Dogkennelhillbilly

One is obsessed with newspapers. The other is obsessed with tits. Their shared passion? Page 3 of the Sun.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe any motorised vehicle should require a > licence and insurance to operate. The fact you can > go and jump on one of these things with no > training is ludicrous Riders in the trial need to have a driving licence (full or provisional) before hiring a scooter and riding on the road. Riders not in the trial who have bought their own escooter and are riding on the road are breaking the law - just like someone who buys a car without a licence and rides it. The problem with escooters is the small wheel size - one small lip on the road surface or hole and you're toast. And I say that as someone that's not totally opposed to them...yet.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > But if you want you a genuine Brexit angle..here > it is...this is a great example of an industry > being forced to modernise/invest in technology to > improve productivity, becuase there is no longer > access to limitless cheap labour to drive the old > gritters. You and I don't know what actually drove this particular company's investment at all. It certainly happened after Brexit (and more accurately the Brexit-COVID combination that drove up driver wages), but beware of the pirates/global warming fallacy. It is generally true that high labour costs drive investment in labour-saving technology, sure. As it happens, from Monday next week I myself will be bringing onstream a bot to automatically post tedious Brexit-related content on my behalf...

Ehh - that's just the normal tenuous link you need to get your press release into the paper. Econ's PR team has done well. The good news is there's never been a better time to buy your own Union Jack-emblazoned gritter truck and run your own sovereign gritting company! https://rickardstrucks.co.uk/econ-gritter/

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Brave politicians would try to find a resolution > that appeases everyone There is no compromise that will ever appease the rejectionist lobby that wants the status quo ante at any cost. They do not see the problem and are not willing to accept any restraint on their desire to drive anywhere at any time. https://thumb.spokesman.com/D1ims2fi_wtetprNKQ2ZPakBmMU=/2500x1405/smart/media.spokesman.com/photos/2021/05/20/60a6741a3616b.hires.jpg If the Southwark Labour Party is being Marxist on LTNs (something that would come as some surprise both to Labour's dwindling cohort of actual Marxists and the Tories that sponsored LTNs), then OneDulwich is definitely playing the Rev Ian Paisley rejectionist role: "Dulwich Village says NO!" https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/2/8/1328661492265/The-Rev-Ian-Paisley-007.jpg

Do you buy a lot of mutton and goat?

Brideshead Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This > shocked me as I was very polite. ... > Maybe it?s an ocd or autism issue with this simple > task, in which case I guess we need to be > understanding. 🤔 You complained to the council last Tuesday. Yes, it would have been nice if it were fixed by now, but it's hardly a matter of life or death.

Brideshead Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have tried very hard to keep the details of the > issue objective without personal attacks or > insults. Not sure you have, hun To be blunt: it sounds like you're entitled to complain about the papers not being in. The way you're going about it makes you look petty and rude, is potentially hurtful for a real live person, and isn't going to result in the papers showing up any quicker. On the other hand, if you're trolling - this is top notch bait and I was sucked right in. 9/10, would fall for it again.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- throw ones hand in the > air and lament that you haven't been told exactly > how to act in every situation... Something that precisely no-one has done.

Yeah I've Googled for like half an hour now, I reckon that's a good substitute for having advice from experts that actually know what they're on about

You invited comments so my comment is this: I think you can complain more effectively about the lack of newspapers if you a) email the library team at Town Hall (or whatever they're called) about it instead of posting here, and b) if you make your complaints less needlessly personal and insulting. You wouldn't have thought it would be a difficult problem to fix but perhaps there is some kind of complexity that makes it much more complicated than it seems.

oimissus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > that's how well the citizens of south east London take to being asked to show their ticket...I would love to use buses more, they are a truly > democratic mode of transport. Odd thing to say for someone who doesn't really seem to like the demos very much! 🤣 > But unless those > things get sorted, and let's face it, the latter > has only got worse over the years, I'll stick to > other ways of getting about including, yes, my > car. Give over. Buses are better than ever: quieter, cleaner, operating through the night, air conditioner (more frequently), trackable to the minute through mobile apps... As the person above said... > There will always be people who will not want to move away from a car, no matter what

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark has one of the lowest rates of car > ownership anywhere in the country. Most households > don't have a car. It's about 0.4 cars per house, > maybe less now. > > That is a borough wide figure - and the > comparatively populous north of the borough is > well supplied with bus, tube and rail routes. The > south of the borough, and particularly the deep > south (here) is vey much less well supplied, and I > believe car ownership in our neck of the woods is > much closer to e.g. the Bromley figures - not > surprisingly as our exposure to public transport > provision is similar. If you look at the link, it breaks down car ownership by postcode and by ward. The most car-heavy ward is also I'd guess the richest in Southwark - Village Ward. But even then it's only 0.87 cars per household (or maybe more usefully, 9 cars for every 10 houses). Village Ward and "deep south" Southwark (lol) are not poorly served by public transport.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >Tories did want that - > it's what they voted for - until they said they > didn't want that > Yes, exactly. Given the choice between "sovereignty" and reliance on trading partners across the sea OR having access to the market immediately across the land border to the south, even the Tories chose the latter. An independent Scotland would be mad to exchange frictionless access to the English market for frictionless access to the EU...but see previous comment about as many loopy people there as here...

Southwark has one of the lowest rates of car ownership anywhere in the country. Most households don't have a car. It's about 0.4 cars per house, maybe less now. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89797/Appendix%202%20Car%20Ownership.pdf https://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/car%20ownership%20rates%20by%20local%20authority%20-%20december%202012.pdf

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > one difference about Scottish Indy ref is it will > be deliberately putting a border with England BUT > to gain access to the wider market and freedom of > movement of the EU - it wouldn't be to "be a > sovrin nation!" > > So I don't see them as quite the same thing There are just as many loopy people in Scotland as in England. They too are obsessed with sovereignty and the totally bonkers idea that Scotland is an English colony, England is an imperial power etc. Equally, access to the European Market is great if you sell intangible goods over the Internet. But if you actually want to buy potatoes, sand, clothes, whatever...you'd be mad to swap England for Ireland and a cluster of countries from which you are separated by hundreds of miles of sea. There's no getting over the fact that England is the only country with which Scotland has a land border. It would be just as mad as forcing Northern Ireland to swap a single Irish Market for trade with GB...and not even the Tories wanted that. https://grumpyscottishman.wordpress.com/2021/10/06/scotland-is-a-colony/

I'm afraid I'm just too tight fisted to pay ?20 to see it!

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Did all remainers have the exact same view of > what the country and EU relationship would look > like in 5 years, had we of remained? " > > We had been members for decades and were > prospering - remaining was a known quantity. > > 27 countries continue to do it. It's a facile > argument > > No other country in the word is putting up > barriers with it's closest neighbours and > inflicting financial damage on itself Okay, now there's an interesting comparison to the Scottish independence referendum. The UK was a known quantity and remaining seemed like the status quo. Then the UK - really England mostly - went and bloody voted to leave the EU! Had voters known that the "known quantity" of remaining would involve leaving the EU, the result certainly would have gone the other way and Scotland would be independent, within the EU right now. Amusingly (not amusingly) it now looks like in the next five years Scotland will retaliate against Brexit by...putting up borders with its closest neighbour and inflicting even greater financial damage than Brexit did! 🤦🏼‍♂️

The people in the car park of the Plough on Lordship Lane are there today. They've always had a good selection in the past.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Referendums should be about deliverables available > to and within the power of those holding > referendums Not realistic tho. Sometimes you need to take a punt. Look at the Scottish referendum... ...sorry, I lost interest halfway through

TBF the pandemic is a big reason why schools aren't doing much international travel, and cheerleaders tend to pack up once the game is over.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > As an aside...why is it the UK govt responsibility > to make sure people are 'prepared' to arrange > visas required for travel to a foreign country? > Did the UK govt 'prepare' citizens when the US > introduce the ESTA system? To be fair, that part of the article is more sensible (for the reasons discussed in the article). The UK government does have a role in supporting airlines, ferry companies, train operators etc getting space, training and systems ready, and public information campaigns to ensure a hundred thousand unprepared idiots (like me) don't show up empty handed and clog up the ports. The government already does similar stuff around eg health insurance for foreign travel. Is the UK also applying pre-clearance to EU travellers?

Some of that is embarrassing to read e.g. "How can you appeal effectively when the appeal is in another country and you can?t go there?" Well...yeah, that's how visa applications from overseas work!

Castleton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's a precedent for that, the building at the > elephant. Can't remember the nickname but it has 3 > turbines at the top that have never worked? > > Only the lower floors were for social housing No, that's different. You're talking about Strata House, which was a private development on private land. A condition of planning permission was that a certain proportion of flats were designated as "affordable". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strata_SE1 The proposed building is a Southwark development on land owned by Southwark.

Sydney Carton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark says half the development will be social > housing, presumably the bottom half, the lower > floors with no park views. So the upper parts will > be very desirable apartments, which will go for > top dollar. I don't think that's what is being proposed It, at least going by what is said here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ru5ioQ17lVcEQD1yGfdlQCOuQ4y2ZoVm/view It says that half of the flats will prioritised for (existing) local tenants in housing need (of which there are about 40 on the Lordship Lane Estate). It doesn't say the others will be sold or rented at market (ie high) rate. Neither does it say anything about top half or bottom half. Where are you getting your information that the top flats will be sold on the private market? Is there other info from the council that says that?