rendelharris

I think if it's a party wall their side is theirs and they can do as they please unless they damage it. If it's not a party wall they can't grow anything on it without your permission.

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not embarrassed at all but thanks for replying. > > Rendel has gone into Shakesperian mode so let him > get on his bike! It wasn't funny the first time you tried that and it's failed again. You really have got nothing to offer, have you? I'd cut your losses and bow out if I were you, and next time you want to try your hand at Daily Mail style trolling at least have some sort of plan to cope with the fact that the majority of responses disagree with you - above and beyond making remarks that just make you look even more foolish.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well cars don't need this technology, they have > numberplates and many (though not enough)lights > have cameras You'd be surprised how few traffic lights do have them; according to t'internet, the only junctions with red light cameras anywhere near this neighbourhood are the Village Way/ED Grove junctions and the Champion/DK Hill junction. The little cameras on top of traffic lights are just for traffic management, not enforcement - red light cameras require a complex setup of below-tarmac sensors and so are costly and troublesome to set up, which explains their rarity.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Like I say, lame. > > (Sorry, wasn?t aware no one over the age of 19 is > allowed to use that word.) "O most lame and impotent conclusion!" - Shakespeare, Othello - think you're in alright company Joe.

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As usual, Rendal et al turns the thread around to > their own advantage and assumes I'm a 'she' "turns the thread round to their advantage" aka "disagrees with me". Obviously, it's frustrating when you were hoping for lots of support for your anti-cyclist hatred and instead get a majority disagreeing with you, but such poor-quality trolling deserves no better.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'll happily register, tax and insure my bike when > any government introduces average speed cameras. Seconded!

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No but I do often wish all bikes were fitted with > technology which clocks them when they jump > lights. Never gonna happen though. I trust you also wish that cars were fitted with the same technology to clock them jumping red lights (especially at the pelican at ED station, which is now a disgrace, guaranteed a minimum of two cars running the red) and breaking the speed limit? Fit that to cars and I would gladly, seriously, accept it on my bikes. I've long thought that would be a great innovation - the technology's there, proven workable and economical; even my bike speedometer works off GPS! It would, of course, be political suicide for anyone who tried to introduce it, as there would be a great outcry of it being against civil liberties - as with speed cameras. Quite when civil liberties became conflated with liberty to break the law when nobody's watching, I'm not sure.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyone who knows ANYTHING about local government > knows that if the Tories are in Central Government > then the Labour Councils will cut FRONT LINE > services and make life VERY uncomfortable for the > general public...but they will NEVER cut the admin > and backroom staff- EVER.....it is obscene the way > that Labour councils, especially in poor areas, > make life VERY uncomfortable for the people and > then blame central government...that is how they > get their votes- as far as I can see, having been > brought up in a very poor borough, all that Labour > ever do is cr*p on the working class and since > they failed to educate anyone, brainwash them into > thinking it is the Tories' fault...they even sink > so low as to leaflet schools- they are worse than > the clergy..... Yeah, you've been spewing this crap on here for years, and repetition does not make it (or you) any less repellent, false or stupid. If there was an ounce of truth in your absurd statements, why are all Tory councils having to make similar cutbacks to those made in Labour areas? Central government funding for Southwark council has been cut by ?107M, or 27%, since 2010. That, as idiots like you are so fond of typing, is FACT.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Time to get rid of Taxing Labour Southwark > council Or time to get rid of austerity Tory government that has slashed budgets so badly that all councils (including Tory ones) are forced to try and raise revenue wherever they can to try and avoid cuts in essential services?

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why would I be a amateur? Number plates are legal > on cars etc so why not on bikes? So are steering wheels, seatbelts and windscreen wipers. Bikes are not cars, thank goodness. Suggest you research the concept of the syllogistic fallacy ("My dog has four legs and a tail. My cat has four legs and a tail. Therefore my dog is a cat."). Cars carry them, therefore why not bikes? Why not then pedestrians? Wheelchairs? Pushchairs? Skateboards? Even you can't (I really hope) be so foolish as to genuinely believe this would be a good, or even workable, idea. It was just poor quality trolling, and glad to see it has been treated as such.

> I love the irony in this statement (and you see > this sort of thing every week on forums, newspaper > letters columns etc about cyclists all in black, > no lights etc that are seen). > > So they're seen then?! > > Same way that you see pedestrians and trees and > dogs and cats and parked cars and rubbish bins and > other unlit things like debris in the road. > > If I jump a traffic light while wearing dark > clothing, every motorist for half a mile around > will see me. > If I have fluoro kit and bright flashy lights, > I'll still get "sorry mate, I didn't see you..." > > ;-) Got to say, nobody is more pro cyclist than me, in either theory or practice, but can't agree with you on that one. Yes, you will eventually see a cyclist in black on a dark night and poorly lit road, when s/he comes into the scope of the headlights; for me, observing as a passenger, that moment is often terrifyingly close to a fatality. Yes, as with light jumpers etc etc it is frequently used by motorists as a stick with which to beat us (not that I think Nigello was), but my concern is for the cyclist. Why in the name of arse would you not avail yourself of at least the bare minimum equipment to help car drivers see you? Riding at night is inherently risky, there are a million un-MOT'd and uninsured cars on the road, there are drunk drivers, drug drivers, drivers on 'phones, drivers with poor eyesight/night vision, speeding drivers...any cyclist who doesn't make themselves decently visible wants their head examined. If it takes the prospect of fines to make them see sense, I'm all for it (not that anything would be done, given the failure to tackle 'phone use, speeding etc). Oh. I seem to feel quite passionately about this.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, but fines should be levied on those who don't > have working lights front and rear. Too many times > I see cyclists with no lights and no reflective > gear, posing a danger to themselves and others. > (No car, no motorbike, no cycle, just legs) Agree - when being driven by Mrs H at night I feel like a navigator in a plane, acting as a spotter for hazards in the form of cyclists on black bikes in black clothes and black helmets or hats. Why anyone would do anything so utterly suicidal when an adequate set of lights can be had for a fiver is beyond me.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Should road bicycle users/cyclists be taxed and > insured? > > The very short answer is 'no' > > The short, rude answer is 'no - why don't you f%ck > off' > > The short polite answer is 'no, and there is no > good reason for it. The fact that some people > don't like cyclists is not a good reason'. > > And the long answer is 'There's no such thing as > road tax, just excise duty on cars. Like there is > on fags and booze but not on cakes or gloves or > hammers or cat food. No reason to put it on bikes > rather than hammers. Compulsory insurance is a > political decision but essentially is required > where there is a clear public need for it i.e. the > risk of an indemnity being required but not met is > widespread and/or serious. You need insurance to > keep a tiger but not a dog. You need insurance to > set off a firework display for the public but not > to wave sparklers about in your garden. You need > special insurance to drive a bus full of > passengers, regular insurance to drive a car, and > no insurance to ride a bike. These all make > sense. Trolling doesn't deserve such a good answer, but very well put.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The original post is a valid question and of > course it?s those who regard cycling, and the > freedom of the cyclist, as a religion who belittle > and demean the question with snideness and > accusations of trolling. S/he may have provoked a > response but this is not trolling. If taken in isolation, no. If taken in the context of her continued and repeated attempts on the General ED thread to promote car use and belittle cycling (including several times immediately prior to establishing this thread) it's simply trying to be childishly provocative, or trolling. If I put up a thread saying "Should all private cars be banned from Southwark?" - not even making a case or stating a position on it - you and others would rightly accuse me of trolling. As for the question, it's been done to death in a million other public fora, newspaper and TV debates, etc etc. It's not as though she's suddenly come up with some revelatory new concept. Trolling, pure, simple and obvious. Trolling (v): the deliberate act of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument You couldn't find a more obvious example.

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But not everyone can walk that distance or cycle > even BELs so of course you would adopt a selfish > attitude, just like Rendel, who hates everybody > that drives a car! The EDF is the only forum I know where not polluting and not clogging up streets with dangerous machinery is regarded as selfish. I do not hate everybody who drives a car by any means, some car journeys are necessary and some people need to use cars. I hate wasteful, selfish people who regard their "right" to drive a car as having precedence over anything else, and people who insist on driving when perfectly viable, non-environmentally-destructive options are available.

1990, pretty sure Dulwich was well inside London by then!

Jolly good. I can't wait to see my secret self-interest revealed, as I don't even know what it is myself. Thank you for drawing it to my addention.

Road bicycle users and cyclists? Oh come on, tax one but not both. Blatant low-quality trolling.

sally buying Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Plenty of ammo there to reply. > > I wont be Good.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My motivation is curiosity. They seem to have gone > from relying on "12th man" buckets to pay the > wages to being able to afford a refurbished bar > with Sky TV that is open 7 days a week, new > toilets, new banners etc. > > Quite a turnaround and I just wondered how they > did it? It took me all of three seconds to Google "Dulwich Hamlet New Bar" and find this: https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/sport/rabble-rouser-why-dulwich-hamlets-new-bar-is-a-living-history/ - perhaps that would have been easier for you?

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have a car, driving licence and a push bike but > I would never self-identify as a cyclist. If you cycle, you're a cyclist; if you drive a car, you're a car driver; if you do both, as you do, then you're both. Who's asking anyone to "self-identify"? The survey certainly didn't.

sally buying Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Were the % results published only if people > replied to the survey. How many people asked and > how many people replied? > > Not an accurate survey at all. > > Maybe I have this wrong? Yes, indeed you have. You challenged Snowy about the validity of his figures, s/he provided a link which shows that the survey used recognised scientific sampling procedures (and no, it wasn't in any way a respondent only survey), you clearly didn't read it and then come back saying it isn't accurate. You're not interested in a discussion, you just want to (attempt to) down anyone who disagrees with your oft-stated very pro-car views.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's a lot of cyclists who feel it necessary to > drive a car at some point and one would imagine a > fair proportion are also car owners- I haven't > looked at the figures, so don't know sample size > etc... And your point, if any, is...?

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting that 85% of those who cycle feel the > need to own a car. 85% hold a driving licence, not own a car. I know plenty of cyclists who rent cars for holidays etc but don't feel the need to drive around London or keep a permanent vehicle.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RH - at what point will you cease labelling UG > with those spiteful attacks ? > Do you need him to acknowledge guilt for all/some > of them, or even then would you still persist ? > I can't speak for the rest of the forum, but > personally I am aware (have seen) several times > you use the same attacks, again and again. Is this > to be an indefinite behaviour going forward ? > I expect UG (and the entire forum) has GOT the > message so why not wind it in, unless you have > something additional (a new attack, perhaps ?) to > stab him with. > Please don't pull the "I'm standing-up for > freedom" BS. All the things you accuse UG of are > illegal, so if you're so convinced just call the > police and make your case, you seem convinced, so > convince them. > Just quit the vile (are there any viler ?) > attacks. I'll stop attacking him when he stops being a vile antisemitic racist Islamaphobic bigot. When he makes posts that don't display any of those traits, I don't attack him. When he does (as he did in his post above), I'm going to point it out, every single time. If you or anyone else doesn't like it, feel free to report it to Admin and they can delete as they feel necessary. Interesting that you seem to think attacking someone for their foul bigotry is "viler" than displaying foul bigotry in the first place. Says a lot about your value system. I would love the idea of the boys in blue having a word with UG for his foul comments, and they most certainly do transgress a number of laws, but as it's barely possible to get them to attend a house burglary I somehow doubt they'd be interested in what is said on the EDF. So as long as he persists with his foulness, I'll persist in opposing it. Thank you.