rendelharris

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, that is precisely why it should NOT be done > here. The issue you point out is a failing of the > entire process - in that it circumvents > parliament. Instead of the Greens trying to point > score on their pet issue (pun intended), maybe it > would be better to try and fix the huge, massive, > gigantic procedural problem with the bill itself? Eh? I entirely agree that the bill is an attempt to circumvent Parliament with its "Henry VIII" provisions - in this instance members of Parliament (not just the Greens, as it happens, in Parliament, and outside Parliament the RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association and Compassion in World Farming) have spotted an attempt by the government to change the law without debate and have taken the opportunity to attempt to block them. It will, presumably, be the first of many such actions. The absurdity of offering the government of the day carte blanche to alter laws as they please has been pointed out continuously by all opposition parties but how, precisely, is this to be altered as long as the government plough ahead with their DUP chums? The Charter of Fundamental Rights, by the way, has had full legal status in the EU since 2009, and is, therefore, law.

National Policy Statement - used to set out environmental and transport policies. Issued after public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny but not (as far as I'm aware) as legally binding or rigorous as an Act of Parliament.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > intexasatthe moment Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > The packs > > Sally Eva organises cycle packs. > > She should be able to tell us what guidelines she > has in place to minimise her packs intimidation of > individual cyclists. Oh don't be so ridiculous. Sally Eva and Southwark Cyclists offer a slow paced guided ride to small groups of novice cyclists who want to be shown safe routes into town. Making out that they're some sort of highspeed intimidating pro peloton just makes you look foolish and demonstrates your frequently displayed bias against cyclists. ETA I've passed the "bike trains" several times and they're notable for their caution and courtesy. Personally I find half ton chunks of metal travelling at 30MPH+ (and often +++), often piloted by aggressive, distracted and/or unskilled persons, somewhat more intimidating than a small group of people pootling into town on bicycles.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's not what the bill does - it just defines > the mechanism they will use. If you think > otherwise, my challenge would be name one other EU > law that is specifically named in the bill. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000. Job done. On the particular animal rights issue, the government have indicated that they intend to use the powers conferred by the act to remove the animal sentience clause from UK law. The amendment attempts to stop this. Where else would you suggest that MPs could introduce a block to the government doing this?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My understanding is that the EU Withdrawal bill is > just to provide a mechanism to port EU legislation > to UK Law - it doesn't list any particular law/s > that will or won't go through. > > So, apart from an exercise in political point > scoring, I'm not sure why the amendment was > tabled. No, the government are porting across the parts of EU law they wish to keep as part of our law, dropping parts they don't want; the government have chosen to drop the 2009 clause recognizing animal sentience in the transfer. Amendment clauses are anything but mere political point scoring, they are what will shape the entire structure of UK society and institutions once we leave the EU.

Mmm...possibly, so apologies if misunderstood, but one of the joys of the EDF is that opinions one is convinced must be ironic turn out to be a true reflection of the commenter's views...

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah, but who is to say that the victims of these > thefts wont join the 6% when they cant afford to > go to work any more? > > A lot of people that seem to be doing ok are very > much hand to mouth and the loss of a big ticket > item like an essential ?500 commuter scooter could > derail the whole show. > > The fact its bad for some doesnt justify it > becoming worse for others. Which is why I prefaced my comment by agreeing that the thieves were cowardly parasitic violent scabs. Thought that might make it obvious that I wasn't trying to justify their actions. My apologies if this wasn't clear to you.

SpringTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Amazing to think that in a world capital with a > brilliant jobs market, subsidised housing, > versatile and accessible education etc. the every > day person is faced with such parasitic, violent > and cowardly scabs. They are indeed PVCS, no argument there. But given that London has 6% unemployment and that a large number of those (approximately 20%, or 700,000) in employment are receiving less than ?10 p.h. (and many can't get enough hours), that council housing is nowhere near able to cope with demand and that the education system is creaking at the seams under the pressure of cutback after cutback (believe me, I've seen it) I'm not sure London is doing quite as well as you think. I adore the place and wouldn't live anywhere else, but it's a long way from brilliant.

Many thanks - on a cycle route too, perfect!

How likely is it to see a kingfisher in Peckham Rye? I've only seen two in years of tramping round the countryside, and Mrs.H is dying to see one. If we stake out the stream would we have a good chance? Definitely prepared to put the hours in!

Wales were pretty naughty - Gatland saying both props had cramp. They went off twenty minutes earlier, cramp doesn't last that long, they should both have been able to come back. Gamesmanship at best, cheating at worst, but I don't know what can be done; if a player says he's not fit to return you can't force him on.

Well it certainly nearly blew up in their faces - what if that had been a contested scrum at the end? Only caught the highlights of Eng-Aus, didn't look great, saw Nz-Sco live, wonderful game I thought.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wales seem to have put out close on a second team > against Georgia. Not sure why, a bit > disrespectful. With the attrition rate in the modern game - Johnathan Davies lost for six months last time out - it's not so much disrespectful as realpolitik I think. Also one could argue that giving a second or third tier nation the chance to make a game of it, rather than get slaughtered, can be seen as rather sporting.

Saw in the Aussie press a while back: "Hannigan looks like Goldilocks...and he plays like her too."

"Explicit" = "stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt." Think I may have asked you this before without response, where, please, can I find Southwark Council's explicitly stated aim of reducing private car ownership?

Firstly, how else are the council going to deter selfish and illegal parking? By appealing to your better nature? Secondly, this oft-repeated canard about councils using motorists as "cash cows" really is nonsense; it's said as if the council are some sort of robber barons, growing fat on the takings. By law, all monies from parking fines have to go back into highway maintenance and improvement or public transport, they can't be spent anywhere else (and without them you'd have to choose between worse roads or higher council tax). As per previous, the rules are clearly laid out (and basically a matter of common sense and courtesy anyway), if you disapprove of Southwark using you as a "cash cow" then don't break the rules and they won't be able to.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks. I had no idea that Vauxhall Bridge and > Park Lane were outside it; thought it was extended > as far as Kensington a few years back. It was going to be but Boris kyboshed the western extension, but even if it had come in it was planned to keep that corridor open and charge free.

Depends where you're heading - if you just want to go through town and keep heading north I feel Camberwell-Vauxhall-Vauxhall Bridge-Park Lane-Edgware Road is a bit quicker - more double or triple lane carriageways, Tower Bridge approach can be a real mare.

Not 100% sure but seem to remember being told by an installer working on our upstairs neighbours' windows that H&S regs mean it's not legal to try to fit a replacement window from the inside - in case it falls forward, obviously - and that it's not legal to use ladders any height above the first floor, so if you have second floor windows scaffolding would definitely be compulsory.

Don't park in prohibited areas (no, not even just a tiny bit - would you expect to be let off any other offence on the grounds that you'd only transgressed the law a little bit?) and you won't get a ticket. Easy, really.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now it's a fixed penalty notice without any legal > backing? I suspect you're just being deliberately obtuse, but it does have legal backing: Road Vehicles Regulations 1986: "No person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer shall cause or permit the vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause any unnecessary obstruction of the road." In any case it's simple common sense and courtesy not to park obstructing the view of others at a junction. The reason the council have decided they need yellows round the junctions is because of people like you, who in the absence of clear regulation or enforcement wish to park selfishly. Well, now there will be yellow lines round the corners and they definitely have legal backing. When you whine about them, remember that it's the inability of a minority of drivers to show sense or courtesy when parking that brought them into being.

See thread in main section. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1882203

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If any paragraph of the Highway Code is > enforceable it quotes the legislation which can be > looked up. > > The rest is guidance only. > > It helps no-one to provide the URL of an amateur > web-site. The "amateur web-site [sic]" is however perfectly correct: there is no specific offence of parking too close to a junction if it has no yellow lines, however if you do so you may be ticketed for causing an obstruction. I don't quite understand why the EDF car lobby get in such a paddy about this; maybe 10m is overdoing it but it's simple common sense that if you park close to a junction you're blocking sightlines and selfishly making things more dangerous than they need be for pedestrians, cyclists and your fellow drivers. Not to mention greatly increasing the chance of your precious vehicle being clipped by others.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- In my experience the only > vehicles that are a danger at the moment are > bloody inconsiderate cyclists God you really are the Daily Mail in human form, aren't you? Of the 1800+ people killed on the roads last year, and the 25,000+ seriously injured, how many of those do you reckon were harmed by cyclists? Utterly crass comment.