micromacromonkey

If we see Yvette Fielding in the "famous people in Sainsbury's" thread then we'll know what's going on.

Us and Them. Why don't we have a standard forum template for this type of anger, then we can all save ourselves a lot of typing time? tribe 1 member: "Typical cyclist/pedestrian/driver/motorcyclist blah blah" tribe 2 member: "Just what I expect from a cyclist/pedestrian/driver/motorcyclist blah blah" etc Everyone is guilty of the same crime, which is a temporary lack of empathy (well perhaps not so temporary in some cases but you get my drift). You'd be hard pressed to find a cyclist who wasn't a car driver, and even more so to find one who had mysteriously lost the use of his legs when required to walk. Feeling a temporary belonging to a certain 'in group', and failing to see the other group's point of view is just human nature; we'd all do well to realise that if everyone just tried to get along and consider the situation of other road users the roads would be a lot safer for all. I even got agreement on this point the other day from a taxi driver (sorry temporary lack of empathy lead to sarcasm there).

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm curious. CO2 is also part of the "natural > self-regulation of the biosphere" (see GCSE > chemistry, the carbon cycle etc.) but obviously > human activities have increased the amount of CO2 > in the atmosphere. So anthropogenic CO2 is a > pollutant, which as a definition is fine with me. > > However, if you consider anthropogenic CO2 to be a > pollutant, where do you stand on anthropogenic > water vapour? Is that a pollutant as well? 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. It's not quite as simple as that though, since higher temperatures (caused by gradual CO2 concentration increase) cause more water vapour on average, hence amplifying the effect from CO2 alone. As an aside CO2 from burning wood, for example, would not seem to fall into this category, since it existed in the atmosphere as CO2, was absorbed by a tree and laid down, then released when burnt. So that is analogous to the water cycle really, the only anthropogenic effects of this would arise from burning trees faster than we plant them (which may also be happening, I don't know what the figures are).

Just spoke to Jack. Squatters are now out, they have made a bit of a mess (so clearly weren't using that washing machine), not too bad however so he's going to be cleaning up and hopefully open soon (a couple of weeks). All sounds very frustrating; they were really close to a smooth transition but, once they had to shut, that turns into a chain of events (shutters up, squatters got in, then they needed evicting) turns a few days into a couple of months.

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you buy a car on PCP then at the end of the > contract you either hand the car back and walk > away, or finance the balloon payment to own it > outright. The only way you can owe the lender any > money is if you exceed the stipulated mileage, or > if you've damaged the car and it needs repairs. > Resale values don't come into it, and they won't > affect the size of the balloon payment either > because those are determined at the very start of > the PCP process. Ah OK, whenever I was looking at getting a car on PCP years ago I don't think that GMFV was an option, so the risk was on the consumer. GMFV now places the risk on the finance firm instead; same result, systemic risk.

It's a great idea, but it does need implementing correctly. I'll be one of the ones who has to pay, even though my diesel car is only 6 years old, but then I've got 2 young kids so on balance it'll be better for my family. Although this will benefit us all in health terms, I can see how people without children in the proposed area might feel that they are getting a slightly raw deal. The diesel thing is annoying; successive governments of whatever colour have been using tax breaks to push us more towards diesel, then are now telling us all with collective billions invested in diesel cars that if we don't sell up soon then our investment will drop massively in value. It can't help but affect diesel resale prices, and what is worse since most new cars are bought on PCP (i.e. credit) then you could end up owing money to hand back your diesel car after 4 years. That is a domesday scenario for the government as thousands of people defaulting on their car loans is going to see us heading towards credit crunch part II. I assume they must factor in these these sort of macroeconomic externalities before they announce schemes like this, interesting to see if central government has a view. Times are changing though, and you either change with them or pay the penalty (literally in this case). I'm all for this idea, we need to implement it ASAP, and in fact if they did it alongside some sort of diesel scrappage scheme it would be a great way to make a step change in driving habits and pollution. I'll probably look to go to a plugin hybrid next.

Perhaps they have been relocated to Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries, thereby closing two tree-related nimby nonsense threads in one fell swoop!

jimbo1964 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > and leave it standing empty? I would rather it > > was squatted. > > Well .. I think the intention is to reopen as a > pub. Let the guy be righteously indignant for 5 mins at least, this IS the internet. I hope the squatters managed to get a few washes on. I'm not sure whether they had a dryer also but I can report seeing no washing lines up anywhere, so perhaps they did. Bizzies round this morning apparently, not sure what they were doing as I was torturing myself in the shed at the time (on a bike btw).

I have been to enough squats to know that a washing machine is atypical :) Which is kind of why I'm hoping that they are in fact just keeping an eye on it until it gets reopened, a bit like those property guardian types. Not holding out a great deal of hope though.

Who owns the Gowlett? Is it still Punch? What role does Jonny's company The Gowlett Arms Ltd play? https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07943090 This began liquidation proceedings in Nov and was wound up by a court order: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/ZyoeALY5DZF2eTVb2gQSE1tcQaFIOtEot-owKKz3N98/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAJUPJFVYM6DD4NCXQ&Expires=1514989440&Signature=dG7nxdmc4YbKMDJmYBQFQ%2B38TAg%3D&x-amz-security-token=FQoDYXdzEEMaDNTpTjFuRUmTd1TCRSK3A%2BQuN5E8GfW2MRcAF%2F9A57gD%2FmcDUDe%2FKeqMd0AACUzGubJSD4EEMEc6mVaHUaY7bfCWi51Ug67BS8eSQRV3oN8wovJhBEkY%2Bk0KMHRZ9QQrqEQQPZeicyrY%2F%2Fob23WoDlrkYAXnEhuSVQo6UiBgciH4FGuXd1j%2BrjEEp0QTMxMLneBxgF7ZN424NS1VBBFnTrxTSSa6zJsmqsAimoDauVJAO%2F3AxV3yKOV1H7vjD1MRRpPWei2rjQI4zUYvsywPm7p8xX12TKr6xvMCVTrV%2FtIWk0rX4Yrk7%2BOvu%2FSi0KL26bo3ccv9t3S47c1toNQwD2YP4IYjmVPHlr3BEAha9VRrE5T4Ismhb%2Fll4%2BCvsmihYLo4deiCUWMaPZRXuK3sFKV6JZXTbjxsbF3%2BAOnZZ4h9iV217HJ1lECzegtEaSSX2Am6deF4JcNlXtW0XegPi%2FOAkjq4%2B%2Bx%2FpctbNooM%2FHxHeh4QJYwuYlRbRF%2FG85q0U3UsXha84p6g7nRR3nDxljjky5UNdiHUGn9ePZCXqwimez5r%2F8o0i2bBRbOEKsmc9kW7PdeEeVEjNvM4qmVS2M2oH89UeNwoxNiy0gU%3D So does that company own it? If so, who owns it now since they are in a liquidated state?

Just seen 6-7 people moving stuff in, music equipment, suitcases and, oddly, a washing machine. They refused to tell me what they were doing. The company who put up the shutters (VPS) do not know anything about it. I also called police non-emergency line on 101 to inform them, since the guys who were moving in were being decidedly shifty about it. I'm hoping it's just someone sorting out the pub for re-opening, but not convinced.

There is no planning application on the Southwark planning portal, no change of use without that I don't think.

Security shutters going up on the windows at the moment.

Somewhat ironically I'd say that it's got better rather than worse over the last couple of years, since they put the extra door/vestibule thing on the side. I wonder if there is more that can be done with soundproofing (e.g. double glazing?) as proving that all 'best practical means' have been tried to mitigate noise is the principal defence to the noise abatement charge. http://www.environmentlaw.org.uk/rte.asp?id=76 I understand the concern somewhat about the late licence but it seems typically to only be once per week (one of thu/fri/sat). I understand that other people may have a different view on what constitutes acceptable noise levels, but we do live literally opposite and have felt the need to go across the road and moan to Johnny about the noise say 5 times in 7 years, on each occasion he turned it down or got the braying claphamites outside to STFU or whatever it was. I think our opinion (being located so close) is worth as much if not more than the original complainant, so hopefully that will be taken into account. Of course there may be some backstory to all this, but if someone has a personal grudge against the place/landlord then they need to sort that out in a different way rather than vindictively serving abatement notices.

We have lived opposite the Gowlett for 7 years and are appalled by this nonsense. Sure, it's a bit noisy occasionally, but that's because it's a pub. In fact since they added the little vestibule thing on the side door it's never really bothered us at all. Most recent residents only moved here because of the atmosphere generated by places like the Gowlett, that is what makes this area what it is and not some shit suburban wasteland. Check their twitter and facebook, I believe Johnny is preparing some sort of response and some info on how to fight this order, it will need plenty of local support. Dan

Damn those selfish, profiteering cafe owners. Poe's Law in action. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KidKruger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Which part of "I don't want to cycle" does not > > penetrate to the bit of the brain that says > 'Oh, > > OK, I recognise that is your CHOICE' ? > > Why the entirely unnecessary aggressive response? > I said I quite understood the reasons for not > cycling, I just wanted to point out - as far as I > can see, completely non-judgementally and politely > - that fear of pollution shouldn't necessarily be > one of them. > > It's a discussion board. People make comments, > other people respond to them. That's kind of the > point. > > ETA: By the way, both the people on here to whom > I've responded with what are intended to be > helpful comments didn't say "I don't want to > cycle," they said "I'd like to cycle but...", so I > was just addressing the but. In fact you can cycle all day every day in London and not expect the deleterious effects of pollution (which obviously do exist) to outweigh the positive health benefits from cycling. The grauniad article doesn't say so, but as I recall this study also considers the risk of crashing; i.e. even given the risk of injury and the risk attributable to pollution, you are always better cycling than not. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/05/benefits-cycling-walking-outweigh-air-pollution-risk-cities

I cycle through here every day (from Turney to Calton) on my way home from work. It is an immensely frustrating junction because the phasing of the lights causes you to wait an age (at least from Turney). However I can't honestly say that multiple mini roundabouts is the answer to anything. On the same journey I also go through a dual mini roundabout system in Fulham, and it's often gridlocked. I think this is partially because it isn't clear whose right of way it is since people (myself included) approaching one roundabout can't work out whether the person at the conjoined roundabout is in fact to their right, and so has right of way, or whether they can be safely ignored since they are on a different junction. This just ends up in hesitation. 3 roundabouts would exacerbate this issue. I also can't visualise how those green snakes work as cycle paths, I forsee more hesitation and angry drivers (and cyclists too perhaps).

My self important ignorant narcissism (not to mention inability to afford a ferrari) would seem to indicate it could have been.

I went in there a couple of weekends back, dunno if that was before or after the change. At whatever time it was (12 ish?) I absolutely was not allowed to have the full english breakfast (which comes with toast) as it states before 11 only, but *was* allowed have all the constituent ingredients added to a sausage sandwich. hmmm.

I was almost knocked off my bike there the other day actually. That junction is terrible for motor vehicles, bikes and pedestrians. There are often crazy tailbacks. It should be a priority to sort it out; nick a strip of land from the green if necessary, have segregated cycle infrastructure (I've got a BMW as well by the way, I'm not a single issue cycle bore) and address the weird narrowing feeling you get when trying to drive around it. I don't know what the main traffic flows are but I guess from east dulwich road to/from east dulwich grove via that bit of LL is a very busy one, so you'd need to include the LL/EDG junction in any redesign too.

KikiMac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hate to interrupt the rant-fest but my > understanding is that the existing car park is > going to be a (proper) kids play area so they're > just replacing it with the new one, which looks > about the same size to me. The internet is not the place for reasoned discussion you know :) https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-regeneration/peckham-rye/supporting_documents/25%20July_Event%20Boards_FINAL_Revised_30.07.2015.pdf

The finish may be of good quality but ugh, what a horrible pastiche. Why do the planning department even allow that? There are a couple on Oglander road too.

Jut as an fyi/recommendation: Had my bike (pedal bike, but not cheap) stolen from my bike shed in my front garden on Amott Road last month, they cropped off two padlocks. I have replaced the bike and was looking into the best security to stop it happening again, these guys seem to have the best kit and reputation: http://securityforbikes.com/products.php?cat=Ground+Anchor%2C+Chain+and+Lock+Deals If you get a 16mm and upwards chain it is uncroppable with any portable bolt croppers, meaning they'd need to grind it off (noise) or smack it with a big hammer, which is impossible unless it's trailing on the ground. Their kit has some sort of insurance-approved rating for motorbikes if you get their anchor too. I got the 13mm chain which is 'virtually' uncroppable, and probably sufficient for a pedal bike, excellent quality stuff anyhow, and the ground anchor and padlock in the kit are pretty serious too.