine and deeply upsetting incident. However, don't listen to "SRM33" who, posting under another identity ("Steve32") was allegedly subject to a "vicious" attack from a small spaniel which, by his own admission, didn't even bite him. Subsequent to this "attack" he followed the dog's owner (a sole female) around Peckham Rye park trying to film her on his 'phone (again, this is by his own admission). He then called the police when the woman's partner turned up to ask him what he thought he was playing at (they refused to act). He was not "attacked" by either of the people in question - again, by his own admission, neither of them laid a finger on him. Search for Steve32 and you'll find his rather bizarre history. He's also very odd in that he sends lots of PMs threatening legal action against anyone who questions his version of events (including, in my case, ones which revealed he'd been searching through my social media, making comments about my age and occupation). Sorry to derail your thread temporarily but I think the point needs to be made. Again, my heartfelt sympathies to your friend and her dog, I hope they both recover from such a horrid experience as soon as possible. Admin - is it OK for people to just create new identities to keep on pursuing their bizarre vendettas?

That's a terrible response from Churches - they haven't so many vans that they couldn't very easily establish which one was in the area at that time. Making your complaint public on a comapny's Twitter and Facebook pages (Churches have both) often seems to have considerable gee-up power these days.

Just to add to my "gross over exaggeration" above, yesterday, as well as commercial vehicles (the majority seem to have been removed for the holidays) there were no fewer than eight black cabs on Copleston/Soames, none of them with carriage licence plates, clearly being stored by a seller or leaser of same.

VerryBerry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wouldn't like either a dog or a child with dirty > feet in either situation. I've had pets but > wouldn't dream of bringing them into a food > establishment as I respect the rights others who, > like me, recognise that ultimately they are still > animals. Humans carry illnesses / diseases - hence > why we are required to wash our hands and cover > our hair when preparing food, not having animals > in food establishments is a courtesy we need to > respect. If your not using a guide dog then there > is no excuse. That two people thought to justify > this is shocking. I have flash back to the episode > of come dine with me and the cat's whiskers > dropping into the food. It's 2018, not the middle > ages where we aren't aware of the dangers of poor > hygiene. > > Yuck Jeez, precious much? If dogs in non-food-prep areas of eating establishments posed a threat to hygiene or to human health they would be banned under food hygiene regulations. They're not, and owners of such establishments are doing nothing wrong in permitting dogs in these areas. If you don't like it, fine, go elsewhere, but stop whining that it's discourteous or somehow transgressing the rights of others for shop owners and dog owners to act perfectly in accordance with the law and all applicable hygiene regulations. If you find that "shocking", get out more.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's happening at the Ivy House? DJ from 8PM - free entry.

> This seems like a gross over exaggeration. I've > never noticed "hordes" of vans or motorhomes > lining the streets of ED. Yes, there are a few > here and there but at least they are not a > permanent fixture! Not talking about ED as a whole but certain areas abutting CPZs. I invite you to take a stroll down Soames Street any normal working day and you'll find around 30%+ of the parked vehicles are commercial. Standard practice for tradespeople working at premises within CPZs now to drop their materials and tools off at the site then drive to the nearest non-CPZ streets to leave their vehicles.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do ppl really think that ED is abysmally served by > public transport ? Weird, isn't it? I've lived all over South London for fifty years and have never felt better served for public transport than I have living in the centre of ED!

SJK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mscrawthew Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Totally agree Jacqui, it normally means even > less > > parking spaces by the time they mark them out. > > > Also, having parking bays marked out the length of > every street and the multitude of signs and > parking meters that will go with them will look > horrible. It will really spoil the lovely > residential streets in ED. I reckon the hordes of trade vans, motorhomes and taxis that are being stored in the non-CPZ areas (like Copleston Road and Soames Street, at present) do far more to uglify our lovely streets than any parking infrastructure ever could. I don't regard CPZs as an unalloyed good but it's becoming increasingly clear that if there are going to be any they have to be everywhere or those areas without them start to resemble an industrial estate parking lot.

VerryBerry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It would be nice to have every restaurant/ food > establishment display signs. I've had to revise > shopping locally as a beloved bakery on Nunhead > lane has taken to indulging dog owners who have no > respect for those of us who don't want dog hair in > our food. Why, oh why can't fido be left outside > whilst you pop in for a frog / ice doughnut? I've > no issue with guide dogs but fido is an animal, > the shops not your kitchen and it's disgusting. > I've had pets and never taken them inside of a > shop as I realise ultimately they are animals and > not hygienic. I hope more stores are encouraged to > be better and realise animals aren't always > prohibited, but it's a big indicator as to how > you view your cleanliness. Humans have lived intimately with canines domestically for thousands of years, they really don't do us any harm, and dogs being allowed in non-food-prep areas of cafes or pubs does not pose any risk at all to human health. Lighten up.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just leaving this here, courtesy of Santa Corbyn, > delivered under the radar of the festive break. > Perhaps Labour supporting Remainers will now > finally wake up to what Corbyn has always > wanted...https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018 > /dec/22/remainers-condemn-jeremy-corbyn-pledge-to- > push-on-with-brexit Yep, total last straw for me. I really, really wanted to believe in him, but no. Now what? Oh well, here's my Christmas card for this year, and heaven help us all xxx

mynamehere Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The language described is outrageous. I did not > witness this event. We all get packages, it is > also outrageous not to help your neighbours. And > yes they get left at mine without being collected > I have no idea why. I take them to my neighbours. > And yes, I have a full life. None of this takes > more than one or two minutes. The last time I > looked it is officially a season of joy and > charity which begins at home. Merry Christmas one > and all. No. The OP was, apparently, verbally and physically abused in front of a young child in a quite atrocious fashion for refusing to do something for which she has no obligation, and for which her personal circumstances made it difficult. Don't try to conflate some gobshite about seasonal goodwill with excusing a delivery driver calling someone a fat c*nt and threatening them in front of a young child. I find it quite extraordinary that, on the basis of the evidence presented, you think this is acceptable behaviour.

A "memory" just came up on Facebook of a party we had last year on this day. Looking at it, there are seventy-two cards on the bookshelves. This year so far we've received nineteen!

mynamehere Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > forgive me for asking but... after all of this > (above posting and time on your street) exactly > why didn't you have the less than 30 seconds > needed to take the parcel and put it on the inside > of your door? I amend that to 10 seconds > > You seem to have plenty of time to try to destroy > someone's livelihood. > > Please do not construe this to in any way at all > condone improper words or abuse of any sort at > all. > > I take packages all the time for neighbours if I > am in which includes on my way out. > > Have a great xmas which, as we live in an entirely > commercial world, relies on the delivery of goods > on viciously overcrowded streets. > > Enjoy ripping me to shreds on my lack of > understanding that you are hard done by and need > to get back to finding this man to get him > reprimanded or, better, fired. I too take packages in for neighbours all the time, but there are perfectly good reasons not to - including being in a rush - it's not obligatory, you know. On this person's account the driver called her (I'm assuming it's a her from the username) a fat c*nt several times, put her in fear of physical violence and followed her down the street, all in the presence of a twelve-year-old child, for quite legitimately refusing to take in a parcel, as anyone has the right to do - and your sympathies are with the driver? You say you don't condone such behaviour, but your apparent belief that it would be wrong for him to face any sanction for this atrocious behaviour would appear to suggest otherwise.

PeterW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To go back to the original question, the plan is > apparently to keep the planters and thus keep > Windsor Walk as access only for cars, not a > through road. That makes perfect sense, as it's > otherwise a rat run, and sends vehicles through an > area often full of pedestrians from the station. > I've got no idea why so much time was spent > repairing the bridge. Excellent news if that's correct Peter, when that turn was open it was an horrendous ratrun, particularly dangerous for the primary school on Grove Lane and infirm/confused patients from the Maudsley. Doubtless cause outrage amongst the "I should be allowed to drive wherever I like" crew, mind.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here's a message from its founder Edir mercado > https://blogs.universal.org/bispomacedo/en/2011/05 > /19/our-children-will-not-turn-out-to-be-gay/ > > should be banned imho Certainly should. And so should your mate Tommy Robinson's hate organisations and similar entities that you're quite happy to support - what's the difference in hatred apart from skin pigmentation?

Maybe check if any of your neighbours have road-facing CCTV security cameras that might have picked up the plate? Very sorry to hear of such a horrible experience, disgusting.

betternowthanthen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When i arrived at the car park yesterday,on the > black sign that states out your reg plate numbers, > you can't see on the sign how long your allowed to > park for, (no number of hrs) so you wouln't know > how long your allowed to park for in the first > place! Silly really! I scene a little > deception/poor maintenance here, no wonder people > are getting fined. Poor management, can't even > spot a obvious error. Sure this is on purpose, > otherwise it would clearly say amount of time you > can park for. Must be a legal issue too! Underneath the bit that flashes up your reg plate it says "Your free parking expires at" and flashes up a time.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The better solution is to spend money and create > an extra exit. Until that point, I don't plan to > spend extra time stuck in DMK because the railway > can't be bothered to spend money. Yes of course it is, and that should be done. Two points though: firstly, as noted above, this system will at most cost you an extra twenty seconds (you possibly may even get in and out of the station quicker as the flow improves, who knows); secondly, if you push against the flow of pedestrians, you are risking causing a serious fall on the stairs (more so as your presence will be unexpected) resulting in potentially life-threatening injuries. I've always thought your posts showed you as a sensible and amiable sort of a cove, I'm quite flabbergasted by this attitude that for the sake of a few seconds (literally) off your transit time you're prepared to put others at risk. Please don't. Leave home/work ten seconds earlier and act responsibly instead.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How do they propose to police said one way system? > LAst time they tried it failed in a couple of > days. I personally plan to ignore it on the > grounds that I don't wish to be massively > inconvenienced and I suspect most regular users > feel the same. I predict a spectacular failure. Seriously? How is it a "massive" inconvenience to be asked to go down one set of stairs instead of another, when, depending on your preferred waiting spot/train carriage, it might cost you a maximum of twenty extra seconds, if that? It certainly will fail if everyone adopts that attitude, and thus the danger of a catastrophic and possibly fatal crush will remain. While this temporary solution isn't ideal, and the situation it addresses should have been sorted out at the time of refurbishment, it's the most sensible option available at the moment (do you have a better one?). When you're driving your car, do you go the wrong way up one-way streets on the grounds that it's a "massive inconvenience" to obey the traffic flow regulations? Of course not, that would be insane and put your safety and that of others at risk. So if you don't do it when in a protective metal box, why would you do it in an even more vulnerable and hazardous environment? Totally baffling.