silverfox

What a load of nonsense in this day and age. Signal failure at Peckham Rye disrupts thousands of passengers at London Bridge. What a third world country we are now living in. There is no excuse for this in this day and age with 3 million people out of work (forget all that app checking stupidity). If a policeman can direct four way traffic at a junction with traffic lights temporarily out of order why can't railway staff direct trains along two tracks? The Victorians would have had an old oil-filled lamp and a flag. 21st century Britain can't sort it out? A signal is a light, green for go and red for stop (and maybe amber for slow down). There is no reason why people along the tracks can't give the train drivers this info, properly linked by phone to a control centre. God help us if a discharge from the Sun temporarily disabled all our satellites (and apps). We'll be back in the age before we discovered how to make fire and use a wheel.

Now pardoned

Apology accepted Maisonette1. I suspect you are just one of the 'new media' PR, marketing brigade who think posting false reviews and tweeting recommendations helps companies. I hope you, and the company paying you for such publicity, have learned a lesson. I'm actually of the old school and prefer to ignore reviews, positive or negative, for restaurants, films, exhibitions etc and prefer to make my own mind up. By the way, has Lucas's closed down or are they sub-letting the space to this 'pop-up' in their down time to help pay the rent?

JosehineB, Thankfully no harm came to you. However, Please can we have some facts about this incident. The reason I ask is the implication is it was the driver's fault. You say it was a lovely bright morning, you has a hi-vis jacket and a back light on. Why do you say this? If it was lovely bright morning you didn't need this paraphernalia. Are you mentioning these things by way of excuse? The driver turned left and Ono cked you off. I have no reason to disbelieve you but please explain what happened to sceptical drivers like myself. To parody HenryB, who has a lot to say on the cycling threads, I'd like to know the driver's version of what happened here.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The forces are agents of the state, required by > contract to do the will of the government, not > necessarily the will of the people and therefore > for me at least the pure image of the forces as > defenders of the people has been watered down > significantly in recent times, possibly 50 years. Your problem here Mick is referring to the 'will of the people'. You assume this 'will' is in agreement with you. Brave assumption. At the risk of contradicting myself, votes on bringing back hanging, excluding immigrants, disallowing gay marriage, leaving in the EU, and many other topicical matters, would all receive the agreement of the 'popular will'. You only have to review the local disconnect between East Dulwich Forumites with the 'popular will' over the Alternative Vote fiasco. Wake up man, countries like North Korea and Iran do not want nuclear capability for philanthropic reasons.

What I don't understand is do I put my shopping on the conveyor belt first and then jump up on the conveyor so the person on the till can scan my face or Vice versa? At least I can ensure my good side is scanned if I do it myself on the self-service till.

I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying Goose, although I do take many people's criticisms of poor service with a pinch of salt (eggs not cooked the way I like them, no wheatgerm bread, demanded a discount blah blah blah). For example, the current poor service in Lordship Lane thread - what does the OP expect, fawning obsequious staff treating her like the Queen of Sheba? However, in this case, despite the name of the establishment being censored, most of us know who '(A certain place's name removed, sorry - Admin)' refers to. Not sure that protects the establishment in the way it was intended.

Moose Hunter Shoots Norway Man On Toilet Should of gone to Specsavers? http://news.sky.com/story/1159343/moose-hunter-shoots-norway-man-on-toilet

Check whether the wall to be built on the boundary forms part of the structure of the conservatory. If it does object. Such walls need up to 2 feet 6 inches space around them for maintenance, re-repointing etc so it should be this distance away from the boundary on their side otherwise they, and their successors, would be seeking access to your property over the years to carry out the maintence, if needed, which they have no right to do. In short, if it is the case above, their plans cannot oblige you to grant them access to your property. Any reputable firm constructing the greenhouse would know this.

I wouldn't worry about it Lee. One 20th is peanuts. How much has it cost to put cycle lanes into the borough, 20mph signage, multiple redesigns of Peckham Rye four-way junction, just to name some obvious examples in this area. spread that over Southwark as a whole and you have a lot of tax payers with donkey ears. Give me fraud any day. costs me far less in taxes.

"...A total of 1,000 shoppers were asked over a three-month period about how easy it was to get around the nine biggest supermarket chains..." I've never filled out a survey in my life and never intend to unless someone pays me. Who are these 1,000 shoppers? Why should we take any notice of their opinions? It's a bit like the perfume/make-up ads on telly. The small print says 150 or so women took part in this survey so please, millions of women out there, buy our product. It's not just a Daily Mail issue here. All newspapers are swayed by this PR nonsense.

If you were hungry you'd eat it - stop being such a snob

Slightly off topic but I'll relate my story nevertheless. Recently I had to drop people off at Paddington station around 6.30am in the morning and then head towards the City for an 8am start. On the way back East there were a number of diversions (presumably due to Crossrail work). At one diversion Around Old Street, I turned right and speeded up to around 25mph. Then I saw on the road the marking 20 encircled by a ring. If there was an advance warning I didn't notice it as I turned into the road. The time cannot be more than 7.15am on a Sunday morning. I must admit I found it difficult to stay at or under 20mph with my car but I tried my best. There was nobody else on the road and I felt like I was driving in slow motion. I then saw a sign - something to the effect 'Islington, London's first 20mph Borough'. Call me stupid but what has that council got to be proud of there? It is probably costing the London economy billions of pounds in lost revenue/productivity because of the delays this foolhardy decision is causing. On topic - James you should be ashamed if you backed this idiotic 20mph speed limit on Lordship Lane

I'm not sure about the voice of reason - a bit harsh in my view. But I cannot be alone in noting how fascistic this thread has become from the cycling fraternity ('force' 'make' etc). Good point about how smelly cyclists can be though, having had to sit in meetings with them, as they enter with their front wheel in hand in case it's nicked. Also, if they can take a shower, how they contribute to global warming by expecting their company to front the bill thus saving on their bedsit bills)

You accept my point then henryb?

I understand that Townleygreen, but you and hentryb seem to miss the point I was making which was cyclists have no right to shoot out in front of cars if their way is blocked. Let me give you an example that happened to me recently: I was going south over Tower Bridge around 7pm the other evening. The speed limit is 20mph and there are some bus stops on the left of the bridge. I was crawling behind a bus so all I can see is the back of the bus and on-coming traffic. The bus signals left to pull over at a bus stop. Me, mirror, signal manoeuvre, start to overtake the bus. I notice there is a second bus in front of the one that I am overtaking which is also stopped. SCREECH a cyclist pulls out from between the two parked buses in front of me and them hurriedly pulls back to the left. SHE, then starts pounding on the roof of my car as if I am somehow in the wrong. Please explain to me how a cyclist who finds herself caught at a bus stop between two buses feels she has the right to just launch herself in front of cars when it's not safe to do so. As regards the pretty picture that you are drawing my attention to - wouldn't life be simple if things were so idyllic and tranquil. The reality is there would probably be two or three cyclists on the left of the car, even two-abreast and two or three on the driver's side of the car. The poor car driver could not give the cyclists the ideal amount of room without forcing them into the path of on-coming traffic.

Sorry henryb, have you sent me the wrong reference? Everything on your link backs up what I stated. I would draw your attention specifically to: 162 Before overtaking you should make sure the road is sufficiently clear ahead road users are not beginning to overtake you there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake. 163 Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. 167 DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example between the kerb and a bus or tram when it is at a stop when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down These safety messages should be rammed home to cyclists with 30 second ads broadcast repeatedly at peak viewing times.

Wholeheartedly agree with you Katanita - it's time we had some real facts concerning this whole issue. I think it's also time the government took responsibility for encouraging more cyclists to take to the road with a new range of safe cycling adverts/public information broadcasts aimed at cyclists, eg don't position yourself on the inside of lorries, tankers, buses etc that may be turning left - or, cyclists have no right to move out in front of traffic to overtake parked vehicles unless it is safe to do so and only when using appropriate hand signals - to name but two necessary warnings.

Shouldn't that be Mr Gander?

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pavement, (giving way to pedestrians at all times) > on stretches of road that are very dangerous > because as far as I am concerned, getting home > alive or without major injury, takes priority over > your annoyance > > > Well, all that I can say is that if you (or > indeed any other cyclist) hit me while you're > cycling on the pavement, I will be bloddy annoyed > and will act in self-defence (that is, if I am > still conscious). I've said it before until I'm blue in the face. This government has to get serious and impose an insurance requirement on all cyclists on the road. The government, media in general, and many people on this thread, are negligent in encouraging people to take up cycling without adequate training and insurance. Tonight's Evening Standard carries the sad story of the death of a cyclist at Archway this morning. an articulated lorry was involved again. The presumption is it was the fault of the lorry. There are several questions I would like answered as to the facts surrounding this accident but here is not the place to raise them. As for the post I've quoted, you can get home safely on foot, on a bus or taxi if you don't want to drive. There's too much of an attitude of out of my way I'm a cyclist and two fingers to you.

MM, I'm not sue the Bishop and Actress were here when you first came to ED. Do you mean the Forester's Arms and whatever preceded the Actress?

Sounds like a nuisance to me

Are we simply referring to a dog that is barking here? Why use the word distressed? it's just a dog.

I wonder what his 'handle' will be on the EDF when he checks out the For Sale section or Family Room discussions? Rex2b perhaps?

Amydown, I would pop in and see them and explain that you intend to give them written notice no later than three weeks before the end of the minimum 12 week term. You understand that by doing this the contract between you and them will terminate at the end of the term. Once you've given them your written notice (do this by hand rather than by post)that should be the end of the matter when the 12 week period expires if there is no other mention of what happens after you've served your written notice in time, ie, if the contract doesn't state that it should be read in conjunction with the agency's standard terms of business etc If this is not the agency's understanding when you pop in they should explain to you fully why you are mistaken.