exdulwicher

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As Fox says himself, his only gripe is with > ?Brussels telling us what we can and cannot do? > > So let?s have what it is ?we? were trying to do > before Brussels stepped in saying ?you can?t do > that?? > > Because personally (and we live in the same city, > same country etc) I can?t recall going to do > something and someone or anyone telling me I > couldn?t do that. > > I run a business, import stuff, have a house, have > children, went wherever I fancied pretty much. Ate > drank lived, and to my recollection nobody ever > stopped me. > > Did I miss something? > > Please tell me Fox, or anyone else, so I can wet > my appetite for the things I didn?t know I > couldn?t do, but will be able to do in this new > era. I asked a similar question a while ago but it got studiously ignored. Maybe I could answer for him though? Have you gone to buy s lightbulb and been unable to get incandescent bulbs, instead being FORCED (against your will obviously) to buy an energy efficient one? That's the meddling pesky EU. Maybe you've bought a new car and found it had catalytic converters and daytime running lights? That's the EU, FORCING you to drive a safer and less polluting car. The interfering bastards. Perhaps you've taken your children on holiday and seen, on the beaches, the Blue Flag indicating a clean beach? That's the EU, forcing Governments to clean up the water and preventing you from swimming in raw sewage! How very dare these unelected bureaucrats do that to your British seaside! When you buy food there are certain standards. How dare they stop you buying chlorinated chicken! There's probably a few more ways they've dared to improve your life. The unelected interfering bastards. Just imagine how much better life will be when the Government can decide not to abide by these meddlesome things and can resume dumping raw sewage, stripping your working rights and generally running roughshod over regulations. You can look at your blue passport and your Brexit 50p piece (worth 20p due to the currency crash) and sigh with happiness at it all.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The atmosphere in some places is going downhill > fast (not specifically ED that I have in mind - > but some pubs seem to be running on an amount of > staff that won't be sustainable and are losing > custom fast). > > Wondering if some are just running down for > selling to developers. There's a pub local to me that's throwing a Brexit Party with fireworks on Friday 31st. Presumably they'll only be drinking British drinks, none of that forren muck. But already the atmosphere on their FB page is horrific. Bullying "we won you lost get over it", racist / xenophobic comments, division.... I'd hate to be one of the many local Polish or Romanian builders wanting to go for a regular Friday night drink that evening.

And this is the issue wih all teh Leave arguments above. There are many reasons to want brexit and they all walk a similar line. Sovereignty, freedom to to what we want, Johnny foreigner not telling us what to do any more? These are all laudable desires and are very important to some people; the fact that we either already have these things or they otherwise have no basis in fact simply does not matter. You were sold a dream. Brexit is all about feelings. Remain can recite facts all they like but the sad reality is that Leavers Just Do Not Care. They don?t care about trade agreements, or about the reciprocal benefits of things like Euratom or ERASMUS or Galileo or the Open Skies agreement, you know, the complicated stuff; many of them probably don?t even know these things exist, and pre-referendum that was probably most if not all of them (and most remainers too come to that). Project fear, price worth paying, I don?t understand why we can?t just leave. We?ve seen this movie before. That?s why leave won and how they?re still winning today. In sunny Brexitland the heart trumps the head. You won?t ever get an answer when asking someone to name the tangible benefits because there aren?t any, but there?s intangible perceived benefits by the truckload. All the Leavers saying the EU now isn't what it set out to be, it's not what "they" wanted. In spite of the fact that "they" literally had no idea about 98% of what it does and most of their EU "knowledge" comes from total bollocks spouted by the Daily Wail and Boris's completely made-up opinion pieces in the Telegraph over the last 10 years. And I hate to say it but Leavers are still onto a winner, No matter what happens it'll be the fault of Remoaners or the EU or Labour or traitor MPs who didn't vote for it and you'll all refuse to belive that it was and is a catastrophically stupid idea that does nothing to sorting out any of the UK's problems.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But of course. We aren?t there yet. We are STILL > in the pretend stage. All existing agreements all > still in place. No cause to alarm the citizens > yet. The citizens are currently being kept in their place by the mainstream media dutifully reporting Harry & Meghan rather than anything about how we're about to fall out of the best thing that ever happened to Europe. Add in a few paragraphs about a pandemic (thanks China, good timing!), maybe a few bits and pieces on Trump impeachment or the Grenfell enquiry and we'll all be good quiet little people forgetting about Brexit. A mere eight years ago, London put on one of the greatest global sporting events ever with people from all over the world watching, attending and competing. Even five years ago most people wouldn't have cared one way or the other about EU. Most people didn't really know or mind either way. Now look how you can turn half the country with a bit of sleight of hand, a few total lies over the years (Barmy Brussels Bans British Bangers!) and a pack of lies working off the back of a bit of nationalistic pride.

paulipedia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No VED is paid to park your car or drive on public > roads No it's not. VED is simply a vehicle tax, paid to overall Government coffers - it doesn't give you a right to drive. That comes from having the relevant licence and insurance. It's also a voluntary tax - you can choose to pay it or not (by choosing to own a car or not). And if you do choose to own a car, you can choose how much to pay. Electric vehicles (and some other classes of vehicle like agricultural, emergency services) zero. But they can still drive on the roads and park wherever. So VED (colloquially known as road tax) means nothing to a "right" to drive or park anywhere. Paying more tax (eg on a big 4x4) doesn't give you any more right on the roads (driving or parking) than a zero tax electric vehicle. There are loads of vehicles on the roads that pay no VED. Bicycles, horses, emergency services vehicles, agricultural vehicles, electric (and most hybrid) vehicles... They all have a right to be there but it seems fair to ask that if they want to store that vehicle for a period of time on public land, that they pay for the privelege. You don't get any sort of discount if you walk or get the bus to the park. Why should you get what amounts to a free allocation of public space if you drive there? Over the next 10 years or so, parking and also VED is really going to come under the microscope. VED because it's simply not sustainable to keep driving (pun intended) people towards low/zero tax EVs and hybrids - the losses to Government in terms of VED and fuel duty are not sustainable. Parking, because councils simply can't afford to be providing that amount of space for temporary storage of private property especially when you consider (against the climate emergency sceario) the externalities of pollution and congestion caused.

paulipedia Wrote: > > I'm pretty sure I pay for that privilege Council tax? Or are we going down the Road Tax rabbithole? Local roads are paid for out of council tax - the council own them and have the responsibility of maintaining them. So everyone who pays council tax, pays for the roads (and pavements) regardless of if they have a car or not (or indeed what type of car it is like a zero-tax electric vehicle or a massive high-tax 4x4). There are a few extras around roads like utilities (if a utility company dig up a road, they have the responsibility and cost of putting it right again afterwards). The council are maintaining a huge area of tarmac within a park for no other reason than for you to leave your personal property on it with the associated costs of pollution, congestion and the fact that that area can't be grass or trees or play areas. It's not unreasonable that they might want some compensation for that. Literally no-one else benefits from your car being there. So paying for it seems perfectly reasonable, no?

paulipedia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd rather become a Park member and pay an annual > fee than this. Did the council ever think to ask > what the residents wanted. Having lived all over > south London, one of the many great things about > our area is you don't have to pay for parking. > It's such a minor thing but has such a negative > impact on your day. This is so shortsighted and > infuriating Bit one thing that really needs to change is this ingrained attitude that your personal property can simply be left, free of charge, anywhere you please. The amount of land given over to free storage of people's private possessions - their cars - is insane. Land prices in SE London - if that square footage was a garage it could be rented out for thousands of pounds a year. Free parking leads to vastly increased driving which in turn leads to congestion, pollution and a feeling that the roads are less safe (due to the traffic volumes) which leads to more driving. Council budgets have been slashed to the bone, they have to recover that cash somehow! Blame the Government for austerity, not the council.

It's also useful to know the exact make/model of the bike along with a description - colour, any accessories fitted, anything that stands out a bit like odd tyres or dirty bar tape. To a cyclist, things like that stand out a mile off and (when I was working in a central London bike shop), we'd recover 2 or 3 stolen bikes a month just by picking up on "out of the ordinary" things. Just saying "my partner's Orbea" isn't much help to me if I see an Orbea being ridden down East Dulwich Grove. And +1 to what others have said about how it was locked, what to, was it snatch and go or a pre-planned theft requiring angle grinders etc.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Too big to be a wren? Baby green parakeet. If found, please return it to this thread: /forum/read.php?5,2088535 😂

eddeal1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bicyles should be registered with Nubmer Plates > and Insured just like cars..you will see the > differance in the Cicylist behavior.just like bad > car drivers Lots of Bad cyclist Rude and > Aggressive. how many car drivers do you see > jumping Red lights ..you go and look how many > cyclist jump red lights.......Registered with > Nubmer Plates and Insured....sooner the Beter for > all road users. What on earth has that poorly written rant got to do with 20mph speed limits?

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > New cars from 2022 will have intelligent automatic > speed assist (based on GPS and a database of > limits) - it's an EU thing but the UK is > implementing it anyway. You'll be able to override > the limiter by pushing down hard on the gas pedal > AFAIK. > > Just hope it's more accurate than the GPS speed > limit indicators in the last couple of rental cars > I've driven. I drove a high-level Merc for a bit and that had cameras that recognised speed limit signs. The car would, if you let it, just adjust the cruise automatically. It could be overridden if desired. Paradoxically, it was also insanely powerful and would easily do 150mph (9 speed gearbox and twin turbos). While that was fun, it was also utterly bonkers to make such stuff available in a country with a 70mph speed limit.

How do you cope going outside and seeing/hearing hundreds of them? Or is your life just one great Hitchcockian nightmare of birds everywhere? As mentioned - leave them alone, it's against the law to disturb birds nests.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought robins were territorial? Only with other robins. They're fine sharing feeders with tits, nuthatches, woodpeckers, finches etc.

It's not always councils. Utilities can be dug up at pretty much anytime by the relevant company without the council necessarily needing to give permission (they just have to be aware). Not always, but quite often. The utilities companies can be charged/fined for over-running works so it's usually in their interests to get it done as quickly as possible. Actual roadworks - maintaining and improving the highway - is the council responsibility but the problem is now that there's so much traffic (which is much heavier than traffic 20 years ago - cars weigh far more, there are far more of them) that the roads simply don't last as long. You get one pothole and as vehicles crash over it and water gets into it, it erodes more and more. The cheap patchwork repair job (fill it in with gravel and tar) isn't up to standards and will fail again and the process repeats. However councils don't have the funds to do a proper repair job where you dig up half the road, fill in and strengthen the whole lot then re-surface. They'll just make do and mend. Short term fixes.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Itatm I may have got the job title wrong not > police officers but officials with red waistcoats. > Maybe they are traffic wardens They might be "monitoring officers" or suchlike from Alleyn's. I know they had a couple of (presumably contracted) staff in a while ago "keeping an eye on things". Which probably means that if you have an argument with a driver about idling engines, you'll find your picture being circulated to the police...

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you suggesting a park-in? I think that would just create gridlock and possibly exacerbate the situation, not solve it. You'd also run the risk of pissing off all the students and parents whereas you kind of need them on side. Everyone (except Southwark Council and coach drivers) can see that pollution is bad, action needs to be taken so having peer pressure from the students and parents would really help but just parking up and blocking the coaches from even getting into Townley Road (and the knock on effects on traffic backed up into E.D Grove, LL and Carlton Ave) would result in a backlash, not support.

Penguin68 Wrote: > Alleyn's can't simply duck away from this. They've been ducking away from it for years. In all their Open Day literature it even stated that there was plentiful free parking in the residential streets surrounding the school. > And, frankly, for an educational establishment to be turning a blind > eye to clear breaches of transport etc. regulation is hardly an appropriate lesson for their pupils. The school claim it's nothing to do with them, it's the fault of the coach companies. The coach companies deny all knowledge (or more to the point, they're not interested in hearing the complaints and becasue it's several different coach companies, they all just blame the others because their drivers would never do anything like that, sorry Sir/Madam, you must be mistaken). The council (who are responsible for enforcing parking infringements and engines idling) lack the willpower and resources to do anything more than show a token effort every once in a while and one even responded to a complaint by saying "oh it's OK, the pollution blows away" That in itself is staggering - a council enforcement officer, paid for by council taxes basically saying "yeah, not going to do anything about this breach in the law here". Congratulations Southwark Council, it's that attitiude from humanity as a whole over that past 200 years or so that has comprehensively wrecked the entire planet. Nice to see you're continuing along the same path. Also, can I have my council tax that funded that idiot re-paid please? It's got to the point where it needs a regular group of activists down there with placards and banners and someone to pull the external engine cut-off switch if it's left idling! ;-)

rollflick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Other tremendous examples mentioned like Barcelona > or indeed closer to home in London did not take > this bizarre approach of residents mini-referenda > on each traffic restriction that Southwark seems > increasing driven towards. It's a silly way to > design area wide traffic measures that won't > deliver the radical changes we need to breathe > clean air or enable 8-80 year olds to feel safe on > foot or cycling. Plus without holistic area > measures like emissions based CPZs, you risk > ending up with more pollution on through roads. "consulting" the general public with traffic plans (in fact with most things...) is a recipe for disaster. Most people will say that where they live / work / play / shop should be free access for them at all times but everyone else should be charged / restricted / banned. They want - no, they demand - free parking at all times for them while simultaeously saying that everyone else should get the bus, walk, or be charged to park. It's why consultations take years of back and forth; people comment, the proposals are taken back and re-worked, they're re-presented to the public who again complain bitterly and round we go again. Eventually, the option that is proposed is so watered down that it becomes pointless doing it but they do it anyway and you end up with a scheme like Dulwich Village or the re-worked Townley Road / East Dulwich Grove junction where coaches clog the road up cos it takes them an hour to turn around the extended pavements.

Some guy called Jack Daw. He's stark raven mad though.

http://m.quickmeme.com/img/78/782a39098bc6501556a37be9ca9684fc7df9b26f68b8af799adf2141145e333a.jpg

Crows are ace - super intelligent and if you work with them enough, they can learn to speak a few words too! They're certainly pretty trainable, they'll come on command.

DovertheRoad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > peckman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dont fly then . If you want to and have the > luxury > > to choose your type your aircraft you have too > > much money or time > > Nah. As a consumer in a conpetitive market we can > choose. Unlikely - you can never really guarantee what aircraft you'll be on and on some routes you simply don't have the choice. There's the other factor that about 95% of passengers won't have the slightest clue what plane they're on, most just don't care. mrwb Wrote: > Which is why I'll be waiting until the fixed Maxes > gave done 1000s of cycles to check it's actually > fixed properly. Imagine if you'd have tried that approach with the old Comet... ;-)

There's points for it either way. On the plus side, it minimises queuing (there's invariably someone in the queue rummaging in a purse going "oh, do you want the 42p, just a second..." ), it's cheaper and easier for the shop (less risk of break in for cash, no chance of an employee with sticky fingers in the till, no cash deposit fees). But there are some negatives too - it generally means that kids can't go in there (I suppose you can argue that as a good or bad point depending on if you want a bunch of schoolkids going into a cafe!!), plenty of people don't like spending money in that way as it does make keeping track of spending harder, it means that tips are much less likely for the cafe (if you're buying a coffee & pastry/cake and pay with a tenner, you're quite likely to drop at least some of the change in a tips jar on the counter but can't do that with a card) but the worst point is that there's no consistency. Some cafes, shops etc are card only. Some will only take card over ?10. Some won't take card at all (or they won't take certain types like no Amex, or no Apple Pay). And that can make things quite confusing for older people or non-regulars. Near me, the cafe is card only. The chippy is cash only. I've got no real problems with either but you do need to know and go prepared.

I've edited some of your comments (just by removing some lines, not actually changed any of the words as you wrote them!) because otherwise it would have turned into something you'd be scrolling down for a week but here goes: TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What started out as jotting down some quick > thoughts, has turned into an essay, this will take > you 5 mins if you get started, sorry! > > 8 REASONS I'M VOTING TO LEAVE > > 1. The Economy: A huge issue. What?s That? How can > I vote Leave when ?9 out of 10 economists? say we > would be worse off under a Brexit scenario? All the economic forecasts (even if they are short term) state we'll be worse off but "you think" that longer term (ie after we've been through another recession, had stagnant / zero growth, lost huge amounts of tax revenue and investment...) we'll be better off? Righto. > 2. Immigration: Finally, a controlled > immigration system is not just about attracting > doctors, teachers, lawyers and engineers, if we > need more low skilled workers to pick fruit for > example, then a sensible Home Office will ensure > visas are issued to the people the UK requires to > do this. Have you seen the Home Office systems? Some of the most badly designed, badly implemented "systems" ever, courtesy of one Theresa May (and various other Home Secretaries before her) all of who played the "immigrants are bad, we'll cut down on immigration" becasue they knew it played well to the Daily Wail brigade. https://www.freemovement.org.uk/theresa-mays-immigration-legacy/ Couple that with various scandals like Windrush and the overall tone of the campaign (especially the Farage poster of all the dirty foreigners queuing to get in) and you can't deny that the whole campaign was overtly rascist. Immigration rules are set by the country although there are overarching protocols from the EU around Freedom of Movement. You can read a simple guide of it here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43960088 Free movement is a reciprocal arrangement that allows people to decide for themselves where they want to live, that enriches our communities with different culture, perspectives and food ? and that supports our economy and public services. But free movement is supposed to come with conditions. According to EU law, after three months of living in another member state, citizens must be in work, looking for work with a genuine chance of employment or have their own health insurance and be able to prove they won?t be dependent on public funds. No UK Government has ever implemented these rules ? yet ministers have blamed EU immigration for decades of failures to build enough houses, fund our health service and support our schools. The policy was there all along but never implemented by the British Government. > 3. EU bureaucracy: Can you even name the ruling > bodies of the EU? (For the record, they are the > European Council, the Council of the European > Union, the European Parliament, the European > Commission, the Court of Justice of the European > Union, the European Central Bank, and the European > Court of Auditors.). Only two of those bodies are > elected by the people. The rest are appointed. The > European Council and the European Commission make > most of the rules in the EU - and yet they are not > elected bodies. So for example, if you think the > British government should support British steel > works or that the railways should be nationalised > again, you're in for a shock: EU law literally > bans countries from nationalising certain > industries. How many bodies, committees, commissions of UK Parliament / Government are there? How many civil servants running things behind the scenes? None of them are elected. Frankly the British public have shown themselves to be incapable of choosing a name for a boat, never mind electing officials to run every little detail. You don't elect the manager of your local supermarket or bank or GP, you assume that the people in charge know the general processes and skillset and you leave them to employ the best people to do that particular job. The European Council sets EU Policy Agenda and it's comprised of all the Heads of State - the British Prime Minister literally sits on this council. You voted for a governing party (historically either Conservative or Labour); the governing party selects the Prime Minister and the PM sits on the European Council! That's hardly "unelected". And you can read about the European Commission here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/index_en because there's way too much info for me to type out. Again, the UK sits on this Commission and has a defining role in how those rules and regulations are defined and implemented (and can veto or opt out like the UK has opted out of Schengen). And EU Law does NOT ban nationalisation: https://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-clear-nationalisation-is-not-against-eu-law/ and https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-railways-eu-rules-nationalise-single-market-restrictions-labour-a8968691.html > 4. One size does not fit all: No but by working together, everyone benefits. It's not one-sided, you can negotiate trade deals in exchange for debt relief for example. It's like having 27 neighbours, some very rich, some very poor but the poor ones will do all the work the rich ones don't want (like coming round and picking your fruit and veg, doing the DIY and washing the car) and the rich ones will give a few handouts in exchange for having a nice place to go on holiday rather than a third world shithole! (basic analogy but it kind of works) > 5. Sovereignty: The people of Greece, Portugal and > Spain all voted-in governments in the last few > years who?s plans/election promises have been > over-ruled by the EU. Greece, twice voted in a > government on an Anti-Austerity platform, but the > EU/IMF twice ignored the public vote and imposed > onerous austerity. As mentioned, the public don't have a clue. And if someone said to you, do you vote to live on ?50 or a week or just keep spending willy-nilly, you'll go with option 2 - except that Mastercard won't let you do that. The politicians can promise tax cuts and end to austerity but they can't actually make it happen, they've just promised whatever random bollocks sounds good to the voters. We are a sovereign nation, recognised by all other nations, with our own flag and currency and monarchy. AND, we have a pooled sovereignty with the European Union (Scotland and England have a pooled sovereignty as well). There are numerous different types of sovereignty but take your pick, we were sovereign before any Brexit vote came long. Just that people had no idea what it meant and many still don't. > 6. Shutting the UK off from the world: Many of the > comments I?ve read from the Remain camp warn us > that Leaving will mean closing ourselves off from > the rest of the world. I mean, come on? So are > they seriously saying that if we are not in the > EU, the UK will become North Korea? We will still > trade with EU countries, we?ll still cooperate on > things like security (do we not share intelligence > with the USA because they?re not in the EU?), > we?ll still welcome folk from all over the world > to the UK, and vice versa. I simply ask myself how > is it that other developed economies like > Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan all > manage to play their part on the world stage > without being part of the club? By taking YEARS (decades sometimes) to come to trade deals, visa requirements, tariffs and by having it simplified for them by the existence of the EU, negotiating on behalf of 28 countries using common standards and imports. It costs the same to bring your produce into Germany as it does to Greece as it does to the UK in terms of tariffs and standards. If you as an individual try and negotaite a deal on something, you've got a lot less clout than if you're negotiating on behalf of 28 people. Try buying one car and getting a deal vs saying "right I own a business and we want 28 cars, what sort of deal can we agree on?" > 7. Losing workers? rights: That's Government. Free from all those pesky things about maternity leave, sick leave, parental rights, overtime, etc https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/human-resources/working-hours-holiday-leave/working-hours/index_en.htm They can basically just overturn it and we'll be back to a low-wage economy with no safeguards or checks. Or do you think the Tories will just be like "oh yes, we'll be nice to you little minions..."? > 8. Its not about the individuals: Fair point, at least you're not hanging on Farage's every word so credit for that! > Either way I just hope the majority > of people are considering all the issues and not > getting caught up in the mud-slinging and insults > of this terrible campaign. Well the problem is that (as shown above by the rebuttal of pretty much all your points) they're considering the issues as written in the Daily Mail and The Sun. Both owned by billionaire Brexit-backers who are desperate not to get caught up in EU Anti Tax Avoidance law. Brexit will make a tiny minority of very rich people even richer and it'll make everyone else worse off.

Part of the Alleyn's 400 year celebrations. There's stuff on their website about it.