Penguin68

If I believe something to be a libel I would hardly repeat it. Would you?

Admin, there are people saying things on this thread which are almost certainly libellous, and open to legal action. Can you remind people posting that they need to be circumspect in their attacks on individuals if they don't want this site closed down through litigation. Discussion about Dulwich College's past attitudes is one thing, attacks on named individuals currently another.

Racism and fascism are not the same thing. There are for instance left wing anti semites - sadly rather too many in the Labour Party IMHO. Indeed Labour has always had a bedrock of racism in some areas, I recall many trades unions strongly resisting employment of both people from the Indian sub continent and the West Indies. And teenage posturing is by no means always a gateway to knowing what the adult will emerge as. And the Guardian as a source of information and analysis is hardly an unbiased source in this instance, as the Telegraph wouldn't be in arguing the opposite.

I wouldn't hold your breathe that it would be allowed. They are not there to facilitate protest.

Not in 2026 you won't.

You thinK?

So why did you?

I was referring to the most recent planning permission for the site which is described as 'minor'. Had it implied any change of use that would not be minor. Which would suggest that the only residential aspect was the existing first floor flat. Which is linked in that application because of the shared footprint between the retail site and the flat. The permission is to do with a tree on the site. As I recall.

This is just a way of making clearer the stopping distance rules which have been in the Highway code for a long time. The 'two second rule' is just a CoI mnemonic.

The permission covers two properties, the retail unit and a first floor flat, so it is in part already a residential building. There appears nothing in the documents to suggest change of use, which I don't think would be classed as 'minor' which this is.

You know very well that I was suggesting that the drivers at that time were or may have been conducting criminal enterprises when these incidents occurred or were joy riding. In either case these weren't about poor drivers or negligent drivers but criminal drivers where normal issues of safe and careful driving were not over-ridden by careless mistakes, but were a consequence of criminality. Or possibly of inebriation. We believe that at least one such incident was caused by a driver in a stolen car, who then ran off. These are very different in nature from issues of simple poor driving. And would require different remedies.

At midday, in Oxford, in about 1958 I was stopped by a beat policeman for not having a front light fixed on my bike. At midday. It was in my saddle bag but these were notoriously nicked if you parked up. But I still got a warning. How things have changed since the 1950s. Younger readers won't even know what a beat policeman was.

Indeed, but everything suggests, and my own experience supports that, that they don't. You can't see what isn't there, that's the point we have been making. If some, not all, cyclists followed any of either the rules or guidance about visability then they wouldn't be so at risk. But too many don't. They wear dark clothing and don't have, or turn on, their lights. I have no problem with cyclists who have lights and ideally reflective clothing. They're very visible either ahead or in mirrors behind. Which means I can manoeuvre knowing where they are.

Possibly because cars have proper lights, which they are required under law to use and indeed many now have daylight lights as well. If anything lights on cars may now be too bright. And curiously those of us calling for cyclists to be visible do so because we would prefer them not to be killed or injured, although the cycling lobby on these pages is helping me doubt that viewpoint.

But what was said was that there was no such thing as an accident, not that certain incidents could be seen to have a contributory cause which should have been forseen. If I am suddenly stung by a wasp whilst driving I may have an involuntary movement which may cause me, or someone else, significant harm. But would you then wish to attribute blame to someone, indeed presumably me. 50 years ago I was driving when I had a sudden mechanical failure of a component which was newly fitted. Which caused my car, and nearly me, to be written off. It was a mechanical failure which could not have been forseen by me or the person who fitted it. But apparently there's no such thing as as an accident in some people's books.