rendelharris

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Many people will not be in a position to replace > their vehicles and from my own observations > ownership of these vehicles seem to fall into the > OAP/younger age ownership bracket where income is > tight. It is far better to just let these cars die > a natural death when repairs start to cost many > times more than the value of the car and rising > costs levied on the motorist also start to hit. > > If an OAP It is their lifeline and mine at 72 to > the outside world and the mileage driven is very > very low. Ironically these will be the same OAPs who make up the largest proportion of the 10,000 premature deaths from air pollution in London each year. It doesn't matter how "well looked after" a pre-2006 vehicle is, it won't meet the required emissions standards.

Not sure there are any regs - none I know of, anyway - mandating insulation but if the cellar is unheated, especially in Norfolk, it would definitely be best to have the pipes insulated or there will be freezing and flood risks in the winter. Fortunately, if the builder can't/won't do it, it's a very simple DIY job.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On a related topic, what I find insane is that so > many bus lane signs all over London are almost > hidden from view. Take this one, coming from > Camberwell rd towards Denmark Hill: it is almost > always hidden by buses and trees > https://goo.gl/maps/P7ATWWPsjLv Well, that sign looks pretty obvious to me - furthermore if you're approaching the junction from Peckham there's a clear sign before the traffic lights warning that there's a bus lane if you turn left, and if you're approaching from Camberwell Road the sign is facing you head on. I mean, if you can't spot a bus lane that's got a big sign at its start, is clearly marked on the road and is even different colour tarmac to the main lanes, perhaps your awareness isn't suitable for driving a motor vehicle. Seriously, let's stop making excuses for doing things we know are wrong, or that we at least should know are wrong if we're concentrating. Agree about motorcycles in bus lanes though.

Bank statement should be able to show the times of the activity and give you a better idea of when it happened, even if just narrowing it down to a day?

Deleted as actually haven't the time or inclination for a long debate on this. Opinion stated, if others disagree that's fine, though no need for the moral outrage that usually greets those who suggest SNARL might possibly, just maybe, have got it wrong.

Toffee, there is no doubt that there are many foul individuals out there who have done awful things to animals, often as revenge on previous partners, neighbours with whom they've had disputes etc. No doubt at all. I recall some nasty little s&^t was expelled from my school after it was revealed that he'd been shooting cats with an air rifle and keeping their tails as trophies. Awful. However, there is legitimate cause to doubt the narrative that SNARL has created that there is a single person going round London and the southeast and beyond who's killed over 500 pets without once being seen on CCTV or even seen by a witness - when allegedly undertaking complex and vile dismembering and breaking into people's back gardens etc, when there's a significant police investigative force who've been trying to find him for years...there are a number of elements of this narrative which I don't believe hold up, especially as many experts, such as Professor Harris (no relation) and the RSPCA have suggested that many of the deaths SNARL insist are attributable to this "cat killer" are in fact roadkill later predated on by foxes. It really has become the Spring-Heeled Jack of our era, and I think it's highly disturbing that there's an attitude that if one questions SNARL's narrative one's as bad as this putative "cat killer" oneself. A glance at their Facebook page shows that they are massively aggressive towards anyone who challenges their conception of what's going on. I absolutely adore cats, dogs and rabbits, there hasn't been a moment in my almost fifty years when I haven't had several of them around. If I'm wrong and there is a single individual doing such awful things then were I to come across him they wouldn't need a trial...but I'm afraid I just can't buy into the SNARL-promoted narrative of this lone psychopath carrying out hundreds of intricate killings and dismemberments undetected.

Toffee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I haven?t read the whole article but if you would > care to get off your high horse for once and > listen to others opinions, you may see that I have > referred to SNARL. No I don?t have a subscription > to the New Scientist. do you follow the SNARL > website? Have you ever heard of how many family > pets have been mutilated. By the way, I assume you > have read the article in the new scientist word > for word otherwise you wouldn?t be posting your > usual pompous opinion. Hold on a minute...you say > you don?t have a subscription to it, so how the > hell do you know it?s content. You just can?t help > yourself from putting me down can you? Yes, I actually said I hadn't read the article, and clearly neither have you. Unlike you, I'm not making assumptions about something I haven't read. I've read SNARL's response but it really isn't a detailed rebuttal at all, it seems to represent the same hysteria that you do that any suggestion there may be an alternative explanation for any of these cases is utter heresy, even though respected organizations such as the RSPCA have suggested the same. As for not being able to help putting you down, no I really can't help it as it's impossible to respond to any of your comments without putting you down as they're mostly ludicrous. I look forward to you calling me out for a fight again like before.

Has anyone actually read the New Scientist article (apart from James) - seeing as it requires a subscription (which I don't have)? Have you got a subscription to New Scientist Toffee, and have you read the article? If not why are you shrieking heretic at him and calling the article "tosh" without even knowing what it says?

sally buying Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why not put heavy large concrete blocks over the > entrance stopping them get in or out and then > prosecute. > > Or does their protected status stop anything like > that? Who are "they" please?

It actually appears to be five storeys high at its highest point, with the rooftop penthouse. It doesn't look too bad on the plans, but if you visualize the actual size and width it will have a huge, and in my view negative, impact on what's currently a very pleasant vista from the Common. What's there now needs replacing but surely something more in keeping with its environment could be designed.

Cardelia, for some reason you've missed out the bit where it said that the bus lane makings at the start of the bus lane and the signage were perfectly clear? And that the vans may not have been part of the works and so are irrelevant? And I can't help but think but the fact that the signs were not obvious until "the Appellant was virtually at the crossing" isn't much of an excuse for not noticing them for an aware driver. Look, good luck to the OP, they've got away with it. But basically, unless they say they are a stranger to the area and never knew there was a bus lane there, they knew they shouldn't have stopped there, they've argued the toss on a technicality and got away with it. So it goes. But the suggestion that it was unreasonable of Southwark to contest this is farcical. I'd love to hear from the OP as to whether they would not have stopped there if the roadworks weren't there. It's a bus lane, it was an operative bus lane at the time, and the fact that there were some minor occlusions of signage and road markings at the time doesn't change that.

Rob tolfts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Went past earlier, they've left the lock on, just > unbolted the gate from its hinges. > > I assume that still constitutes breaking and > entering? I think I recall from the old days of Greenham protests etc that you have to actually enter a physical structure to be breaking and entering, if you just "break in" to open land it's only trespass.

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- The works > obscured the metal bus lane signs and they were > digging up the street so also took out the 'bus > lane' paint on the road. Under those circumstances > I'm not surprised that the independent adjudicator > sided with the OP and I'm amazed Southwark sent > two people to fight their case. If you read the adjudication Ian's so helpfully provided, the bus lane markings were visible as were the signs. The main reason for allowing the appeal seems to be that two vans, which may not have been part of the works, might have been in the way of the signs. I'm surprised the appeal was allowed and not in the least surprised Southwark decided to contest it.

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sign on for the Ride London is very early early in > the morning In previous years you had to register and collect your numbers in the three days preceding, then just turn up for your wave on the day, with the last wave being 9.15 - is that not how they do it now?

Think you're being spammed guys, the likelihood that someone intelligent enough to be on ?48k couldn't work this out for themselves, or wouldn't ask someone at work about it, is zero. The fact that they only joined the forum to ask this question is a bit of a giveaway too. It's just trying to make you go to the linked page. ETA reported

If a bus lane is suspended then you can tell because there will be big signs reading bus lane suspended. If the OP is local, which I presume s/he is, they know there's a bus lane there (and as I recall during the works there was plenty of signage and road markings still visible). By all means, appeal a ticket if you must, and if you can get away with it on a technicality then so be it, but let's not bother with this "oh I didn't think it was a bus lane any more" nonsense. The OP did something they knew wasn't allowed and then argued the toss on a technicality.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > write a letter stating how they have breached the > contract and give 7 days to come up with a remedy > before you take to small claims court > > send it recorded delivery, don't speak over the > phone, just converse by email or letter > > most builders are of low iq and will roll over > with the threat of legal action Good suggestions, rather spoiled by the terrible snobbery of the last sentence. As it happens, of the three builders I'm good mates with, one has a History degree from Cambridge (seriously, he's an ex-pupil I coached to get there!), one used to be a top-end antiques dealer and is an expert Georgian furniture restorer, and the other...alright I'll give you the other. But builders can all do stuff I can't even begin to comprehend, they may not be able to quote Yeats as well as I can but they're by no means unintelligent.

Just to add, OP, if you'd paid the fine immediately it would have been ?65 - isn't your time, and the council's money which you seem so keen they should not waste, worth more than the many hours it must have taken to get you off on a technicality when, prima facie, you knew you shouldn't have done it?

Don't blame him, it's enough hard yakka as it is! Best bet probably the Overground from Peckham Rye to Dalston Junction (first train Sunday 7.39) then it's a ride of less than three miles to the start.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The tribunal found that the driver was right and > the council were well out of order though. HTH. And the driver knew the bus lane was there, apparently, and knew they shouldn't have stopped (OP please step in and correct if you had a genuine belief that the bus lane didn't exist or was suspended?) but wasted council money appealing on a technicality. HTH some more.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > I have had an unbelievable experience here > with > > a > > > new opening which I will describe later this > > > month > > > > Why the wait? lets have all the salacious > details > > now.... > > Ok, agreed, but Moondancer please consider our > sensibilities. If it was something horrific like > a shop assistant wishing you a 'good morning' when > it was actually 12.10pm, I'm not sure we could > cope with hearing that. Excellent.

Most builders hire scaffolds, have a look on it and see if there's a company name. If there is, get in touch with them and tell them if it's not collected within seven days you reserve your right to dismantle and dispose. Also, as you're already in touch with CAB, ask them to contact local Trading Standards for you (often TS will listen to CAB when they won't listen to individuals for some reason, guess they use them as a filter).

Nandalf the Grey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just been in. Staff were nice and very helpful. > But an awful layout and it's like another > convenience shop now. I loved it before. Much less > stationary products now.Not impressed. I hate it when the products go rushing about the place (sorry).

Mrs D Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I now go from East Dulwich to London Bridge and > then tube to King?s across. There are (allegedly) nine trains between 8AM and 9AM that can get you from ED to Kings X, either by taking a train south to Tulse Hill and getting a St.Pancras International train from there, or going north to Peckham Rye for a St.Pancras train - journey between 32 and 39 minutes. Might be a good option? Alternatively take the bus/walk, depending where you are, to Peckham Rye or Denmark hill and take the direct train for St.Pancras?

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe it was one rude person too many? Someone > yawning in your face is pretty dire; wouldn't make > you more inclined to spend your hard-earned there, > anyway. "we entered and approached the desk to have the assistant suddenly throw back his head in a yawn" - not while they were talking to him, not in their face, as they approached the desk. You know what, maybe they were tired, sometimes you can't stop yourself yawning any more than you can stop sneezing. I reckon people in France might yawn sometimes - by golly I reckon even staff in Waitrose yawn sometimes. The level of entitlement on display in the OP is astonishing. I've actually been chuckling to myself on and off since reading it at the thought that someone objects - actually seriously objects - to someone saying "Enjoy the rest of your day" to them. Absurd.