micromacromonkey

Springtime, it's a weird market. As I said we've almost sold our house twice in 15 months. First time, the very first person to see offered and almost bought. Second time, the second or third person to view did the same. This time: over 40 viewings! As I said these 40 have mostly been people who seem to enjoy the purgatory of traipsing round looking at houses on a Saturday morning without the least bit of interest in actually buying.

DL actually I can see a link between central london prices and ED/PR. When they opened the overground it was like a tap was turned on, pouring Claphamites into the area. On our street 3 families we knew moved out (to Beckenham, Forest Hill etc), to be replaced by 3 sets of expecting parents who sold their flat in Clapham. This seemed to correlate with price increases. And of course the people buying Clapham 1 bed flats for 800k are displaced from Chelsea etc.

Realistic vendor here: We almost sold ours 12 months ago for 915 (chain collapsed, grrr), now we can't give it away at 800. I couldn't give the slightest toss how much we get for it in absolute terms, other than we need enough to stay in the area and upsize a bit (we have extra cash obv). Unfortunately our realism does not extend to other vendors who are still asking 1.1 for a 3 bed terrace with no garden. One big problem is that we are overrun with tyre kickers and tourists. Do people really wander round houses all saturday just for something to do?

It's a real bugbear of mine. I think a 'tortious nuisance' would cover it? http://www.darlingtons.com/blog/nuisance-unlawful-interference-with-land You can certainly spend a night or two in your campervan on the public highway, but you can't permanently camp somewhere without landowner's permission (TFL or local council I assume). It's probably a grey area as to when a quick stay became a camp.

Bullying tactics most likely. Relatively cheap activities designed to intimidate and wear down.

Is it not just some pesky kids with a very poor knowledge of roman numerals?

eastdulwich_dweller Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi > > TFL don't autocomplete your journey, they charge > you the maximum amount they can for that day > regardless of what journey you took i.e if it was > off peak time travel, only journey to and from > zone 2 etc. They charge you effectively the price > of a 1 day travel card from zone 1 to 2. That is > why the tannoy asks you to touch in and touch out > - otherwise there would be no need!? > > Also, You can only claim for a refund 3 times a > month for an incomplete journey on contactless https://tfl.gov.uk/fares-and-payments/oyster/using-oyster/incomplete-journeys "Automatic completion of incomplete journeys We recognise that there are times when you can't touch out as you leave a station, during a major sporting or entertainment event, for instance when we leave the gates open to help with congestion. On these occasions we'll attempt to complete your journey automatically. We also know that people can sometimes forget to touch out. When this happens, we'll also attempt to complete your journey."

It's disappointing that we haven't had the "Chlorination = government mind control" tinfoil hat brigade on this thread yet.

natty01295 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > PROTEST SUPPORT!!!! > Motorcycle Scooter Riot Protest > No to ULEZ Bollocks. Pay your charge, buy a newer/cleaner bike or get your crappy little pollution machine off the road. And while we are at it, since the rate of tampering with emissions devices is vastly higher with scooters, let's make sure that the MOT includes steps to force transgressors to return the vehicle to a compliant position.

I think this would be a good idea. Especially if you could refill thing like hand soap, kitchen spray etc etc.

What you have described above is CO2 considerations only, which as I mentioned previously are very worthy but not what the ULEZ is trying to address. The ULEZ is concerned with localised particulate emissions and NOx etc, for which your old landy is probably one of the worst offenders, spewing PM10-sized bits of battered saveloy all over ED.

There was a top gear episode where the presenters stopped being dicks for a few minutes and attempted to accelerate to 30mph and hold that speed without looking at the speedo. They did pretty well, and I suspect the reason for it is that we are conditioned to drive at that speed through experience. So 20mph is only more difficult because we aren't so used to it.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dbboy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The Mayor seems to want to slow the traffic to > > walking pace. > > > > There was this idea that if traffic is > restricted > > to 20mph oh that would deter drivers using > their > > vehicles. Drivers find 20mph is hard to > maintain, > > and again journeys as a result take much > longer, > > So I'm not the only one who dares have this > opinion!? 20 mph speed limit is because there is a measurable effect on road traffic casualties isn't it? It's a pain in the arse but I don't think it was introduced specifically to piss people off as you suggest.

scooter pollution: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4749 tl;dr: They are 'asymmetric polluters' i.e. disproportionately bad. It doesn't answer your question as to how newer scooters and other 2 strokes differ from older ones, but interestingly it notes that there are fewer iterations of the regulations for scooters (and possibly therefore other motorbikes), which would seem to indicate that the regulations are less stringent. The commentary below seems to suggest that the newer EUROn restrictions for scooters DO make a big difference though. EURO4 for scooters halves the amount of certain pollutants compared to EURO3: https://www.scooterlab.uk/euro-4-old-scooters-better-new-ones-editorial/

2-stroke engines are horrendously bad. They burn oil as part of the fuel, so PMs galore, plus they actually dump unburnt fuel (and oil) to atmosphere in every power cycle. A load of it just blows straight past the combustion chamber and out of the exhaust port when it is being sucked in through the intake port. They should be banned ASAP, or at least taxed very heavily. But they are cheap (mechanically much simpler) so 'the poor' may use them more, dunno.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Penguin68 they are called SuperRecognisers. > There was an online test and I scored very highly > to my amazement. I work at a well known department store (and crime hotspot) and we have a few working for us. The met often call us up for certain occasions (protest marches, big sporting events) to borrow them.

Not been following this season at all really, but how did Billericay end up with 5 games in hand? In fact they have 8 in hand over met police and one or two others!

I was wondering about how valid the comparison is between the emissions of a new car that you would buy, and the emissions of your old one. If you are the sort of person who buys a new car, you're probably NOT the sort of person who has run the old one into the ground. So you sell your old one to someone who has an older (== more polluting) car, and that may happen a few times. At the end of the chain a real old banger is getting scrapped somewhere, so you might reasonably claim that you saved a lot more. (Clearly this also assumes that we have reached saturation point for our roads, and are operating a one-out, one-in policy, which isn't yet true. Car numbers are still increasing.) The above takes into account only CO2, which is very much a non-localised concept. It's great for global warming, and the notion that possibly our great-grandkids might have less chance of dying in climate related manners in 80 years time. But kids are dying right now because of localised NOx and particulate emissions, both of which will be more immediately and locally impacted by the choice of buying a new vehicle. TL;DR: buying a new car is probably more of a good idea than you think.

I can confirm that I did not apply for any sort of planning for mine (it's a Trimetals Bicycle Store). The Southwark building control team have done a few site visits for two separate extensions while it's been there and never asked me about it. (Extensions of the house, not the bike shed obv.)

Are the people in that house scousers?

Yeah pizza great as always.

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > micromacromonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > In short, no, it doesn't count. There is only > so > > much water on the planet, and it's been cycling > > around in and out of the atmosphere and oceans > for > > hundreds of thousands of years. 'Anthropogenic' > > water vapour might have small short term > effects > > (e.g. clouds near cooling towers) but they will > > dissipate. While water vapour is a greenhouse > gas > > (accounts for 90% of the greenhouse effect or > > something like that) any particular effects are > > short term and relatively localised. > > > > Conversely most CO2 that we emit has been > trapped > > underground for AGES, and so is effectively a > new > > addition to the atmosphere, hence considered a > > pollutant. It won't disappear in a rain shower > > like water vapour will. > > Most water vapour that we emit has similarly been > trapped underground for ages. When we burn natural > gas (methane), two molecules of water vapour are > emitted for every one molecule of CO2. The ratio > for refined petroleum (diesel/petrol) is closer to > 1:1 but still, all that water vapour has been > trapped underground as crude oil and would still > be there if we hadn't dug it up and burnt it. We > have added to the amount of water on this planet > just as we've added to the amount of CO2. > > I accept the premise that the water cycle runs on > a different timescale to the carbon cycle, hence > the effects of the additional water vapour may not > be as long-lived as the extra CO2. But my point > was that both gases, when emitted by human > activities, are pollutants. I have broken my golden rule of not arguing on the internet about climate change. What you have written I can only assume you have read in good faith on a website somewhere, but you have probably forgotten the GCSE/O-Level science required to critique it. The answer is: those water molecules end up in the water cycle like other water molecules. They aren't any more likely to hang around in the atmosphere because they used to be part of a hydrocarbon molecule, in some homeopathic memory-of-petrol sort of way. Sure, if the planet warms, then air can hold more water vapour, and that means more greenhouse effect, in a positive feedback loop. But there is more than enough liquid water available (hint: the sea is big) for that to happen without worrying about adding a relatively tiny amount from burning hydrocarbons.

micromacromonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Louisa Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I find interesting how lay people can go on to > > become experts in other people?s belief > systems. > > Science can only prove what we have been smart > > enough to learn about the world around us. > > Anything else, is a mystery yet to be solved > > ... > > God in the gaps: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps Or, more accurately. the argument from ignorance fallacy (ignorance in this case doesn't mean stupidity but rather lack of knowledge) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I find interesting how lay people can go on to > become experts in other people?s belief systems. > Science can only prove what we have been smart > enough to learn about the world around us. > Anything else, is a mystery yet to be solved. Some > research a few years ago went on to prove that > consciousness existed beyond the death of the rest > of the body. > > Those sceptics among us are fully entitled to > their beliefs and opinions, and I respect that. > But mocking someone else who has a strong belief > based on personal belief systems as well as > experiences which have offered comfort in times of > suffering, are pretty low in my estimation. You > wouldn?t go out of your way to mock an organised > abrahamic religion in such a cavilier manner, so > I?d appreciate people respecting others for their > belief systems rather than trying to act like > scientists with total and undeniable knowledge of > the world around them. Patronising to say the > least! > > Louisa. God in the gaps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

ecarg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A woman with long black hair walks past your door > walks downstairs and disappears??? > Help me explain it because I can?t?? > Love to hear your theories Have you ever been to the doctor wearing underpants made out of cling film?