rendelharris

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > > As Frederic Raphael (I think) once said, > England > > is the only country where being called clever > (as > > in "too clever by half") is an insult. > > I wonder where this prejudice comes from? I bet > it's a relatively 'modern' thing - nineteenth > century maybe? Does it go with the birth of > schools for the elite that focused on creating > 'empire builders' on the sports field rather than > scientists ? I think it's a lot to do with the class system - in a society where high political and military position was more predicated on one's birth than one's abilities the clever person was seen as a pushy upstart trying to usurp the natural order.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > France respect intellectuals in general. Here it's > almost seen as a mark of shame now to know what > you're talking about. As Frederic Raphael (I think) once said, England is the only country where being called clever (as in "too clever by half") is an insult.

jacks09 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought it was even for cases that didn't go to > court? Yes, expect the new fines will be imposed when processed. If the law had changed you'd have to be charged under the law in place at the time of offence, but as it's just the sentencing guidelines they'll be applied at sentencing/sending out the PCN. How fast were you going anyway (assuming you're asking for yourself)? The minimum fine - ?100 + 3 points - hasn't been changed, so if you were going 34 in a 30 zone or similar you shouldn't have to face the new levels of fine.

I would think yes: despite being widely reported as new speeding laws the law hasn't actually changed, they are new sentencing guidelines, so they will be applied when a case comes to court.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wouldn't it be nicer if the phone makers made them > less desirable to steal with anti theft technology > that disables the phone and that the criminals > can't get around, thus allowing people to use > their phones for their intended purpose, > communication on the move. This - as far as I understand the technology's there, it should be illegal to sell a 'phone that can't be permanently blocked as soon as it's pinched.

Deepest sympathy to Ms.Beazley's family and friends, I'm afraid I'd never heard of her and her contribution but I absolutely adore the street art of East Dulwich - one of the first things visiting friends comment on and a wonderful enhancement to the area. What a superb legacy she's left for us, thank you and rest in peace.

DL I couldn't give a stuff about the stickers and in fact I thoroughly approve of them, any and all warnings are welcome. As a cyclist and motorcyclist in London of nearly forty years' standing I know as well as you do never to go up the inside of HGVs and indeed sometimes get grief from cyclists behind me for not doing so and blocking them. However that doesn't absolve HGV drivers (and more pertinently their parent companies, to whom all manner of safety devices are now available (yet still rarely fitted), from better mirrors to sensors and side view cameras) of responsibility to take care of other road users. Yes if a cyclist tries to undertake a left turning HGV in the act then it's their fault if they get crunched (harsh but true). However, this actually rarely happens - check out the coroner's reports of recent tragic deaths, more often than not it's been the HGV driver at fault - in one particularly egregious recent case it was proved that the HGV driver had the victim in view ahead of him for at least eighteen seconds but still accelerated, turned left across her and killed her. I don't think it's too much to ask that the most lethal machines on the road take care of the most vulnerable road users, do you? Or of course we can segregate the two, but you're none too keen on that...

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > > > Just to repeat as one has to many, many times, > > local councils do not benefit from speeding > fines, > > all revenue from speeding fines goes to > > H.M.Treasury. > > That's not what I had understood from Kingston's > official website: > > https://www.kingston.gov.uk/info/200195/parking/62 > 7/penalty_charge_notices_-_parking_moving_traffic_ > and_bus_lane_penalties/6 > > I'd assume speeding tickets are part of the > penalty charge notices "from moving tarffic". No, moving traffic offences are the likes of blocking stopboxes, making illegal turns, driving the wrong way up one way streets etc, speeding offences are separate and the revenue goes to the treasury.

They can request money for new anti-speeding measures - speed cameras etc - but that's all, it can't be spent on anything else, it all goes back into general taxation.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What do you mean by ''off the entrance hall'' > rendel, the bottom of the staircase?... Yes, assuming there's a doorway's width between the front door and the foot of the stairs - which presumably there is as there's room for the dining room door. In fact that's an odd configuration, isn't it, normally two up two downs like that have the reception room doors both leading off the "hall" (I know it sounds a bit grand for that size space but can't think what else to call it) - maybe if the OP is lucky the original doorway might be there blocked off, which would save a lot of time and money. ETA whoops my mistake I assumed front door was at foot of the stairs. But my idea could still work, just have through doors at the foot of the staircase and extend the understairs cupboard back to the external wall.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The main unproven reason for Wandsworth to > introduce 20 mph I suspect (no facts) is a money > making racket to fine motorists Just to repeat as one has to many, many times, local councils do not benefit from speeding fines, all revenue from speeding fines goes to H.M.Treasury.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One thing I quite never understood about electric > cars is how polluting (or not) is it to generate > that electricity? Obviously it depends on the energy source: I've always heard that at a very heuristic estimate EVs powered with electricity from coal stations are about as polluting as a petrol vehicle, if the power comes from gas about 50% and obviously if the electricity comes from zero emissions sources then the car has effectively zero emissions. Also of course from whatever source the electricity comes there are zero kerbside emissions, so even if all UK power was still from coal it would be worth replacing all cars with electric ones (if that were possible) from an emissions/public health point of view. When comparing figures it's also important to note that many reports hold electric cars to account for their "well to wheel" (nice phrase Malumbu) output but only mention the exhaust pollution from petrol cars: extracting and refining crude oil, shipping it halfway round the world in tankers and then transporting it in HGVs to the point of sale is a very polluting process in itself.

Could you maybe extend the cupboard under the stairs back to the side wall and install a lavatory and shower in there, knocking through a new doorway for the living room off the entrance hall, and treat your upstairs bathroom as an ensuite? If you Google you can see some amazing solutions for that sort of space. Wouldn't be cheap, particularly with knocking through a new doorway, but I'd imagine a lot less than respositioning the stairs.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My understanding is that the dispute around sick > pay is about company sick pay i.e. what is paid > over and above the statutory. At the moment you > only get it once you've worked for a year - the > staff are asking for it (I guess) from the > beginning of employment. If you're on a zero hours contract you won't get sick pay, statutory or otherwise.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But no one would try cutting the post instead of > the chain! :) Depends - I've heard of people losing bicycles that they've locked to railings with top notch U-locks and a gang cutting through the railings rather than the lock, presumably it being quicker, sling the bike on a van then cut through the lock at their leisure elsewhere. A mate once lost a nice bike (pushbike) he'd chained to a no entry sign, the buggers had unscrewed the sign at the top of the post and lifted the bike, lock and all, over the top. An organised gang with a van to carry off their ill-gotten gains will hit whatever looks weakest and take the least time to break so they can be away before anyone starts a fuss...even heard tell of them cutting though the frames of expensive bikes with good locks so they can make off with the components. Bastards!

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No don't think so? > > 12-2 > 7-10.30 > > I think Definitely evenings were 19.00-22.30, but I do seem to remember afternoons were 12-14.30, with ten minutes' drinking up time to 14.40 (and they were very hot on that, you had to be out and the doors locked by 14.40). But weren't there some local variations set by councils as well? I well remember the disappointment when walking in the Brecon Beacons in the late '80s of finding a (miracle on a Welsh Sunday!) open pub at 13.35 only to be told they'd stopped serving at 13.30...

DulwichLondoner Wrote: > > The difference in busy urban areas at rush hour > will be minimal. But outside of rush hour it > won't. And let's please ignore the 'average' > journey within London - that's about as relevant > as calculating the 'average' salary between myself > and one of the residents of a Belgravia villa. > Consider going from south to North London at > night, when the roads will be mostly empty. That's > when the speed limit can make a difference. A > shorter journey time can mean less pollution. > Traffic lights programmed for 30mph limits can > mean vehicles will spend less time at traffic > lights at night, and, again, pollute less. Not quite sure of the logic there, most traffic lights (as opposed to pelican crossings) are at intersections so they have to be programmed for a certain amount of time allowing north-south traffic through, a certain amount east-west, no matter what the speed of traffic. Let's say there are two intersections a mile apart and they alternately allow N/S and E/W traffic through for two minutes at a time each. If I leave intersection A as it turns green and drive at 30MPH, I'll get to intersection B just in time for the light to turn red as I approach and have to wait for two minutes with engine idling. If I leave A at 20MPH I'll get to B with the light on red but only have to wait one minute - and I'll be behind the car which did 30MPH but won't have burned the extra fuel required to accelerate to 30. A simplistic example but the point is that whatever the traffic speed lights have to change to allow cross traffic, they're not there for no reason. You can't ignore the "average" journey in London, if the majority of journeys are of a certain distance then traffic systems have to be designed for that distance - you surely can't argue that 30MPH limits should be introduced simply because they'll make it quicker to get across London in the middle of the night? Also nighttime is when people are more tired, visibility is obviously worse, there will be more inebriated pedestrians about - absolutely not the time to have a higher limit, I'd say.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > peckham_ryu Wrote: > > > Mine is chained to a post that I reckon will > > withstand freeze and angle grinder attacks. > Chain > > is good although not quite uncroppable > > I must say I am confused. Why do you think your > chain is croppable but would withstand an angle > grinder? > AFAIK chains with links >= 16mm (Almax and > Pragmasis) are almost impossible to boltcrop, > whereas nothing can withstand an angle grinder - > it's just a matter of time. I'd guess s/he means the post would withstand an angle grinder, rather than the chain?

teddyboy23 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fcuks sake I've already sold thousands of tickets. > DL vs rh main boxing event.on peckham rye park.ah > well return every ones money cancel my trip to las > Vegas .cheers lads :-)

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Otta Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I kind of agree with the post above. This is > a > > > pretty new cinema, presumably you applied for > > the > > > jobs knowing full well what the pay was? > > > > Ever taken a job knowing the pay wasn't what it > > should be but you needed a job and it was the > > least poorly paid one going? I certainly have. > > > So you went in to it knowing your terms and > conditions then? > > Don't get me wrong here, I am not against the > staff, good luck to them. I am just not so > passionately with them as I might be in other > circumstances. I know what you mean, it's not a sweatshop in Bangladesh...but in my youth I worked on building sites for really poor wages simply because it was literally the only job going and it was that or go on the dole. Sometimes you just have to take work below a rate that's fair to pay the rent, can't see anything wrong with trying to improve conditions once you're in. I guess the thing is that it shouldn't even be an issue, the LLW should be paid by all London employers (and it clearly can be done in this industry, as Curzon have proved) then the discussion wouldn't have to be had.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > keano77 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > > Motorists burning more fuel in low gears > > Oh god not this rubbish again > > You think you know better than the AA research > link I posted above dkhb? > > Please enlighten us with your wisdom You didn't post that link on here, you posted it on another thread. As I pointed out there, the AA were testing emissions from a steady output; nobody disputes that if you run most vehicles at 20MPH over a long course without varying speed they will not function as efficiently as at 30MPH. However, if you were to run them at a constant stop-start every 300 yards or so, more closely simulating urban traffic conditions, the extra fuel needed for the acceleration to 30MPH would make a world of difference. It's interesting to note also that a large percentage of lethal particulate matter in London's air - up to 65% by some estimates - comes not from exhausts but from dust from tyres and brakes. The extra wear on these components caused by constant braking from 30MPH rather than 20MPH would clearly increase this element of pollution.

Well presently Oxford Street is not only full of pedestrians but packed with buses and taxis - it isn't exactly a pedestrian paradise. There seems to be an assumption that it's already totally pedestrianised, it isn't and it won't be until 2020 at the earliest.

Yeah, you and your silly talking sense Malumbu, that's never going to catch on...

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When I think back to the old days the one that > always staggers me is Sunday lunchtimes 12-2 only! > Had some great 2 hours sessions mind you. The Sunday lockin, where one was pretty much forbidden from leaving the pub between two and six (or seven, was it?) was responsible for some of the best afternoons of my younger life.

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did you actually read the primary literature? > Figure 2.4? It clearly shows that the Greenpeace > interpretation is incorrect. Come on, this is > basic comprehension. Primary sources are more > reliable than secondary sources, any GCSE student > knows that. Your own statement: "Figure 2.3: in central London, cars (diesel and petrol combined) are responsible for a mere 8% of NOx pollution. Not "20-30%". Expand it to the whole of greater London then the figure rises to 18%." So in Greater London Nox pollution is 18% from private cars - I gladly concede not 20% as I said. > > I think there's some confusion in the report to > > which you linked: it says that 40% of London's > > particulate matter pollution comes from diesel > > vehicles, but attributes only 1% of this to > > private cars. Given that there are somewhere > > close to a million diesel cars in London, does > > that seem likely to you? > > There may be a million private diesel cars in > London but how many miles are actually driven per > day by private cars? Not that many because people > just use them to commute to work and back. In > contrast, buses are driven 18 hours a day (24 > hours a day for night routes) and a lot of taxis > are always on the move looking for fares. Delivery > vans (diesel, of course) are driving round for > 10-12 hours a day, plus there are all the coaches > coming in and out of Victoria, not to mention the > open-top tourist buses which are all constantly on > the move. Most of those sources of emissions are > also much more polluting than cars because their > engines are bigger and they're heavier so cause > more brake wear when they stop. So yes, take all > those things into consideration and it's easy to > see why private cars cause so little pollution in > comparison to other sources. 1 million private diesels in London and they're only responsible for 1% of particulate pollution? Really? I think it's rather more likely that Greenpeace have got that figure right, we should both look into this more. > > The reason I picked the station was because I > didn't know what you meant by "Peckham". I just > chose a fairly central landmark from which to base > my distances on, that's all. If you'd specified > the library then I'd have used that. I wasn't > accusing you of lying, I was accusing you of being > vague and inaccurate. You initially said 3.7 miles > from Peckham to Westminster Bridge northside, then > revised it to 3.56 miles. What happened to the > extra 225 metres? Firstly, I wasn't being vague, anyone thinking "Peckham" would think of the centre of Peckham, not Peckham Rye, which is south Peckham bordering on East Dulwich. The extra 225 metres is because when I went back to look at Gmaps I saw it had taken a rather absurd long route round - the most direct road route is as I latterly stated. Happy to cycle it with you any time you like for verification.