rendelharris

"It is now illegal to have a flick knife and so nowadays crimes with this type of weapon have been eliminated." And so the murders and woundings are simply done with other knives - they still happen. It's illegal to carry any knife in public without good reason unless it's a folding blade (i.e. penknife) and with a blade less than three inches long. Has that stopped knife crime? No it hasn't. The rest of your post shows about as much knowledge and reason. Anyone who describes other human beings as ferals needs to take a good look at themselves before pontificating about others.

I agree Penguin - once when teaching a fourteen-year-old pupil of mine was found to have a knife in his bag; investigation proved that a Yardie gang had put the word out that they were going to have him mutilated in revenge for some reneging on a deal his older brother had done in Jamaica. Terrified when he heard this he'd grabbed a knife from his mum's cooking drawer - he was actually a good kid, the idea that he would get mandatory custody with DulwichFox's NO Exceptions.. No Excuses.. No Escape.. is disturbing. Fortunately the police took a sensible view, gave him a slapped wrist and managed to catch the persons making the threats to boot. He went on to take a college degree, where he would have gone after a prison sentence who knows. A justice system which does not account for circumstances is no justice system at all - see USA and "three strikes," with people serving life sentences for stealing a slice of pizza.

Misinterpretation on my part Pugwash I think - when you said "I tried to get a disabled bay for my mother" I took that to mean you'd applied for one, not that you tried to use one on the street. I agree that too many people are abusing the system - particularly to hold parking spaces for other able-bodied relatives. One note of caution (not for you, for the good folks on here generally) - what might appear to be "abuse" sometimes needs more knowledge of the circumstances; my little sister who, as mentioned above, has quite severe multiple sclerosis, sometimes gets abuse for parking in the disabled bays (with her blue badge) at Sainsbury's because when she gets out of the car she appears to have nothing more than a slight limp. People don't realise that after a tour round the supermarket the stress on the system means she can't get back to the car without using the trolley as a walking aid and taking it very slowly. Peace, Rendel

Well, I fully support blue badge spaces for all who need them - indeed my sister is a blue badge holder due to MS - but of course all residents are affected if disabled bays are put in their street as it reduces the number of available parking spaces. I was merely suggesting that a disabled bay which was only needed for a few minutes each week (and in which presumably most of the time other BB holders wouldn't park, as if there were residents who needed one they would have already requested one) wouldn't be the best use of the system.

...which makes it all the more pointless to ask for one for a once a week shopping trip, as sod's law would dictate someone else would be occupying it the one time it was needed.

But that's what it effectively would be - if there was anyone else in the street who needed a bay they would presumably have asked for one, and had they used it then the whole point of having it for his/her mother's shopping trips would be obviated. I was just making the point that we can't ask for bays to be put in for a once-per-week occurrence, we take an elderly friend out once a fortnight and he is entitled to a blue badge, but we wouldn't ask for a bay to be put in to save inconvenience once a fortnight.

@pugwash: "No I did not want a disabled bay for my Mum" - sorry I must have been misled by the phrase "I tried to get a disabled bay for my mother" in your original message.

muffins78 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Render, Can they evict a homeowner? > > I've pm'd you Vito! I apologise, read too quickly and thought it was a tenancy. No then only in the most extreme circumstances and even then to seize a property they'd have to have the owner declared bankrupt, no court would order that for a ?1300 bill - my bad! But the advice about the LVT and CAB is still applicable. I shall read more carefully in future! Rendel

Sounds an all too common nightmare I'm afraid. The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal can order reductions in service charges if, as seems the case here, it's simply being used as an excuse for extra rent. This might help: http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/documents/document.asp?item=18#13 See if your fellow tenants have similar greviances, if you withhold your service charge en masse they're more likely to get worried. They could technically evict you for non payment but the legal costs, bailiffs etc would come to far more than the ?1300. Perhaps the Citizen's Advice Bureau might be able to help you find the best way forward? http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/documents/document.asp?item=18#13 Good luck! Rendel

With all due respect Pugwash, and I accept that this was a pain for you, it sounds like you wanted a disabled bay set aside for your mother in what was obviously a crowded street so that you would have somewhere to park for a few minutes once a week? Not sure that would be a great use of the system...

"but this is the problem with you non-parents (i should hope), you simply don't understand why we are prepared to go to such an extent to protect our children's future!" That is a thoroughly disgusting statement. I really hope you consider just how wrong it is. What do you know about us "non-parents," what do you know about the heartache or tragedy we may have gone through to end up in your "non-parent" category? How dare you assume that you care more about local amenities than we "non-parents" do? Plenty of "non-parents" put plenty into the community and not just out of self-interest because they want things for their own families. Thank goodness most parents aren't as smug as you.

A solid disc lock is an absolute must to complement the chain, as I know to my cost (when riding off in a hurry forgetting to remove it) you can't get a bike a yard before it sends you base over apex. Doesn't work against pros who lift bikes onto vans (which is how I lost my Aprilia race bike...) but for a quick wire the ignition and ride away opportunist it's a significant deterrent. Also there are now movement sensors available which can send an alarm to your mobile if someone's tampering with your bike, not much use when on holiday but handy if you're indoors and asleep when someone's having a go at it outside. Good luck!

Can you provide a link to this "research [which] shows greater sight lines can lead to greater speeding" please James? Also, that is an argument for more stringent monitoring and prosecution of speeding and introducing measures to stop it, not for opposing longer sightlines. Otherwise we could say yes, those potholes in the road are dangerous and could cause an accident, but if we repair them some people will take advantage of the smooth road to speed. You are conflating two separate road safety issues which require separate solutions.

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Re yellow lines - I said that over two years ago, > when the build-outs were installed. > > Apparently long sight lines make traffic speed, > which is bollocks. Absolutely, the proposed yellow lines are around two and a half car lengths, drivers are going to open up and then shut it down in that space? Longer sightlines give drivers more time to see the situation ahead and slow down for it, and for people, like presumably this poor motorcyclist (hope you enjoy a full recovery), coming towards a junction to see any dangerous drivers entering and react to them.

Mind you, the Radio 4 weatherman just said it will be dry today and tomorrow, but from Friday onwards once it starts raining it won't stop, so...

It's a smooth gravelled path up to the entrance to Sydenham Hill Woods, where you turn left over the railway bridge and up another reasonable path to Sydenham Hill. Perfectly doable I'd say when it's as dry as now - you can look at each end of the path from Streetview or online. We pass plenty of buggies when we walk that way and nobody seems to be having much trouble.

Cox's walk should be fine for a buggy at the moment - was there this morning and it's nice and dry. You might have to lift over a couple of places but generally fine. Just make sure you take the left turn towards Sydenham Hill rather than go through the gate into Sydenham Hill Woods, which would be hard work with a buggy.

Went round to see if we could help (couldn't) - by dint of a spectacular piece of bravery from Mr.Kitten Owner, going up sixty feet odd on a ladder in the dark by railway tracks, and a fiendish bit of ingenuity on the part of Mrs.Kitten Owner, fashioning a cat carrier/washing pole entrapment device, Boris the kitten was safely recovered. Better than the telly, it was!

Just curious, anyone know why the police helicopter has been (still is) circling ED for the last half hour or so? Cheers, Rendel

As I said before, James, the key is if those speed limits are being observed. In my long experience of walking and cycling round ED and environs, they virtually never are. If they could be more properly policed and enforced, perhaps it would be safe to park closer to junctions. However, you should bear in mind that the stopping distance for a small car from 20MPH in good conditions is 12 metres; if a driver is approaching a junction at 20MPH and parked cars only allow him/her a 5 metre sightline of what may be emerging, if someone does pull out recklesssly it will be too late to stop.

I think (and I'm quite prepared to stand corrected) that part of the Highway Code (rule 243) comes under the "advice" remit, i.e. it says "DO NOT", whereas the rules either side of it say "YOU MUST NOT." You can only get a ticket if the enforcement officer deems you to have parked in a dangerous and/or obstructive manner, whereas with a yellow line obviously you'll get a ticket regardlesss. I agree with the central premise of your point though, which is that people shouldn't be doing it anyway, it's like driving straight through a junction on the grounds that there isn't a stop sign there, no matter what safety, common sense and common courtesy (should) dictate.

I suspect in the 'fifties traffic volumes were somewhat different? I lived in Ruskin Park House for the last ten years, I would guess in your day it was safe for a small child to cross to the park unaided? Certainly wouldn't risk allowing it now, given the number of 40mph+ motorcyclists and cars screaming off the lights and up round the bend (and yes, irresponsible cyclists barrelling down the hill and through the red lights). In an age of massively incresed traffic volume, population density, infinitely more powerful motorcars and, I'm sorry to say, more aggression and less courtesy, we need calming measures such as (properly policed) 20MPH zones if we want the rising generations to experience anything like your childhood. Yes, these measures would have been absurd in your day; now they're essential unless we want to become an increasingly trapped indoors, only travelling by car, getting ever more obese populace.

Lived in this area for twenty years, thanks, but a welcome is always nice, if late. Tell me, are you going to make any contribution to the subject under discussion or just continue to make a series of rather leaden, strained, unamusing attempts at putdowns? Just curious.

Really old chap, you must control your strange fantasy where you appear to know everything about how I conduct myself on the road. I overtake on the outside of traffic when it's stationary and when there is no oncoming traffic. If there is I wait my turn with the car drivers, at my age and state of fitness the breather's always welcome.