northlondoner

Classic TFL bullshit . This merely reduces the options for paying to use their dirty malodorous unreliable buses. Not everyone has or wants an Oyster card.

You can download the microblog tweet site

Why did he tie his kangaroo down ?

Those sticky pad are grim but effective. The sonic things proved pretty useless for me

Indeed. Sort of hubris that led to the Savile and McAlpine debacles ...and the erroneous " we are the smartest guys in the room" culture that prevails. Oh and the inability to spot that appointig a former BNP sympathiser to a very prominent role might provoke comment.

Main problem for NN right now is reports of shameless cronyism and blithe disregard for employment law and procedure. Folk hired without formal interview - others demoted/sidelined on a whim. A transparency-free zone

simonethebeaver Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Absolutely. Why is this offensive rubbish still > here? Simon the beaver . On THIS thread? Priceless.

I find the staff unfailing;y helpful and pleasant.

lane lover Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > tommy_guy Wrote: > FFS, do you seriously have that much time on your > hands? > > If this is your biggest problem in life, then good > to you! > > Seriously, get a life! It's not so funny if you're blind or in a wheelchair . Try to think outside your own immediate sphere of concern.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So not only am I a "prick" but I am "frivolous", > "selfish", "simple" and "infant-like". These > insults say more about the senders of the messages > than they do about me. > > Please do me the courtesy of readings all my posts > on this thread and then apologise to me for > distorting my views so seriously. Though I suspect > that I will have to wait a long time for any > apologies. > > BNG's use of the word "posturing" to describe some > of the offending posters is highly appropriate. I'm completely agnostic as to the pros/cons of the Ritzy living wage dispute - but dismissing those concerned about it as "moaners " is insulting - and creates the impression I describe. I sadly do not have the time to read through this entire thread and apologise unreservedly if I've misrepresented your views in any way. My response was entirely focused on that specific post .

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So what do the moaners want? No cinema at all, > which would be a very bad thing for ED? No doubt, > they would then feel ethically pure, right on and > smug. And presumably this new cinema which they > would prefer not to have would generate employment > - perhaps they could explain their views to the > people who would potentially be employed there. > > And why are they picking on Picture House when so > many other ED businesses don't pay LLD? > > The negativity and student union style posturing > on this MB often dismays me. And I'm a left of > centre person, so I can imagine how people on the > right feel. Characterising people concerned about a living wage as " moaners" makes you appear selfish and simple. Characterising the putative absence of the cinema as a "very bad thing " makes you appear frivolous and infant-like.

Where the hell is DaveR ?

It's incredibly useless. "Whittles it down" to me and dozens of others who look like me. May I refer you to the brilliant "man knocked on my door " thread passim.

It's brilliant! Nice one Max !

Ok Phobic. Explain to us EXACTLY why it sounds suspicious. The irony of your username has not escaped me.

Chips56 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ClareC Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Wottajoke Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > On the other hand the guy could have knocked > at > > > the wrong house. > > > > > > Pigs could fly..... > > Why? The guy was walking away from house as they > opened the door . Maybe it was just the wrong door > . Course it's not the wrong door. He was a "young black male".

cle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Louisa, isn't eating fried chicken ok on the bus > because it's more like to be done by black and > working class people? As opposed to getting > macaron crumbs Didn't realise that being black , I was predisposed towards eating fried chicken on a bus. Any other ass-backwards stereotypes you'd care to express ? Something about enjoying watermelon ? Good sense of rhythm perhaps ? You're a dick.

Home wrecker sounds kind of hot. Obviously a fan of the second coming.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They're not axing it, they're putting it online. Yeah, that's axing it. And good, cos of late it was shit and an appalling waste of precious resources.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a selective click on this forum, who when > it suits accuse people like me of being secretly > 'racist' because I hold a view about the ever so > sacred Rye Lane. Clique. They're a clique. Not a click.

treehugger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe chatty man is living in the wrong area. For > me, as quite a privileged person financially, > using public transport allows me to empathise with > my fellow workers. Commuting is horrible, but I am > lucky to live in a nice house and earn a decent > wage. The people who have kids in prams, who have > to eat food on the bus probably don't have my > advantages. Real life for a lot of people who get > off the train at P Rye is a real struggle. I > prefer to appreciate what I have and feel very > sorry for those who work extremely hard to bring > up their kids with little chance that they will > have the social mobility that my generation had. > If chatty man doesn't like footballs and scooters > he could either, a) get involved with organising > after schools activities for these kids or b) move > to canary wharf where there are no kids (start up > some kind of media type company there, lots of > opportunity I would think). Top post !

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In parts of northern Europe (Finland, for example) > it's obligatory to wear a reflector if you are a > pedestrian. It makes sense there and would do > here. This doesn't remove the obligation from the > motorist/cyclist/motorcyclist to drive safely! Good idea. Perhaps flashing lights and luminous helmets as well. And ligt up fake noses .

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Totally agree northlondoner...it p!sses people off > and rightly so! > > But getting annoyed by anecdotal accounts of > antisocial Lycra Louts doesn't equate to cyclists > being any more dangerous than anyone else on the > roads. It's just that people are really annoyed > about them because they operate under different > laws (or rather the same laws that have sensibly > different rules for non-motorised vehicles). > > It's fine to get annoyed but pretending it's a > road safety issue is a bit silly. Well it is a safety issue, no ? Squeezing thru every available space , jetting the wrong way down one way steets etc is dangerous for the rider. I often worry about older drivers who may not have the split second reactions needed to deal with multiple clowns darting around them in an unpredictable fashion. Look, I've taken some chances on my bike before. But seeing a cyvlist with his head opened up on the pavement disuaded me from doing that shit any more.

Oh this reeks of channel 4. Or worse ...... BBC 3

Binary you're missing the point. Dropping statistical bombs on people won't change their minds. They'll go by the evidence of their everyday lives . I see cyclists charging through red lights , dashing onto pavements and undertaking larger vehicles every day. And councils may be chucking money at cyclists - but the aforementioned behaviour will still piss people off, including fellow cyclists .