rendelharris

Poor Damilola Taylor was killed with a broken bottle, if people want to commit violence they'll find something to do it with. Education and intervention are the key, taking the points off knives I don't think would make a jot of difference (and as Loz points out, there are myriad kitchen tasks that require a pointed knife).

I used Jessops recently for a photobook of my niece's world tour as a present - they had it back within a week, it was excellent quality and at ?32.99 for a 28 page 21x29cm hardback pretty good value.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > According to a Jamaican Radio page those that > arrived were offered 'a clear path to British > citizenship but refused to take up the offer' > http://nationwideradiojm.com/are-some-windrush-sca > ndal-victims-partly-to-blame/ According to a caller on a Jamaican 'phone-in show, you should say. Got to tip my hat though Uncle, you've really gone above and beyond to find some pathetically frail evidence to support your nasty victim-blaming viewpoint. ETA and if they were offered passports in the '70s, would they have been given them without evidence of immigration and permanent residence? Of course not, so exactly the same problem would exist. Of all your nasty posts, I think this is one of your very silliest.

wodey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so much for social services and southwark council > typical labour. > > -------------------- > Sean Of Dulwich > > > They are trying and Ace of Clubs homeless centre > have been working hard to help him too, as with > many homeless people it can be complicated. Don't bother replying to SoD, he got turfed a couple of weeks back for, I believe, using multiple identities one of whom was a neo-nazi...

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yup, agree when in a dogs on lead area owners > should comply. Seems this was not a dogs on lead > area. So there's no responsibility for control in an area where dogs are allowed to run off the lead? For goodness' sake, I can't believe how simple commonsense seems to be abandoned in pursuit of an hysterical "you're anti-dog" agenda. When I take the family dog out for a walk, I keep her on the lead in areas where it is mandated; when she's off the lead, I keep a close eye on her and whistle her away from any potential dangers, either things that could affect her or where she could affect other people. I don't walk her in Dulwich Park, but if I did I wouldn't let her go tearing across the road when small children were cycling on it, both for their safety and her own. I can't see why that appears to be a problem for some people. ETA now you've edited, FM, we agree!

apples Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry I didn't mean it to sound quite like that! > It is quite clearly signed and someone's pet has > been injured. Well yes, because the pet's owner didn't keep it sufficiently under control to stop it knocking the little girl off her bike. I still can't see how that in any way makes the vet's bill the parent's responsibility! If the child was cycling in a no-cycling area, yes, but as you say yourself, it's shared use - onus on parents not to let their children run into dogs, onus on dog owners not to let their dogs knock children off their bikes, no?

> It was an unfortunate accident I know, but if a > dog collided with your bike or your daughters bike > in that 'Shared use route' and if it was injured, > I would see it as being your responsibility not > the dog owner. And maybe rather than expressing > your anger here you could pay or contribute to any > vet bill? I can't quite believe what I've just read. OK, so it's a shared use area. That means shared responsibility. Someone's dog jumped at a six year old girl and knocked her off her bike, if the dog's injured mum/dad should pay for the vet's bill? Just to reiterate, the child didn't run into to the dog, the dog ran into the child. How in blue blazes does that make any injury the dog sustained the parent's responsibility?

Just got an additional notification, for general info, that they expect the routes to return to normal running at 10AM next Saturday (28th).

I cut up a 12" diameter tree last year using a reciprocating saw borrowed from a friend, it was pretty easy - sure they can be hired but B&Q do one for ?25, and they're a very useful tool to have around, they'll get through pretty much anything. Anything bigger than that and you'll probably need a small chainsaw (be careful!) or, if you fancy a bit of fitness training, an axe.

Just tweeted them to check - yes it's still on diversion, have suggested they update their website (to reflect works that have been going on for months!). As per other post above though, the 185 will still get you to the station.

Strongcoffee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Haha, rendle likes to point the finger, > Wants everyone to agree, calls people trolls, > Live and let live and be thankful, that we > have a website for local discussions. > This is why Donald Trump hasn?t got the nuclear > codes > , because imagine Rendel having them?? > Hahaha What are you, five years old? Haven't heard such pathetic nonsense since teaching primary school.

Listed as "no disruptions" on TfL website so presumably yes.

chuff Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendellharris > > Just wanted to let you know that dogs are allowed > off lead on the path and the 'road'. Have a check > on the Southwark bye laws document. The on lead > areas are the central areas by the cafe and the > pond and sports pitches when in use. Fair enough if that's the case, but I would have thought in the interests of the dog to keep them off the road anyway no matter what the regs - given that there are small children learning to cycle, skateboarders etc as well as, I admit, some adults who ride through at silly speeds.

Strongcoffee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nope.. but I do know that you sound angry.. > In fact you sound like a control freak!?? > Not your fault, > Probably a spoilt brat, > I forgive you. > Lots of love : Me Oh dear, how pathetic. I don't know why, having been inoffensively advertising your window cleaning business on this forum for a year (you've certainly lost one potential customer), you've suddenly been inspired to a bout of low quality tiresome trolling on multiple threads, but do be a good chap and pack it in. You may wish to consider what your stupid posts make you look like to the people to whom you've been touting for business?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was in a supermarket today and a small child ran > into me. Do I ask the parent keep it on a lead? > No, I use common sense and accept that children > aren't always aware of who is around them. That's an entirely faulty syllogism, Blah - a supermarket doesn't have regulations about where children are allowed to run and where not, the park does, regarding dogs. I wonder if the OP's child had run into, knocked down and injured a pensioner because s/he wasn't paying attention to/didn't have control over what their child was doing people would just be saying "that's life, unavoidable accident"? As I said above, I adore dogs and my family have always had them; we've always made sure that they're well enough trained that we can control them, and we don't let them off the leash in areas where it's not permitted, especially if there's a chance that they might interfere with or injure others (as it might be, just as an example, a small child riding a bicycle).

Strongcoffee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Typical control freaks, > Cycle somewhere else, > I?ll wrap my dog in cotton wool and my kids. > What a pathetic era we live in. Indeed it is when people can talk such utter rubbish. Suggesting people should take some responsibility for their dogs is being a control freak, but telling people their small children should quit cycling in a park isn't? Do you have the slightest comprehension of how utterly foolish your comment makes you look?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just sounds like an unavoidable accident in a > shared space to me. As the dog was off the lead and not under control in an area where it should have been both, "entirely avoidable" would seem a more apposite expression.

ollieloudon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I guess all children should also be on a leash to > stop them running in front of your bike What a stupid comment. And do try to read - the dog jumped at his/her daughter and knocked her off.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, but the slower the bike speed the gentler the > impact and therefore injury all round less likely. > Not ideal for dogs to be chasing around off lead > on that bit of the park but I see way too many > cyclists pelting at top speed through both DP and > PR. It was a six year old child, rather doubt she was going at Tour de France speed! Do like the way you've quickly skated over irresponsible dog ownership ("not ideal") to move onto complaining about speeding cyclists, which clearly is not relevant to this incident.

Jennys Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The wide ?Road? from Court Lame Gate through to > Dulwich Village has no pavements at all. It is > quite dangerous I think, speaking as a pedestrian, > when cyclists come up behind you. Most are very > careful but there are quite a few who cycle at > speeds much greater than the 5mph I think they are > allowed. Should not new pavements be installed > along this route? But then where there are pavements the rest of the way round, the vast majority of pedestrians don't use them. AS THEY ARE ENTITLED NOT TO DO (before the anti-cyclist lobby start). So might be a bit of a waste of money installing them? Perhaps a better, and far cheaper alternative, would be to simply paint a cycle lane down one side of the road; in other shared use spaces, for example in Hyde Park, this works fine, I never see cyclists riding on the (much wider) pedestrian only section.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just sounds like an unavoidable accident in a > shared space to me. And yes, the responsibility is > always with the cyclist to anticipate sudden > obstacles, which is why, when I cycle through a > park, I slow down to walking pace when passing or > near to dogs and small children, and just any > person in fact. I agree it's for a cyclist to watch out for sudden obstacles and avoid them, whether you can anticipate and avoid an uncontrolled dog jumping up and into you, as seems to be the case here, is somewhat moot.

DulwichGlobetrotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Arrogant man issues edict that all dogs must be on > leads or kept out of his and his family?s way. There's already an edict in Dulwich Park that dogs should only be off the lead in the dog exercise area, which does not include the road. Can't believe the flack being given to a perfectly reasonable post by someone who probably was somewhat shaken up by seeing his/her six year old daughter knocked off her bike by a dog that clearly wasn't under control and shouldn't have been off the lead in that area. N.B. I am a keen cyclist but also a devoted dog lover, the two can easily coexist in parks if both sides behave responsibly. But this thread will doubtless, as can be seen from the comments already, degenerate into an "all dogs/all cyclists should be banned from parks" nonsense.

ollieloudon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually if your cycling it's your responsibility > not to hit things animals included. Get over > yourself If it was him/her who'd run into a dog you might have a point. As it was his/her six year old daughter was hit by (note, didn't run into, was knocked over by) a dog. In that case surely it's the owner's responsibility to keep the dog under control.

Lots of bumbles but no regular ones yet. It has been a very late spring!

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Alan Medic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dave is one of many similarly inclined on > Twitter. > > He can deal with simple but not so good with > > slightly complicated. > > brand him thick in your verbose way...typical- I > expect he is a racist too! Well, odds are... ETA, yep, scrolling through his Twitter feed he has an inglorious history of retweeting and supporting far right and racist organizations, so well done, Uncle, just for once you're right!