rendelharris

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > intexasatthe moment Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Where does dropping chewing gum come in to > the > > > scheme of things ? In my book a worse offence > . > > > > Same fine - harder to catch though I assume as > the > > charmers just spit it out as they walk, so the > > warden would have to be looking in the right > place > > at the right time. > > They'll stick it to the underneath of seats etc. > :) > > What about spitting then ? Unfortunately not - yet. Every London borough has the right to bring in a bylaw banning spitting, but only a few have done so. Can't be soon enough.

Socrates31 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You detail that you have been in the pub maybe 30 > times at closing time over the course of the > year? > > So the other 93% of days (335 days of the year) > when you are not there, how do you know what the > situation is with noise and not closing the > garden. I don't feel this is a representative > example? Really? You don't think going into an establishment thirty odd times in a row without ever seeing the behaviour complained of demonstrates anything? Righty-ho, I think I'll leave you to it. I'm obviously very lucky, or maybe my naturally authoritative schoolmasterly demeanour makes everyone behave!

Socrates31 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Well, it seems a bit much to me to be traducing > > the reputation of an establishment and calling > for > > action which could very well put its licence at > > risk without being prepared to give details of > > your reasons for so doing. Perhaps, as you're > not > > prepared to do so, it would be better to put > your > > concerns to local councillors via private > message > > rather than doing down the Cherry Tree's > > reputation on a public forum without saying > what > > they're, in your opinion, supposed to have done > > wrong. > > > I think the comments - publicly available online > via the planning application, clearly detail the > issues that the local residents have. I'm not sure > what more information you need? They mainly detail why people think the hostel would be a bad idea, something with which I'm in broad agreement. The other complaints seem to be a) not shutting the garden at 10pm - something I've never seen happen in thirty odd visits this year and b) the behaviour of patrons (if they are patrons, it's all too easy to see bad behaviour near a pub and assume they've come from the pub, rather than having just got off the train or bus or been drinking in the park) after closing time. I've never been quite clear as to what a pub is supposed to do about this, send out behaviour monitors? Antisocial behaviour in public places is a matter for the police. Not, as stated above, that I've observed such behaviour despite living nearby and being regularly in the vicinity at closing time.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Had the Government funded King's and the rest of > the NHS properly and not dumped the crisis hit > Princess Royal Trust on King's, then King's > wouldn't be in this predicament in the first > place. Not to mention the PFI contracts, at least > one of which lasts for a staggering 30 years, > which are just as much the fault of Labour as the > Tories. The one on the Princess Royal runs for sixty years, I believe, and in return for an initial investment of ?118m for the new building the taxpayer will eventually pay ?1.2bn!

Well, it seems a bit much to me to be traducing the reputation of an establishment and calling for action which could very well put its licence at risk without being prepared to give details of your reasons for so doing. Perhaps, as you're not prepared to do so, it would be better to put your concerns to local councillors via private message rather than doing down the Cherry Tree's reputation on a public forum without saying what they're, in your opinion, supposed to have done wrong.

Socrates31 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > No one is asking for the pub to be closed - > just > > for it to be respectful towards its neighbours. > > > > > One possible outcome of a licence review is > that > > it is withdrawn. > > > So then perhaps if the pub made an effort to be > respectful towards its neighbours then this > wouldn't be an outcome. So in other words you do want the pub closed unless it does what you want - though you haven't actually said what it is you want.

OK, every time I have been in the garden at 9.45 - maybe thirty times this year - they have been rigorous about asking us to go inside. I live one street away from the pub and have seen none of the trouble referred to above, and I regularly walk or cycle past around closing time. That's just my experience.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, let's just close the pub. Good call. Many > more (though less than when I first moved in) to > be closed in ED. Then we can finally get some > peace and quiet around here. Absolutely, but let's not forget the restaurants as well, and ban alcohol sales in supermarkets too! I have never lived near a pub that hasn't been complained about by its neighbours (most if not all of whom of course moved knowing there was a pub there); I can only say that as a semi-regular visitor and frequent passer-by it has always seemed a very quiet and civilized watering hole to me (and very rigorous about closing its garden at10PM, so at least one of the comments above is nonsense).

I agree there's plenty of lemming-like pedestrian behaviour there, but the traffic behaviour is pretty shocking too: often see cars speeding up to run the light on amber and even sometimes two or three cars driving straight through on red, and nobody seems to observe the rule that flashing amber means go if the crossing's clear, not just let it rip the second the red's off. Also, shamefully, far too many cyclists running the red, including (as I saw just the other day) whizzing through pedestrians shouting "warnings." Not sure railings would help, or rather that they would be safe; in the event of an incident like a train fire or terror alert they'd just create another dangerous pinch point, surely? The answer has got to be a second exit onto Windsor Walk; as noted above, a fairly simple knockthrough at the north end of the old corridor should do it - there's even a boarded up building there which looks as if it might at one time have been an entrance. Until then Thameslink should be forced to employ marshalls to prevent the accident which is plainly waiting to happen.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where does dropping chewing gum come in to the > scheme of things ? In my book a worse offence . Same fine - harder to catch though I assume as the charmers just spit it out as they walk, so the warden would have to be looking in the right place at the right time.

Denmark Hill is managed by Thameslink, so best way to contact them is through their website: https://www.thameslinkrailway.com/help-and-support/contact-us I agree it's a dangerous mess - I lived nearby on Denmark Hill when they were revamping and always assumed that the new walkway was going to extend to a second entrance/exit at Windsor Walk, couldn't believe it when it didn't. Even now at the far end of the old walkway there's room to knock a second entrance/exit through which would cost next to nothing, presumably they don't want the cost of staffing it. It really does have the potential for a mini-Hillsborough at the moment.

bobbsy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So let's say you drop something and someone tries > to give you a fine - why would you give them your > details and not just walk off? They will call the police - seen it happen in Brixton. Failure to give your details is a criminal offence. On a sidenote, does dropping a butt down a grating - storm drains etc - constitute littering (I mean legally)?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've read somewhere that the entire of the area > from the Thames to Camberwell is pretty much > reclaimed marshland and have always assumed that's > why we can't have tube lines down here. But E&C > has one ! Pretty much - North London is heavy clay, quite easy for tunnelling, whereas much of South London is on Lambeth & Thanet sand, which shifts a lot. It wouldn't be a problem for today's machinery but it was back in the day. Also when the first tube lines were built North London was already getting well built up whereas areas like Camberwell were still semi-rural.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I appreciate we live in a world of snowflake > sensitivity where everything can be offensive. > Maybe I can replace nazi and talibans with > 'unreasonable extremists' if you deem this more > appropriate, but the concepts remain identical. Oh please stop being silly. I'm a forty-nine year old former rugby player who can take - and hand out, when necessary - any amount of "offensive" language and it takes more than silly insults to upset me. But calling people Nazis just because you disagree with them is utterly pathetic and disrespects the suffering and valour of all those who were subjugated by, and fought against, the Nazi regime. That's not being a "snowflake" (another bloody stupid meaningless term much beloved of Daily Mail readers and other idiots - whatever else you are, you're not an idiot, you can express yourself very well without the need to resort to such foolishness), it's simply having a sense of what is disrespectful and in extremely questionable taste.

I was taught at primary school that the meaning of "lead us not into temptation" was that one was asking God to lead us away from temptation, i.e. a translation/expansion would read "Lead us so that we can follow you away from temptation." Even as a small child I remember thinking it'd surely be a bit easier if God just abolished the old temptation in the first place...

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Since my choice of words is so objectionable, I'd > ask you how you'd define the cycle lobbies that > (and it's a fact) have dedicate more time and > energy to successfully lobby for those > 'motorcyclists and cyclists stay back" stickers to > be changed with a wording leas offensive to the > poor snowflakes, than to actually educate fellow > cyclists of how idiotically suicidal it is not to > stay back from a large vehicle. Not as "nazis," that's for sure. (And unless you have actual proof that cycling groups have done what you suggest - which would require access to their detailed budgets and timesheets - "and it's a fact" does not actually make it a fact)

Elphinstone's Army Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I see Godwin's Law is having an airing at last. Aye, just need "MAMILS" and "lycra louts" for a full house in cycle-hater's bingo.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Many cycle nazis I'm sure we've been here before: that choice of words removes your right to be considered as a serious person. In any case, you and I have done this argument to death over many months, you hate cycle lanes, I love 'em, we're never going to agree. But they're here to stay I'm afraid.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My meaning may not have been clear to you RD, but > it seems to be clear to other people. I think that > you're choosing to misunderstand what I said > because it doesn't fit in with your views on this > issue. > > I don't feel that I need to explain myself further > on this. So this is my last word on the subject, > since I have better things to do than to spend my > time engaging in a semantic debate. How very lofty of you, jolly good. Your exact words, in their entirety: "What about people who are disabled or otherwise physically unable to do so? Why do some cyclists ignore these groups?" and yet somehow that's not accusing some cyclists of ignoring the disabled? You don't need a PhD in linguistics to see your meaning.

Sorry ZT but the meaning you now claim for your comments isn't clear at all. You simply accused some cyclists of ignoring the disabled. That's all you said. With regard to DL's explanation with its accusation that cyclists are somehow a minority stealing roads from the majority (a fairly nonsensical statement given that many main roads in London at rush hour now have a larger throughput of cyclist than motorists): does it never occur to you that the more cyclists there are on the road, the more room there is on public transport for those who can't cycle?

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe because not all cyclists realise that not > everyone can or should cycle? What would the > reaction be if motorcyclists said: do a CBT (cheap > and easy) and get a cheap 125 to commute to work? If someone said that I would think, yes, that's a good option. I would take it as read that some disabled people wouldn't be able to take that option and wouldn't come on accusing you of ignoring the disabled.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's possibly because noone on this thread has > suggested walking or driving to london bridge or > victoria is "the obvious solution". Because it isn't (though walking to London Bridge is a good option), but this occurs whenever cycling is mentioned as an option. There are some people who are unable to use public transport, nobody has accused people suggesting various bus/train options above of ignoring this demographic, have they?

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > What about people who are disabled or otherwise > physically unable to do so? Why do some cyclists > ignore these groups? Why does this accusation always arise whenever cycling is mentioned? If someone suggests driving, nobody comes on and says "what about blind people who can't drive?"; if walking's suggested, nobody says "what about people in wheelchairs?" but the second cycling's mentioned you can guarantee someone'll mention those who are unable to do so, as if cyclists are somehow terrible uncaring people (as here, where a simple five word statement is extrapolated to an accusation of ignoring the disabled). Surely it should be taken as read that whatever option is mentioned is suggested for those who are able to take it, or does "if you're able to" have to be added every time cycling's mentioned, and if so shouldn't that be done every time driving or walking is suggested also?

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What the EU has to realise is they cannot impose > conditions 'in perpetuity' on what will then be a > sovereign country again as to what it can and > can't do with others. The EU has the right to offer whatever deal it wants, and we have the right to accept or reject it. Naturally the EU is interested in reaching whatever deal is to its best advantage, just as the UK is. It's a rather pathetic spectacle to see the Brexiters shouting "Yeah, reject everything to do with the EU!" and at the same time whining "The nasty EU are refusing to give us the exit deal we want!" As they're so fond of reminding us, they won, now they have to face the consequences. As the late A.A.Gill percipiently said, "We listen to the Brexit lot talk about the trade deals they?re going to make with Europe after we leave, and the blithe insouciance that what they?re offering instead of EU membership is a divorce where you can still have sex with your ex. They reckon they can get out of the marriage, keep the house, not pay alimony, take the kids out of school, stop the in-laws going to the doctor, get strict with the visiting rights, but, you know, still get a shag at the weekend and, obviously, see other people on the side. Really, that?s their best offer? That?s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: '?Ello luv, you?re looking nice today. Would you like some?"

Socrates31 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Dulwich Fox, > > You?be highlighted a really important issue here, > perhaps you could comment on this on the planning > notice (link in OPs) post. Even if it does require an HMO licence (which the council will decide depending on usage), from the figures quoted above by Fox 47 people would require just over 200m2, which I should imagine even one floor, let alone two, of the Cherry Tree has.