rendelharris

Is the "butchery" to the original boards mainly confined to the walking areas in the centre? If so why not renovate the edges as far as possible and buy some nice rugs/runners - some fabulous designs available and easy to change as mood/fashion/wear dictates.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In my experience, changing onto Victoria line at > Kings Cross is a nightmare due to large numbers of > people and best avoided. Would agree catching VL > in Brixton or Vauxhall Certainly at rush hour, I assumed (maybe wrongly) a gallery visit would be offpeak, when it's no worse than any other central London station.

If you can get to Denmark Hill or Peckham Rye, direct train to King's Cross then Victoria line direct from there.

Fair point.

Not an option for everyone but it does only take five minutes with a jigsaw to trim off the branches and load them into the garden bin. ETA Electric jigsaw, obviously...

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pigs (presumably small ones) used to be sold in > markets in sacks/bags, and unscrupulous sales > people replaced the pigs with cats. > > If you were wise to this, you opened the bag at > the point of sale to check that you were in fact > getting a pig and not a cat. > > Hence, letting the cat out of the bag. Also "don't buy a pig in a poke" - poke being a small bag (derived from French poque). Always been slightly confused by these expressions, simply because how much of a chump would one have to be to hand over the cash on the seller's assurance that there was a piglet in the bag without having a gander first?

SpringTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In any food outlet etc. the patronising and vile > instruction: > > "Enjoy." > > No, dimwit. It is I who decides whether it's > enjoyable AFTER I have tried it or finished. Just a tiny bit over the top? It's just short for "hope you enjoy your meal", it's not an instruction but an expression of goodwill; if I say enjoy your weekend, enjoy your trip etc I'm not giving you an instruction, I'm just expressing a hope that you will enjoy it. There's enough rudeness about without going looking for it in inoffensive good-natured pleasantries, life's too short.

Edited: Actually can't be bothered - the cricket's on.

I agree up to a point Joe - yes of course it's better to have meat produced in the UK under UK law than imports from countries which have little or no welfare regulation - but in my opinion marks like Red Tractor are misleading at best; I'm sure most people seeing the mark are under the impression that they're getting something with superior welfare and production standards to normal legally-produced meat, which, essentially, they're not.

peterstorm1985 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Uh? I'm absolutely certain that the number of > people commuting to LB who work in the city is > nothing like 90%. Just watch the stream of people > heading off in other directions. And of those who > do head towards the City only a small proportion > are even vaguely related to banking. The City is > full of business of every sort imaginable these > days. > > And if the 'banks' (not sure what type of bank > you're referring to) were charged for transport do > you really think they wouldn't simply pass it on > to their customers? So the cost would trickle back > to us one way or another, and like as not to those > who can least afford it. If you catch the train to > LB you're probably heading off to a decently paid > job, so it makes sense that the user pays; there's > always a cheaper alternative: the bus. Yes I agree, which was my point if you read it; I don't think employers should pay for transport improvements, either on the rail line to London Bridge or to improve the river crossing offer for cyclists and pedestrians.

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's "red tractor", so probably better than most > chicken shops. Quite possibly, but those who care about such things might like to note that Red Tractor was described by Compassion in World Farming as "the lowest standard of any quality assurance" and "guarantees food is British and legal, but little else. Allows tail-docking and teeth-grinding of pigs [without anaesthesia], zero-grazing of dairy cows, long journeys to slaughter, and cramming of chickens into sheds ? allowing them little room to express natural behaviour."

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'principle', 'fair', 'presumably' ?! > > If you say so, please extrapolate as far as you > want fella, I guess at least it bumps the thread > ! > > Banks can afford it, would be a nice gesture. > But no, I wasn't proposing a national solution or > application of principles across the UK (or > Europe, or World, or Universe - before you carried > away). I'd guess 90% of people commuting from ED to London Bridge are working in the City, why shouldn't the banks pay for improvements on that line then? If it's not a general principle, then why do you think it should apply in this instance?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's a riverboat link isn't there ? > If anyone pays for it it should be the Canary > Wharf banks, not govt. The ferry crossing is an outrageous ?7.80 return. Interesting principle that any transport improvements should be paid for by the firms whose employees benefit from them. Presumably, to be fair, you'll want that applied to all rail and road improvements, not just things which benefit cyclists and pedestrians?

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So what happens in terms of skips and large > deliveries of building materials like bags of > sand/ bricks etc.., not to forget portaloos, which > often end up clogging up sections of road? What > wbout various contractors like plumbers and > electricians who might be needed just for a few > days? Do they also cycle in? I am sure individual > builders might manage to cycle but not convinced > this reduces the impact of the build in total, > where there are generally many builders on site. Nearly all contractors get their bricks and other large materials delivered anyway, I don't know any who go and fetch them in their vans. So inevitably there will be temporary street blockages as deliveries unload, but builders who do as my friend and Saffron's husband do leave more free parking spaces for residents. Still, you know, keep on telling us it ain't so, what would we know?! (I've occasionally worked for my friend as an unskilled dogsbody when work's been slack - I cycled too and his business partner got the train in, so that was three parking spaces freed up for a start)

Elphinstone's Army Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and so it begins..... > can anyone explain this meaningless peurile quote > please Somewhere in one of the LOTR trilogy, isn't it? I think it's a very useful phrase, because it lets you know that whoever's using it ("Sorry I'm late, there was a points failure at Clapham" - "And so it begins") is a humourless twonk.

Pugwash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My old aunt used to quote 'she is all mouth and no > trousers' never figured it out. It was in relation > to a middle aged woman who had several sons. I know this one - actually a corruption of the original northern phrase "all mouth and trousers" meaning full of talk and flashy gear (i.e. trousers rather than traditional working man's gear like gaiters or overalls) but no real substance. The corruption "and no trousers" is generally taken to mean plenty of talk but can't back it up in the, ahem, trouser department. Variants include the American "big hat, no cattle" and my favourite, again northern, "all fur coat and no knickers" - which is probably closest to what your aunt meant, I'm guessing! ETA There's probably something in having phrases kids don't understand to flummox them - I remember reading a Paul McCartney interview when he was talking about his dad, who, when asked for sixpence to go to the chippy, would say no, and when asked why not would say things like "Because seagulls don't ride bicycles, that's why not," leaving young Paul confused and defeated.

Thanks for the headsup Scarlett, sure there are lots of ED cycle commuters or potential ones who'd like to see this happen.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RH a nice idea but just not realistic. I cannot > think of many loft conversions or extensions that > could ever get built your way..( and I speak as > one sick to the back teeth with the amount of > building and associated disruption in my area). > But 'builders on bikes' has a certain ring about > it. I see it working perhaps for an odd job man/ > woman who lives very locally. It works for my friend, is all I can say, and he's certainly not an odd job man - loft conversions, extensions, garden offices etc. He gets the materials delivered, not sure if that costs a lot more...he does work at the high end of the market, I admit, so maybe if budget was a prime consideration it might not be as viable, but as I said, he and his partner certainly get plenty done on this model.

Quite agree with AP - with extensions costing many tens of thousands one wouldn't have thought ?90 here or there would be worth worrying about. Also, the point is that CPZs are supposed (if we ignore for a moment the "Southwark are trying to eliminate private cars" theorists) to make it easier for residents to park. Given that in many ED streets there will be four or five houses undergoing works, with sometimes three or four different trades working on site at the same time, one can easily end up with twenty-odd vans in the road (no exaggeration, just glanced out of my window and I can see half a dozen in less than a quarter of my street). Something has to be done to discourage this if the aim is to keep parking clear for residents, surely? A builder friend of mine takes (as far as possible) all materials and tools needed to the site at the start of a job, then cycles for the duration of the build and collects everything at the end. Not a bad way forward?

What Sue said. I cut down to weekends only for January and February, but don't beat up on myself if there's a special occasion midweek - friend's birthday or something - for which I want to break the fast; might compensate with a day off on a Saturday or Sunday. For me personally giving up anything completely with the subsequent feeling of missing out has always been the worst way. Still, horses for courses and best of luck to you!

Same to you squire.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However I think this 52% to 48% nonsense. All this > talk of how close the vote was is nonsense. If > leavers (or remainers) had won by one more vote > that was the result. That's democracy. > unfortunalely many posters on this thread do not > understand this. Maybe it's the age of social > media etc or silly ideas such as proportional > representation or alternative votes that people > think they can change their mind or hedge their > bets. Who was it who said "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."? Nigel someone or other...maybe you, keano, would have accepted the vote had it gone t'other way, but if you think the big beasts would have stopped lobbying to leave and tried to force another vote in a few years...democracy means that when the opinion of the electorate changes the country's policy changes. Not silly ideas, democracy. "People think they can change their mind"? Heaven forfend!

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However why is he now acting traitor-like? Asking > that Chris Graling resign - knowing how weak May > is? He's a Labour peer and has resigned himself on a point of principle. Not sure how attacking your political opponents is traitorous. He was an independent infrastructure adviser and decided he could no longer tolerate the hash May et al are making of everything. When May attacks Corbyn is she being traitorous or just doing her job? Oh and by the way, it's not traitorous to continue to fight for what you believe in, no matter what the result of a vote - or is every opposition of whatever hue traitorous to continue to oppose an elected government? If so the only alternative is dictatorship.

paulu1973 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Helicopters aren't allowed to fly lower than 150m > near structures. Also in the time I've lived near > jarvis road/Melbourne Grove, helicopters don't fly > this close to the ground. Even with the > establishment of the heliport at King, helicopters > don't fly that low or use that flight path. > Secondly the reference to battersea is obsolete as > you are talking about a crane in excess of 60 > floors vs the four floors at the building site With respect, I think you're somewhat missing the point; lighting isn't just there for when everyone's following regulations, it's there for when mistakes are made. Had the Vauxhall pilot not made a catastrophic error, he wouldn't have flown into the building. I don't know the height of the King's helipad but given that it's atop a nine storey block I'd guess no more than fifty or sixty metres, so at some point the pilots are going to be dropping well below 150m and I've certainly seen the police helicopter flying below that deck - in bad weather, with instrument failure or pilot error, lights on surrounding structures could be vital for preventing a tragedy. In the final analysis, if it's unnecessary to have a light on the crane in question why was one put there in the first place? I feel residents have every right to raise their concerns. ETA Just for interest [sic!] just looked up the regulations and "the 500 foot rule does not apply to police helicopters."

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > On twitter today some lady claimed he grew up in > a > > children's home after being abandoned by his > > immigrant (Cypriot) parents. Not the born into > > privilege type. > > Well, he went to Kingham Hill boarding school > ("Day from ?5,525 to ?6,350 per term. Weekly > boarding from ?7,850 to ?9,660 per term. Full > boarding from ?8,100 to ?10,600 per term") and > then Oxford University, so he might not have been > born into privilege but had it thrust upon him > pretty early on. He was brought up in a council children's home from age three to age eleven, then was sent to Kingham Hill on an LEA grant. I hold no brief for private schools but I wouldn't call that terribly privileged and certainly not what I would want for myself. He got to Oxford on merit, as evinced by the fact that he took a first-class degree and went on to obtain a PhD. He's a Blairite bellend as far as I can see but accusations of privilege are a bit much - unless by privilege you mean advantages obtained through his intellect and hard work.