rendelharris

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > one of the firemen said that she would be OK. I > must admit I was surprised by the amount of > emergency vehicles that attended. Three fire > engines two police cars three ambulances and the > air ambulance. > > I am so happy that we have the funding to allow > such a comprehensive response. Imagine if we had > to put up with a situation in which money was > scarce and it was even wasted.... That's rather sniffy, if I may say so. I don't know about current operating procedures, but years ago when I knew someone who worked in emergency dispatch she told me that if there were two or three units in the vicinity of an incident they would all be directed towards it as they couldn't be sure - especially in rush hour traffic - who would get there first. As for the multiplicity of services attending, ambulance for obvious reasons, police to check there hasn't been foul play and to keep onlookers back, fire as it sounds like a situation where lifting gear may well have been needed. From the OP's "The fire service, police and air ambulance are all trying to reach her" it sounds like a complex situation which may well have needed such a large response. Unless you're certain of all the circumstances and have the expert knowledge to know what sort of response was required I don't think you're in a position to accuse the emergency services of wasting money.

dc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Shite. Never been a regular but always enjoyed > it > > when I've dropped in when passing. Another > block > > of flats no doubt... > > Would seriously doubt that. Southwark has recently > adopted Article 4 directions to specifically > protect local pubs and The Gowlett is amongst > those with the highest level of protection. > > Edited (for typo) That would be good - no idea of what these orders mean - do they mean it has to stay a pub?

Shite. Never been a regular but always enjoyed it when I've dropped in when passing. Another block of flats no doubt... "Change your hearts or you will lose your Inns and you will deserve to have lost them. But when you have lost your Inns drown your empty selves, for you will have lost the last of England." - Hilaire Belloc

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agree. But following your logic, shouldn't > Peckhampam's point also have sufficed?... Touch?! Fair point - guess I was planning to say something myself, saw PP's comment so, already in commenting mode, agreed. Though to be fair (to myself) nothing that wrong with agreeing with someone; what was wrong about the succession of replies to the OP was that we went from "Don't be silly it's Remembrance Day" to accusations of disrespect and offensiveness.

Peckhampam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think a lot of the above are being a tad self > righteous and kicking a man while s/he is down. > The OP clearly didn't realise the drumming was for > remembrance Sunday.....give them a break. I agree, the OP's made a very crass mistake, obviously, and is probably deeply embarrassed by it. If s/he had objected to Remembrance Day specifically then the lectures above would be deserved, as it is edhistory's correction would have sufficed.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'Brextremists'- I suppose by the Laws of Equal and > Opposite reactions someone had to counter > 'Remaniacs' Personally I prefer the counter to "Remoaners" - "Brexshitters." Oh why don't we all grow up and stop name calling etc etc - just to save anyone else the trouble...

I believe there's always a ceremony at the war memorial at St.Peter's, LL/South Circular junction, isn't there?

Unicorns sounds good, can we get that done?

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What the f... is TM hoping to achieve by declaring > we will leave the EU on such a date at a > particular time. 11 o'clock. Why not 10.30? Why > bother say anything? This whole thing is worse > than a farce. Suspiciously emotive choice, given that WWI ended at 11AM and Britain's ultimatum to Germany in 1939 ran out at 11AM. They must be aware of the resonance of such times, but what it's intended to signal who knows?

Changed my mind about responding - too bored with Loz and his tone of assumed superiority now. What you've written sums up both your argument and your attitude, I'll leave others to judge both.

That link doesn't seem to work, hopefully this one will: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/camberwell-grove-bridge/supporting_documents/Camberwell%20Grove%20consultation%20report%20v1.02.pdf

Sorry BB, but crossing on a pelican when the light's red, or at a non-designated crossing, isn't against the law - running a red on a bike is. Sometimes it's not dangerous, often it is, but it's always against the law. If there's one thing I wish London cyclists would stop doing it's this, it just gives the haters a stick with which to beat us.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Always interesting to get a left wing > > European perspective on the news as well. :) I thought describing it as "the French equivalent of The Guardian" made that fairly obvious!

If you can read French Liberation is worth a look online - the French equivalent of The Guardian but rather less po-faced. Always interesting to get a European perspective on the news as well.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz's point (I think) is that there is no direct > correlation that one extra cyclist means one less > car journey. I doubt there will be stats to back > that up, but from personal experience, when I > first started cycling in London I stopped using > the Tube. I didn't own a car then and still > don't... Of course; as I stated above, only one third (roughly) of the people I know who cycle commute have switched from commuting by car, the others have either always cycled or have switched from public transport. But Loz is trying to say "most" cyclists will not be car drivers, "so few car journeys will have been saved" and therefore cycling "does little for the environment," which is palpable nonsense.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But I have never actually said that I "believe > that more people using bikes instead of cars won't > reduce the number of car journeys". No one has > ever said that. And we know that I never said it > because if I had, you would have directly quoted > me. "cyclists do little for the environment. Most will not be car drivers, so few car journeys will have been saved, so where exactly have do your figures have to do with any lowering of pollution levels? How many vehicle journeys have actually been saved? Just because there are more cyclists, it does not actually follow that there is a commensurate drop in vehicle journeys." It seems you've realised your original assertion is somewhat idiotic, so now you try to deny making it.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Goodness me, he's accidentally stumbled upon the > problem. How many of these bike journeys are > actually directly replacing a car journey? A question to which you have no answer, and yet you try to impose it on others. Find some statistics, or even a vaguely supportable argument, and the debate can continue. Have a word with yourself squire - apparently you believe that more people using bikes instead of cars won't reduce the number of car journeys. Surely even with your apparently tangential connections to logic and reality you can see you're making rather a fool of yourself? Goodnight.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/pollution-killing-50000-in-the-uk-every-year-research-finds-a3663371.html I notice you haven't said anything about the fact that you claimed that only 40,000 people die from pollution in the entire world each year? ETA if you read properly you'll see that directly - literally the next sentence - after the 3,000 deaths figure it says "NO2 is not included in current mortality estimates, but recent evidence suggests that NO2 may cause about as many deaths again. Therefore the overall death toll due to air pollution may be considerably higher than previous figures showed." You must have missed that sentence, because you surely wouldn't just cherrypick a figure and ignore the evidence in the next sentence which contradicts your argument, would you?

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > malumbu Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Some facts. > > Not sure I'd class these as facts: > > > Around 40,000 people die each year > > due to poor air quality. > > *Estimated* to have died because of poor air > quality. Unless you know for sure what every > single one of those 40,000 people died from, you > can't claim that number is a fact. > > Besides, that's 40,000 people worldwide. No it isn't. An estimated nine million people die worldwide each year from pollution related illness. Approximately 50,000 die in the UK each year, of whom approximately 10,000 are in London. These aren't figures from some environmental lobby, by the way, but from The Lancet. "Diesel cars collectively emit 5.3% of all NOx within Greater London and 2.4% in Central London." Try 11%: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Driving%20Away%20from%20Diesel%20final%20report.pdf (Page 10)

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And you have used entirely irrelevant statistics - > my assertion is that cyclists do little for the > environment. Most will not be car drivers, so few > car journeys will have been saved, so where > exactly have do your figures have to do with any > lowering of pollution levels? How many vehicle > journeys have actually been saved? Just because > there are more cyclists, it does not actually > follow that there is a commensurate drop in > vehicle journeys. If two people get off a bus at > peak hour, the bus still runs. Loz, here's a tip to save your typing fingers: in answer to the question "Do you have any evidence for this lofty assertion beyond your oft-demonstrated dislike of cyclists?" you could have simply answered "no I haven't," which is what your post amounts to. The idea that more people using their bikes instead of cars for work, shopping and socializing won't reduce pollution is absurd. I have no idea whether you ride a bike or not, it doesn't stop you jumping on every anti-cyclist bandwagon going on here - and supporting car use to the extent that anyone who supports reductions in car use and efforts to encourage cycling is immediately, and rather pathetically childishly, labelled "the Angry Car Hater." Try arguments, backed with figures, instead of insults, it would make for a more interesting debate. You're capable of it if you really try. ETA "Most cyclists will not be car drivers" is utter nonsense - I only know one cyclist (of about thirty cyclist mates) who doesn't also own a car or occasionally rent one.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- cyclists do > very little for the environment. Most cyclists > would not be driving instead, so the effect on the > environment is negligible, if anything. Do you have any evidence for this lofty assertion beyond your oft-demonstrated dislike of cyclists? Anecdotally, of the eleven friends I know who cycle to work, three have always cycled, four are former public transport commuters and four used to drive. Factually, in the year 2000, motorists outnumbered cyclists in Zone 1 at rush hour by a ratio of 11:1. By 2014, the ratio had dropped to 1.7:1. Are you going to claim that this has nothing to do with commuters switching cars for bikes? Your claim is utterly risible and clearly based on nothing but your desire to denigrate cycling at every opportunity.

Very sorry to hear it - I know the pain of losing a favourite motorcycle. Can you let us know the make and maybe registration, just on the off chance it's still in the area so we can keep 'em peeled (unlikely, I know, but the chump who nicked my Aprilia was caught in Croydon as he'd stripped and resprayed the fairings but had neglected to change the reg plate! (Unfortunately by then, as it was a two stroke, his neglect of topping up the oil had all but burned out the engine))?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Always the logical place to build a crossing (as > opposed to Temple). Quite - and this one a) will allow cycling and b) won't allow a private consortium to close it for corporate events, at night etc. If only we had the ?46M wasted on the idiotic Garden Bridge to put towards this one!

These no use? https://www.screwfix.com/p/laser-locking-wheel-nut-remover-2-pack/1889j

Just for interest in case anyone would like to offer their views to TfL. As a cyclist I feel this would be a terrific incentive for more people to cycle from our neck of the woods to Canary Wharf, and would benefit car drivers (by taking pressure off the Rotherhithe Tunnel and Tower Bridge routes) and those who can't/don't want to cycle by taking pressure off the very crowded commuter public transport routes. https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/rotherhithe-canarywharf/?cid=r2cw-crossing