rendelharris

It may not be in the spirit of the thing, but I must say I agree with Nigello: we should be concentrating on stopping the source of pollution, not trying to build a screen against it. I'd far sooner ?21,000 was spent on the school instituting schemes to encourage greener behaviour in terms of getting to school - walking buses etc maybe? Also, ivy grows like an absolute bugger if the continual battle we have with it on our back garden wall is anything to go by, surely a pupil-led project to grow their own protection would be a really exciting one for them? Sorry if this seems curmudgeonly, but it sounds like a sticking plaster over a gaping wound solution to me - and I think actually sends the wrong message out to children that pollution is a fact of life against which we must protect ourselves as best we can, rather than something we need to eradicate. I'd love this splendid school to have an extra ?21K, but for better projects than this.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- The oldies have seen all these > prophesies of 'economic disaster' before, have > taken a hit, got on with it and bounced back. One > more little hiccough like Brexit is just something > to take it your stride. Well maybe...though in those previous recessions we hadn't removed our free trade agreement with our biggest trading partner, had we - I wonder how we would have made it through previous recessions without that to fall back on?

The apparent post-Thatcher prosperity didn't last long, did it? Lawson's North Sea oil fuelled giveaway budgets of tax cuts and interest rate suppression created an illusion of prosperity which came crashing down in the 1991 recession. The economy of the 90s recovered off the back of worldwide and particularly US prosperity, fuelled in large part by the dotcom bubble, which again crashed into recession in the second half of the decade. Thatcher's deregulation of the financial industry was directly responsible for the credit crunch recession in the 00s. Not exactly a record of unalloyed, or indeed undeniable, prosperity.

keano77 Wrote: > Many of you will remember a certain Maggie > Thatcher who, inspired by ideas on monetarism, > market forces and a smaller state, closed and let > many important industries die natural deaths in > the 70s/80s. Regardless of your views on old 'milk > snatcher' it is undeniable that the country was > better off in subsequent years and there is an > element of 'get on your bike' to find the > opportunities available post-Brexit. OK I'll bite: under Thatcher unemployment rose to record levels, manufacturing declined from over 20% of GDP to below 10%, public spending was cut by 15%, the pay gap between men and women increased, interest rates rose to a record 17% and there were a record number of home repossessions, industrial action levels were higher in the early 80s than in the winter of discontent, and the number of people living in poverty as measured by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (below 60% of median income) rose from 13.4% to 22.2% on her watch. So I think we have a different definition of the word "undeniable."

Music style might not be to all tastes, though I have a weakness for cheesy country, but the lyrics are very apposite and rather clever:

I'll be brief as we're clearly not going to agree, but: as a white person in London, I suffer from black on white racism to the extent of maybe an occasional dirty look, perhaps being made to feel unwelcome in certain bars or clubs (though even this rarely). That's pretty much it. Black people in London suffer from white on black racism through having poorer access to educational opportunities, poorer job opportunities, more unjustified attention from the police, more racially motivated violence against them etc etc. It's not "some bizarre piece of irony" to differentiate between the two experiences, because they are, y'know, different.

Interesting Joe, I didn't know that...not excusing it in any way but I wonder if it's to do with the fact that large sections of the black community are virulently homophobic? I've had black friends, lovely people with very liberal attitudes, who would walk out of a pub if a gay person (or someone whom they assumed was such) walked in. Pretty sad that two communities who've suffered so much oppression hand it off to each other. As you say, we've a long long way to go, in every group.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You do realise you just tried to justify racism? No I haven't Loz, and you're very much intelligent enough to know I haven't. You know that these things are nuanced, otherwise me being refused service in a rasta pub in the 90s for "not fitting here" would be as important to protest about as a black guy being murdered by white racists. You're better than that comment. ETA: A comparative example: if I said someone dropping a sweet wrapper in the street wasn't as bad as a multinational dumping radioactive waste in the sea, would I be "justifying littering"?

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Back in the 70's I was stopped in the street in > London frequently.. > Even more so in Canterbury and also in Reading > (Festival) > > I am White.. Why was I stopped..? Because I had > long hair. > > The Police have Always singled out one group of > people. > > DulwichFox I too for the same reason in the '80s. As much as my black friends? Not even close, by an order of magnitude.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He also forgot- or obviously has no experience of- > that racial prejudice-in the true sense of the > word where one race believes it is superior to the > other- also exists between Jamaicans and > Trinidadians, Africans and Afro-Caribbeans and > between different Asian groups, as well as racial > prejudice from black people against whites. Well absolutely, and if black people had spent hundreds of years capturing white people and selling them into slavery, torturing, raping and murdering them, and if white people suffered in just about every societal index - financial, health, quality of life etc - in comparison to black people, and if innocent young white men were stopped in totally disproportionate numbers by the police compared to the same demographic of black men, and if successful white business people couldn't drive nice cars without being frequently stopped and asked if it was theirs, it would be just as important to mention it. But they aren't, so it isn't.

Yes (says Google): under the Highways Act 1980 it is an offence if "a person deposits any thing whatsoever on a highway to the interruption of any user of the highway without lawful authority" and the culprit can be charged for any costs of removal. Example being if you need a skip for building works it needs a council permit. (ETA obviously this is assuming this person is blocking spaces on the public highway - if it's on the grounds of your building that's a matter for your landlords/tenants committee etc)

You don't have to believe in the afterlife to say that your dad was saying hello, courtesy of the obviously fond memories he gave you while he was alive - nobody fully dies when their memory still lives on. Rather lovely. More prosaically, has Alexa got some "favourites" glitch and is giving you what she thinks you want to hear?

They had them in Sainsbury's last time I needed some (was last year but assume they still do).

I agree with both of you Nigello and FM - I do recognise that there are people who need to use the car sometimes, including me, I wouldn't fancy cycling to Croydon with the ma-in-law's weekly shop! It's the continuous use of cars for the school run by people who could walk if they got up twenty minutes earlier, for shopping in a supermarket fifteen minutes' walk away etc that gets to me. I just think that, as Nigello sensibly suggests, people need to look at their usage and see where it can be trimmed - for example, a mate of mine, a builder/decorator, was driving everywhere as he had too much kit for anything else. His missus suggested he ask his clients if he could lock his tools up somewhere on site - cupboard under the stairs, garden shed, garage, whatever - and they've always been amenable, now from driving every day he drives twice to each job, once at the start and once at the end, and cycles the rest of the time.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They have more or less said the agenda is to > drastically reduce car ownership and thereby cars > on the roads. They want us all to cycle and walk. > They are clearly prepared to pursue that agenda > ruthlessly. It seems local reps, even outside > Swark Labour, also support this agenda. Fanaticism > trumps pragmatism. Good. London is literally choking to death on vehicle fumes, the vast majority of which are generated by unnecessary journeys (65% of car journeys in London are under than three miles, and 33% less than a mile and a half). Health and clean air trump the "right" to drive a motor vehicle. Allowing 10,000 premature deaths a year from pollution, two thousand a year killed or seriously injured in accidents (and 28,000 more less seriously injured) and countless children growing up with reduced lung function for life and chronic respiratory diseases is not pragmatism, it's insanity.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That might tie-in as to why why Surrey play > cricket at the Oval?... Yep and Middlesex at Lord's, and why in the Boat Race the crew winning the toss get a choice of the Surrey or Middlesex station.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > miga Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > how is Sidcup not London? > > > Sidcup is in Kent.. > > DulwichFox It used to be in Kent, since 1960 something it's been part of Greater London. If you go back far enough (1889) East Dulwich was in Surrey!

sally buying Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 2 young adults living at home because they can not > get on the housing ladder but have a motor > vehicle, father who is self employed and needs a > works vehicle, and a mother who needs her car for > work and pleasure because husband only has a works > vehicle. > > That sounds like the norm. > > All have road tax/insurance and all legally > allowed on the road. > > It is not Southwark's job to tell people what they > are allowed to have or do and not be told to take > a hike. Being taxed and insured does not confer a right to park wherever you please. It is, in fact, Southwark's job as controller of (almost all) the highways in the borough to decide on the parking restrictions applicable. Obviously you don't like it and would like to be allowed to park wherever you please and for people to be as greedy as they want in the matter of the number of vehicles owned per household, but that's the reality.

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think there is an issue that Waze and other apps > have been re-routing traffic that once would have > used the designated A roads onto side streets to > save a couple of minutes per journey. My biggest > problem is the coaches, trucks and vans that > should be using commerical sat navs turning > residential roads into major thoroughfares. I'm > not sure how you solve it though without closing > roads completely. Width restrictions.

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Question. Large Victorian house 3 adult children > and 2 parents. each has a car, as is the norm > these days, what then? If that's the norm (I suspect it's not, over half of London's adults don't own a car at all) it's about time it was broken. I can't imagine circumstances in London (might be different in the country if all had jobs in different towns) where it would be necessary for a house of five adults to have five cars. Too much discussion of transport is geared towards determining how things can be changed to accommodate our ridiculous excess consumption, rather than determining how our excessive consumption should be changed to fit our environment. If a family of five demand five street parking permits they should, quite rightly, be told to take a hike.

Give us your address, if I've time I'll have a rummage when passing if it'll help.

Chill Ronni, the Admin people do a cracking job on here and there wasn't anything wrong with putting your post in the right place, no need to shout at them. Good luck with homing your kits, wish I had space.

Or if you have an iPhone or access to one, you might try the Postsnap app, you upload your picture, add your message, they print and send to an address of your choice for ?1.99 all in.

This thread might help? http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?30,1293709

Where's the lead worn out? Mine went near the connector, I just bought this lead on eBay: https://www.ebay.co.uk/i/262911926125?chn=ps&dispItem=1&adgroupid=45058378713&rlsatarget=pla-325405051090&abcId=1128926&adtype=pla&merchantid=115209759&poi=&googleloc=1006886&device=c&campaignid=856845788&crdt=0 and an electrics-savvy mate just cut the cable and spliced them together, so still have the original Mac charger so no dodgy copy fire risk.