rendelharris

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also, RH's example of 'bigotry' (calling someone a > stirrer) is pretty poor as well. If that's all > that classes as bigotry these days, nevermind > 'hateful bigotry', we've lost the real meaning of > the word. Calling someone working for free to try to help the Grenfell victims a stirrer because she asked for a better response is pretty bloody hateful in my opinion. If you want more examples of uncleglen's unsubstantiated bile try the one above that many teachers are extreme left wingers (who also, oddly, apparently refer to gay people as shirtlifters) who admit (it's amazing what people admit to uncleglen, he must be a brilliant listener) that they are in the profession to indoctrinate young people. A few more examples just for the record: After the London Bridge attacks, "Apparently one of them lived in Barking and had been an upstanding and useful member of his community for three years according to one of his neighbours..." Clear implication that you can't trust any of "them." "I remember being in North Cross Road a couple of Xmases ago and the little stage was up, the then Muslim mayor was there and there were 2 children coming out of the mosque with adult men who were talking and the children were looking up the road at the fun going on. Then the men took them away in the opposite direction." "there was a student I taught in the gcse year. She was barely literate and was hopeless at maths. She asked for her parents' evening reports to be sent home as her parents couldn't attend...the reason was that they were buying a new Merc...I thought of only they had spent some money on a tutor for her (she was not statemented or anything)- still she probably has 10 kids and all the designer gear by now!" (A fine example of the made up crap he spouts) "Ever since Blair the Labour party has tried to grab ethnic votes [www.migrationwatchuk.org] As a perennial cynic I believe the Labour party has been trying to ingratiate itself with the muslim community.' (Migrationwatch being a notoriously anti-immigration thinktank famous for skewing the figures). Plenty more examples in his history, slice him whichever way you want, he's a hateful rightwing bigot.

Well as you've seen fit to use my name UG, lots of people on here call you out as a bigot, because you are one. I'll give you one example from this year: when you called Yvette Williams MBE, a policy adviser to the Crown Prosecution Service and spokesperson for Justice4Grenfell, a group which has widespread community backing including from many of the survivors, a "stirrer" for asking for a better response for the families made homeless. As I recall you told us that "true" survivors were patiently waiting in line and it was only the far left (for you, anyone to the right of Ghengis Khan, it seems) who were trying to exploit the tragedy. If you require further examples of your hateful bigotry, your comment history is available. (ETA and from Joe Leg's sensible and lucid posts I'd say he's quite capable of making his mind up about you for himself; it'd be lovely for you (and flattering to me) to say that all the many people on here who've called you out for your hateful views are jumping on my bandwagon, but the truth is they're all just seeing you for what you are, no assistance from me needed - your views aren't exactly subtle and hard to interpret, you know)

It was in a French bar so most likely they were drinking demis - 250ml which is 0.44 of a pint.

Sounds like a fox call, most likely an alarm - warning cubs or other foxes that there's a potential danger (dog, human) in the area.

The Copyshop in West Norwood are worth a look, a social enterprise offering good value and service: http://thecopyshoplondon.co.uk/home/3564189

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > DulwichFox Wrote: > > >> > > > > > I'm lost for words as to the level of > > cruelty > > > > some people will stoop to. > > > > > > > > rendelharris Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > You a vegan then Foxy? > > > > > > Good point. > > > No I am not a Vegan. I was totally veggie for 2-3 > years back in the 70's. > > I am fully aware of cruelty in factory farming.. > I written about it here more time than Sue seems > to remember. > It is not possible to source out where every meal > I eat out comes from. > We would all starve if we all did that. > > I can only assume that Sue NEVER eats out in > local Indian restaurants. Then don't bang on about how cruel other people are when you're aware of how cruel much farming is but are prepared to buy into it for the sake of a nice meal out. It's perfectly possible to get a delicious vegetarian or vegan meal at virtually every eating place in ED, particularly the Indians (and especially Ganapati). We would not all starve if we eschewed, or only ate ethically produced, meat, don't be so ridiculous. If you're prepared to accept animal suffering and cruelty as the price of enjoying a nice meal out, good luck to you, but don't then hypocritically point the finger at others about being cruel when your lifestyle choices are just as questionable.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Red Chilli powder would also endanger other > wildlife and pets. > Could seriously damage a cats eyesight for > example. > > A ridiculous suggestion.. > > I'm lost for words as to the level of cruelty > some people will stoop to. > > DulwichFox You a vegan then Foxy?

I suspect they paid a flying visit and never got too far from ED station - I notice our road is on the pictures, it's a lovely road but not (despite my loyalty, I love it) maybe the best road in ED - but it is very near the station!

Musiquepiano Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The small footpath will be a part of the mayor? > Cycling Quieteay as I understand. Currently there > is a CCTV on Greendale which was finally installed > last year thanks to Caroline Pidgeon so this > sounds positive as they will be considering about > installing one possibly on the small footpath. As > well as Councilor James Barber Sarah King has also > applied for the funding so we will see. Any news I > will keep you posted here. No, BNG's correct - the Quietway will run straight up the hill, joining Greendale and Champion Hill, the footpath isn't a part of it. Good luck with your endeavours, the footpath definitely could do with safety improvements.

You did. And in your earlier post you said "What a load of rubbish" in reply to Southwark Cyclists' assertion that traffic remains 2.5x higher outside DKH primary than on Chadwick Road, on the basis that you live on the road. Where are your figures? If you have contradictory evidence I'd be delighted to see it and would be happy to change my mind accordingly. As I said above, I don't know if it alters the case for opening the bridge or retaining the closure, but just saying "what a load of rubbish" in response to actual facts doesn't advance the debate very far, does it? What was so different about the week of the study to any other week - not in terms of numbers, but ratios?

LynnB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Any data based upon a small sample size increases > the chance the data are not accurate. > Traffic data for one week is an example. A larger > sample would very likely give a more accurate > value. Perfectly fair point (as opposed to someone just saying "what a load of rubbish you don't live here") - but the ratios would remain fairly consistent, wouldn't they? So Southwark Cyclists' assertion, angrily dismissed (not by you) that traffic on Grove Hill Road remains 2.5x that on Chadwick is still valid. Whether this validates or invalidates the case for bridge closure or reopening I really don't know, but the debate isn't helped by people (again, not you) just dismissing figures without offering any alternative evidence.

I'm sure had the survey figures supported your case you would not be questioning it. But hey, I have no right to comment as I have not, to my shame, actually conducted a door-to-door survey. With regards to your final question, why ask questions to which you know the answer?

Ah, good to see you back Richard and as ready for reasonable debate as ever - how's Dullywood? Care to explain why the figures gathered in that week would be significantly different to any other week?

In other words, no you don't have any figures and reject those (helpfully quoted by rollflick above, which prove SC's assertion is correct) which prove you wrong? Glad that's clear.

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark Cyclists have said > > "While Chadwick Road has seen the biggest > increase, it is still one of the quietest > residential streets in the area. Even with the > closure reducing traffic on Grove Hill Road > outside the Dog Kennel Hill primary school by a > third, traffic levels remain 2.5 times higher than > on Chadwick Road". > > What a load of rubbish. Perhaps Sally EvSouthwark > Cyclists should try living on the Chadwick > Road/Grove Park . Their minds would soon be > changed. Do you have figures to substantiate your rebuttal, or just "what a load of rubbish"? Equally, if Sally is following this thread, perhaps we could see the evidence for Southwark Cyclists' figures? Otherwise it's just name calling.

Sorry - I wasn't trying to imply you were pro-hunting with dogs, more a general comment about one of the excuses those who are use.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and then there's the environmental cost of bottled > water, which is far too low on people's priorities Definitely - until quite recently I was guzzling a couple of litres of Sainsbury's Highland Spring fizzy water every day, then Mrs.H pointed out that for someone who tries to be environmentally sound a couple of large plastic bottles a day wasn't that good a thing. Back to the tap for me! I spent part of my childhood in Brussels, the local alimentation had a scheme whereby one took back wine bottles and they were refilled from the barrel. I'm convinced supermarkets could do this with all sorts of products and that it would be really popular.

SpringTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Aside from their faeces stinking up ours and our > neighbouring gardens I've never really liked them. > Memories of masssive chicken overkill (with only > one or two chickens taken) and similar lambing > situations I witnessed through childhood don't > heal well. There's not much you can do though - > killing your local foxes just frees up space for > others to move in. Howl away Foxy! It's one of the beloved myths of the hunting lobby that foxes kill "for fun." What they do is kill every bird they can get their jaws if they get into a hen coop, sure, but they do so intending to return and eat or cache the rest. Obviously as soon as farmers find a fox has got in they patch the hole and so this doesn't happen. It's funny that humans bang on about foxes being cruel or vicious for killing animals for food...what are we raising these poor chickens and lambkins for? Whether it's less cruel for an animal to be killed fairly swiftly by a fox or transported in a packed lorry to stand panicstricken while its fellows are slaughtered in front of it by people who are notorious for their mindless cruelty is questionable.

Just to reiterate, although as Penguin says some pre-2006 cars are exempt, don't assume that just because your car is post-2006 and not diesel you won't be charged - TfL suggests anyone with a car made up to 2008 should check.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fundamentally, if you want to reduce the number of > people using cars, you have to provide reliable, > frequent and fast public transport. We have buses > which can take an hour to go 3 or 4 miles in rush > hour Agreed, trouble is you can't get the buses going any faster unless there a fewer cars on the roads. Chicken and egg...

I think that arises from a misconception: because kidney stones are mainly calcium and hard water contains more calcium, people assume there would be a link but large scale studies show it doesn't exist. Even if there were a small risk the benefits of water would far outweigh it, every 500ml of water drunk per day reduces the risk of kidney stones by around 7%, apparently (source, my GP who told me off for not drinking enough water on long cycle rides!).

Fingers crossed - I've always thought the Village Way/EDG junction is ripe for accidents (even before these works) because some of the more irresponsible "local knowledge" drivers know that there's a hold for the pedestrian lights and if they see no pedestrians take a chance to dodge across - once recently we had actually just stopped at the lights (going from Dulwich Village to RPH) and a guy overtook us on the wrong side of the road, and the wrong side of the pedestrian island, presumably banking on that delay between EDG/Village Way and RPH/DV controls giving him time to get through. I actually shut my eyes waiting for the crash...don't know what can be done about that, but it happens more often (though not in such extreme form) than is safe. Junction cameras, maybe?

If your assumptions are correct (and nobody seems to be advancing any evidence for this) then the accidents are caused by stupid drivers getting over aggressive because they've been held up, no? Or does being in a car absolve one of the responsibility to act sensibly? Should no works ever be carried out because we can't rely on car drivers not to act like idiots if their journey is delayed? Whatever the rights and wrongs of the works (and I personally tend to think they're ill conceived), the blame for an accident (if caused by careless or dangerous driving or speeding) lies squarely at the door of the offending driver(s).

Henry_17 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendel, > > 83 new abodes could have come in handy. Is it > enVisioned that they will be developed elsewhere? Of course we need more housing - though given Southwark's record at Elephant Park etc one very much doubts there would have been much affordable social housing (even under the current very stretched definition) - but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to gut a town centre of much-needed and much-loved amenities and simply plank down tower blocks willy-nilly.

I agree that the carpets could do with a deep clean (or preferably being taken up and incinerated) but in PP's defence it has (at least in the gents' version) some of the most salubrious lavatories in this neck of the woods!