northlondoner

Aargh. My plot revealed. Damn you Curtain....

lizbells6 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I witnessed a vicious dog fight on Hampstead Heath > once. > > From this I deduced that the area was full of > dangerous low life and gangs, rubbish strewn > streets and crap shops so I didn't move there. Calm yourself. Hampstead is a famously affluent area. Nunhead's character is less well known. A request for more information is therefore to be expected. Foolish comparison.

Annette Curtain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DaveR Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "Bad motorist-good cyclist la la la " > > > > Not so much this as "private motorist > (especially > > if alone in car) bad, anything else good" > > > > Which is a perfectly sensible transport policy > for > > the Mayor of London to adopt. Driving a car in > > inner London when there is a viable alternative > > means of transport is an inherently selfish and > > anti-social act, and the punishment for it is > > getting stuck in traffic and getting stung for > > tickets. I have a car, I use it, I moan about > > traffic and tickets, but deep down I know the > > above to be true. And so do you. > > Oh dear Dave > > You've veered off as you do, then gone into a > polarised rant vacuum > > Anyway, as I said "My beef is that cycling has > become the holy cow for London" Even in the face > of obvious/dangerous infringements, there's no > crackdown, nothing. Like it would be an admission > of failure. > > But the motorised vehicle users get penalised > further, so the divide is drawn by those above who > want policy over policing. > > I drive on my own nearly everyday in the city. I > know, say a hail mary. Trouble is there's no way > of hulking 1500 kilos of product around any other > way. > > Though I do also carry my Brompton to scoot around > once parked up for an hour, so I see both sides. > Hand on heart, it's other cyclist that break the > law the most consistently. Were it not the skill > of experienced city drivers , then more wayward > cyclists would be dead or injured. > > But who'd want to admit that ? Nette. You are simply missing the point . DaveR knows - through force of superior perception - that every journey made by car in inner London is an act of sinful selfishness Furthermore this divine perception gives him the moral authority - nay OBLIGATION - to pronounce thus. By questioning these sacred Tablets you are questioning the whole idea of His omniscience .. and that of the Holy Order of Lycra. That is a dangerous course my friend.

Yes that was the scary thing . Some snapping and snarling went on in the dog area. The owner of one dog took his animal into the children's section. Moments later one of the huge dogs tore away from its owner leapt the divide and started savaging the dog in the children's zone - chased by its owner. The third monster dog soon broke away from where it had been tied up - leapt the divide and joined the affray. My worry was that if that had been a child being attacked no one could have done a thing. This was about 1345 Stacey. Like I said it feels really nice around there - but couldn't help thinking what would've happened if my friend and her five year old daughter had been in that play area.

Have been pondering a move to Nunhead and therefore been scoping out the area around the charming village green. Impressed by the friendliness of people, the quality of the housing stock and the general feel of calm. Until yesterday (7th June ). Two huge dogs on the Green seized upon a third and commenced tearing the crap out of each other in the most blood curdling battle. In the children's play area FFS The owners were not able to separate these beasts which held each other in the " death grip" for what seemed around ten minutes. A good many people came out to assist ( I cowered sone distance away). The creatures were eventually separated - and looked pretty torn up. Shortly afterwards other dog owners were on the green with dogs running loose. My question is: Nunhead Green area : charming up and coming area or dangerous place to be avoided ? Not interested in the pro forma " it's not Fido's fault " argument - just trying to understand the nature of the area.

Where can I recycle a goldfish pond ?

They're fine.

Uh - think the operative phrase is "launched a campaign " to turn it into an arts centre.

PLEASE can we get her onto the 12 to Oxford Circus!!

You're going to have to be more specific

Queen

So sorry. What a f@&&king coward and creep. Hopefully he will get what's coming to him - and soon. Hope you find what I and many others have found - that most folk around here are kind and decent and look out for one another. Best wishes .

Two black guys ? I saw two black guys on lordship Lane yesteday. It may have been them.

catfood Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what a load of specious shit. try again. Ok I'll try to break it down for you. Just because something is not illegal does not render it sensible , responsible or safe. Therefore pointing out the legality of this practice doesn't really advance matters. It might indeed be described - to borrow an inelegant phrase - as "specious shit."

catfood Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it is not illegal to 'weave' in and out of > traffic, it's called filtering. > > cyclists ARE traffic. Neither is it illegal to walk backwards down Oxford Street for instance . But it's still dickish and dangerous.

I once dated someone who didbt brush at night. So on Monday morning you'd be treated to the remnants of the previous day's roast wedged between the teeth. Not much kissing going on.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's in everyone's interests that cycling in > London be encouraged. If you make people take a > test, apply for a licence and pay insurance, the > number of people cycling will plummet. You're > likely to see an increase in cars, pollution, > congestion, injuries, health problems, etc. what > do you get in return? It's easier to trace the few > hundred cyclists involved in collisions with > pedestrians each year (not that there are that > many 'hit and run' cycle accidents). Or is it that > its easier to fine cyclist for jumping lights etc? > I suspect that what's really behind the vitriol > that some direct towards cyclists is the sense > that they're 'getting away with it'. Those > motorists who are the most venomous are probably > the same people who (if they could) would break > the rules themselves. You are latent Lycra louts! Oh dear . The logic of this is hard to follow. As hard to follow as the movements of a cyclist weaving in and out of traffic , one could say.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Registration and insurance is a sensible step > forward, and the arguments against them are pretty > weak to non-existent at best... and a weak attempt > at distraction at worst." > > I haven't actually seen you articulate the > supposed benefits of registration and insurance > yet, so please go ahead. When someone suggested > that the time, effort and cost in setting this up > would be better spent pursuing uninsured drivers, > you seemed to regard that as somehow absurd, yet a > comparable cost/benefit analysis is the most > sensible approach, no? The Dep of Transport have > access to more and better stats than most so it's > not difficult - they know pretty much to the penny > what the real cost of road accidents are, and > they're very good at modelling what the likely > effect of changes to rules or road layouts will > be. That's why, for instance, urban 20mph zones > have proliferated. > > Obviously, if you have no interest in benefiting > the wider public but just have an irrational, > deep-seated resentment of cyclists then your > stance makes perfect sense. Victimhood and sainthood. An unedifying mix. Surely ALL road users should be traceable and accountable? The false binary of cycle good/car bad or vice versa does not assist matters .

Threads

Gosh I hadn't thought of that. Fascinating point.

Gate theft? Seems like an open and shut case.

I was pictured similarly in a box on embankment. Parking appeals service tore up the ticket because the box didbt conform to regulations

julijux Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what a horrible experience for you both.. but how > st typical.. your comments were.. my husband is a > large white man , with a bald head and a "beer > belly ". who dresses causally , when not doing his > day job as a paramedic.!!!. and yes we have a > dog..may be you should nt judge a book by its > cover and wont feel "intimidated" if he ever has > to save your life or rescue your "man" from a dog > attack Dear me . What is particularly puzzling here is the use of "man." I think some form of insult is intended - though I cannot determine what it is or why it is proffered. And the OP might consider her judgement to be justified in this instance , seeing as how her partner was beaten up. Just saying .

Sorry yes RGutsell puts it more effectively than me .

Carpgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why is it pompous to say my children have not been > raised in fear, the assumption on this thread is > that if adults are afraid then children are > generally scared of big dogs and that is what I > responded to in the thread above mine, not some > random bonkers rambling about my "kiddies". > Perhaps you assume my children are all young and > are not living proof of this theory...the eldest > is 28, the youngest 11 so I feel I have the > benefit of hindsight. > My children HAVE been brought up to love and > respect others and I know they would not dismiss > another person's point of view or life experience > as "utter tripe" simply because it's different to > theirs. > I actually am a regular member of the same running > club as the author of the original post, I know > all about running in the park and I will most > likely know these runners so I do genuinely > sympathise but I also know lots of very good, > responsible dog owners and lots of "scary looking > dogs" who are wonderful family pets and I am > simply trying to be balanced in my view. > Tony Quinn I suggest you read the thread fully and > be sure you are fully informed before you rant, in > actual fact TerriG makes clear the dog DID NOT > attack her partner, the humans allegedly did... > I'm done with this now so my last word is for Tony > Quinn " Wow you wake up REALLY angry at 8:11am > don't you, you might wanna work on that!" Now you > can call me pompous... I think the reason your post has pissed people off is the " don't be scared of the nice doggie" element . It is rather presumptuous to dismiss the fears of the OP - you werent there after all. Despite the Love All Lifeforms ideal you espouse some people simply are afraid of or just don't like this particular life form. Get over it.