Jump to content

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, march46 said:

That’s such a depressing photo with so many cars blocking the pavement, isn’t it illegal in London?

No, not on roads designated as having pavement parking (there are a handful, typically in very narrow two-way residential roads quite far from any public transport where car ownership may particularly necessary e.g. for elderly or infirm residents ). I recognise this as one of them. Otherwise Southwark officials are particularly keen on booking cars with even part of one tyre on the pavement.

3 hours ago, Soylent Green said:

The sense of entitlement is in the marque of car.

Just to annoy - and it is the 'unentitled' marque of car (and their owners) which the ULEZ extension is particularly targeting - modest (working) people with modest cars aren't wanted here. Only the wealthy, with expensive modern cars. You might argue. 

  • Like 1

When I was at university, the facilities staff used to put warning notices on the windscreens of cars that were parked inconsiderately. These notices were printed on very sticky full A4 sized labels and were a nightmare to peel off, especially if it had rained after the sheet had been stuck to the windscreen. Just saying.....

  • Like 3

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Having enjoyed a day with Sayce HolmesLewis, I understand what you’re saying.  I appreciate your courage responding on here. 
    • Thank you to everyone who has already shared their thoughts on this. Dawson Heights Estate in the 1980s, while not as infamous as some other estates, did have its share of anti-social behaviour and petty crime. My brother often used the estate as a shortcut when coming home from his girlfriend’s house, despite my parents warning him many times to avoid it. Policing during that era had a distinctly “tough on crime” approach. Teenagers, particularly those from working-class areas or minority communities, were routinely stopped, questioned, and in some cases, physically handled for minor infractions like loitering, skateboarding, or underage drinking. Respect for authority wasn’t just expected—it was demanded. Talking back to a police officer could escalate a situation very quickly, often with harsh consequences. This was a very different time. There were no body cameras, dash cams, or social media to hold anyone accountable or to provide a record of encounters. Policing was far more physical and immediate, with few technological safeguards to check officer behaviour. My brother wasn’t known to the police. He held a full-time job at the Army and Navy store in Lewisham and had recently been accepted into the army. Yet, on that night, he ran—not because he was guilty of anything—but because he knew exactly what would happen if he were caught on an estate late at night with a group of other boys. He was scared, and rightfully so.
    • I'm sure many people would look to see if someone needed help, and if so would do something about it, and at least phone the police if necessary if they didn't feel confident helping directly. At least I hope so. I'm sorry you don't feel safe, but surely ED isn't any less safe than most places. It's hardly a hotbed of crime, it's just that people don't post on here if nothing has happened! And before that, there were no highwaymen,  or any murders at all .... In what way exactly have we become "a soft apologetic society", whatever that means?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...