Cedges

Discussed here http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1363222

Overall this obviously doesn't sound like a great experience, especially as the OP clearly felt unsafe at one point but haggling is part and parcel of the car boot sales. My thoughts on some of the general car boot points made... The simple rule is, if you want ?3 for an item, you price it at ?5, the buyer offers you ?2, you say no, they offer you ?3, you accept. You got the price you wanted, the buyer feels they have a bargain. Everyone's happy. Additionally, there are 2 reasons for doing a car boot - 1) you want to get rid of stuff, some cash for it is a nice bonus or 2) you are looking to make some cash/profit. Option 1 stalls are likely to be bargains but poorer quality stuff with the odd gem, if you are a bargain hunting shopper, these stalls are for you. Prices will get reduced during the course of the sale so you have to decide as a buyer if you want to get there early and get the better quality goods but pay more or wait until a bit later when everything gets reduced as the seller realises they are in danger of taking too much stuff home. Option 2 stalls also do well to embrace the haggling friendly pricing strategy but are less likely to make silly bargains or reduce prices as the sale wears on as they are probably willing to bring a load of goods next time in the hope of making cash. There is obviously an Option 3 which falls somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, either in terms of just how desperate you are to make space/cash or for the fact that you have a mix of goods, some quality worth holding out for a decent price and some junk you just want rid off. I am normally this kind of seller. In honesty it does annoy me when as a buyer, the seller refuses to budge on a price at all. Equally as a seller, it bugs me when folk get antsy with you for not giving them a ?3 good (marked at ?5) for 24p. As with most things in life, a happy medium with a dash of sensible and common sense would seem to be the thing to aim for! Also - ?10 for a pitch! Ouch! But then I do boot sales its in a massive field in the North East where the whole town (seems it anyway) goes to any/all of the 3 massive sales on a Sunday morning so I guess that's why I only ever pay a fiver. I'd never come across a sale that you had to pay to go in as a buyer until I lived here...Dulwich Hamlets one charged 50p and that always put me off having a mooch around. As a seller I'd look to only take a pitch where entry is free.

mako Wrote: > If there is genuine concern then shouting at them > isn't productive and neither is posting on a forum Look how many people are talking about bike lights and probably thinking about it when on the road. A call for awareness is very productive. Should we stop all cancer awareness campaigns because they don't actually stop the cancer? No. Exactly.

I was travelling at a safe speed for a cyclist for the type of road, bearing in mind i was fully lit. I was also hyper aware of my surroundings, hence how I spotted other unlit cyclists in the dark. Too fast to stop, turn round and catch up with someone in the other direction uphill is differest to too fast in general. I think you are really missing the point of my post if you have nothing better to do than try and pick holes in my actions, clearly I am only horrified by the unsafe actions of another and hoped to bring it to their attention and remind other road users that there are total idiots around and that we all need to be hyper aware all of the time. I shall not be wating my time pandering to any of your further comments should you wish to make any. mako Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Travelling at speed downhill in a badly lit > section of road you should be concentrating not > shouting at the other cyclists so loud that it may > have disturbed local residents. How could this > have helped the young cyclist? You do not sound > very safe to me and therefore think it harsh you > judge the other cyclists without knowing their > full circumstances.

-- moved topic --

I'm unfit and wouldn't have been able to catch them up as they were going up hill and I was on a good run downhill, this doesn't have any reflection on the safety of my cycling. You'll also see that I have taken a refresher cycling course to ensure that I am cycling in the safest way for myself, other cyclists, pedestrians and drivers. Please read before insulting me. Thank you. mako Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am also very concerned that despite their self > confessed lack of cycling prowess the opening > poster admits that they were cycling late at > night, at speed,on a badly lit road. the opening > poster sounds very dangerous to me and not really > in a position to judge others.

Couple of quick clarifications: The adult in question was a man. I was able to very roughly age the child as I was coming towards them on a long straight. Saying that, she(I think) could have been younger or a bit older but was in the ballpark stated and certainly didn't appear to be old enough to be expected to take responsibility for their own actions or be expected to challenge a parent's lead. The child was on their own separate bike. Both bikes could quite feasibly have standard type built in reflectors that a car headlamp would pick up clearer than my bike lights, but even so, the lack of lights is still reckless imho and illegal. Amend 'everything in their power to kill their child' to 'doing nothing whatsoever to protect their child' if you wish but again, imho, they were actively placing the child in unnecessary harms way. By no lights or reflective gear, I was stating no lights, not even, any reflective or light gear. Would have been better than nothing, I don't go in for hi-viz trundling round the area on my bike and on a properly lit cycle, in this sort of instance, it probably wouldn't have been necessary but that's a whole different debate. That stretch of road appeared especially dark to me - not a normal route so I don't know if it is always like that or if there were lamps out but where I happened to see them, it wasn't a well lit street. My personal opinion is that all road users should take responsibility for taking reasonable precautions for their own safety. A car could be being recklessly driving and hit these bikes, it could well be that even if they were properly lit, they would have been hit. Or, it could be that a careful driver happened to round a corner, not be able to see them approaching, pull out and hit them. Every incident will be different and the responsibility will be different in every instance, certain safety precautions can be taken and incidents still happen anyway. Pure accidents where no party is to blame happen. Therefore, I was not in my post saying that if there was an incident with these cyclists, it would definitely be their fault, but they were certainly increasing the risk to themselves. And breaking the law. As an aside and re a direction some of this thread has taken, I'm a driver who bought a bike, I took a council provided lesson (they don't do this anymore) as a refresher and learnt that I was cycling for the benefit of the car drivers and as a result I was putting myself at risk. As a result I changed how I was cycling (mainly leaving more space between me and parked cars, turning into side roads much further away from the curb and 'taking the lane' at junctions). On the occasions when I do drive, I treat cyclists totally differently than I did before, basically not getting peed off when they slow me down as I can't pass, giving them more room and not hoping they duck in (long) gaps in parked cars to let me pass, etc. I'd consider that I have a fair amount of common sense and look at most things from both sides and I was shocked that I hadn't really seen this myself. Having done it, its something I'd highly recommend for all cyclists and drivers. I've seen the odd thing on tv where they had lorry drivers and cyclists switch places with similar results of mutual understanding and a change of behaviour. I suspect the same would be true for motorcyclists too. Unlikely to become widespread practice unfortunately and while there will always be idiotic road users of all varieties around, please lets at least try to do what we can to be safe and set an example to the next generations. Apologies for the awful spelling - its late and my proof reading skills have gone to bed already.

I sincerely hope that you got home safely because you were doing everything in your power to try and kill you and your child. If you want to cycle on the road without any lights or reflective gear at night, you are already an irresponsible piece of ****. But to allow, ney, encourage and endorse your what, 9/10(?) year old child to also cycle on dark roads, at nearly 11pm without lights, is wilfully negligent. You'll know if I'm talking to you because 1) I fail to believe that there are too many adults around stupid enough to do this and 2) I shouted at you to get your kid with no lights off the road (apologies to any local residents I disturbed). I'd have stopped and followed you but sadly I was going in the other direction at speed and my cycling prowess isn't such that I could have stopped, turned and caught you up. If you, or anyone else, thinks I'm being harsh, I really don't give a monkeys - this is a child safety issue and I'd call anyone else that sees this carelessness to try to stop it (obviously if safe to try and do so without risking the child's safety further, etc.) Hope you sleep tight x

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anyone know whether post Thameslink programme > the intention is to have more tracks into LB than > there were until now? Or just the same as before? More through platforms, less terminating platforms.

You have misunderstood. I was making several points, none of which are woe be me. In fact, I'm saying my financial/living situation is my choice, the very opposite of woe be me, simply an example of the world/financial sitaution that we live in. Firstly, earning LLW, or even far in excess of that does not guaruntee that you can afford to live here. Secondly, living here, in a high cost area is a choice, your employer shouldn't be held responsible/hostage for that choice. Thirdly, anyone with a job should, IMHO and in this economic environment, be grateful that they have one with a successful company that is paying them. Reference the high numbers of unemployed having no option but to take unpaid internships. Lastly, striking and causing that successful company to lose revenue is only harming the future of the employees. Demanding more money whilst negativly impacting on revenue has always struck me as a very odd way to go about things. OH and for the naysayers, my parents are both unemployed, I have not so long ago been unemployed and I am an insolvency prefessional dealing with redundant employees on a day to day basis. My family members, myself in the past and most of the people I deal with daily would give their right arm for a job at the Rotzy, at whatever rate they are paying because its significantly more than benfits pay. Cyclemonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cedges what an odd post. You won't support people > pushing for better pay because you don't get paid > enough. The cinema workers are taking action to > improve their pay, just as legitimate as leaving > for a new job. How do you think most of the rights > we all enjoy at work were won?

On paper, I earn excellently, certainly over the LLW. I live in a bedsit with a psycho landlord because I can't afford anything better with any iota of privacy around here. I choose to live in an affluent area only a few miles from the city - my choice. With the amount of folk having to intern to have any remote chance of getting a job, I say lets hear it for the unpaid interns and point the gainfully employed cinema employees in the direction of reed.co.uk if they want something better.

This. Exactly. Dopamine1979 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I must admit to having staggered into Adventure > bar on several occasions over the years. It is a > dive but part of me will miss it. > > Even though my partying days are pretty much > behind me it's quite nice to have options for late > night dancing nearby.

Now the littlies can get in on the act apparently! http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?6,1357959,1357959,page=1#msg-1357959

How many people will attend the cinema at any one time vs how many people will attend the sunday morning service. Based on the sized of the building, I'd imagine an awful lot more at once with the church. However, euqally probably once a week vs most evenings. But how many people actually drive to the cinema - taking Brixton as an example - there is no car park there and on street parking is limited but it doesn't seem an issue vs the Old Kent Road (high concentration os similar type churches) at church going time where there are seemingly thousands of cars parked seemingly everywhere and up every side street for half a mile around. I don't know the answer, merely pointing out some of the specific comparisons that could be made vs general cinema v church traffic debate...

Utter imbeciles, daring to try and make a building site less hideous. How dare these nicompoops try and provide an asthetically pleasing environment for us. They should clearly be shot at dawn. Honestly!

Weatherspoons do the best eggs benedict i've ever had and I've tried pretty much all of the options on and around the lane and prety much anywhere else i've ever eaten breakfast where its offered. Soft muffins, proper non plastic ham, perfectly poached eggs and spot on hollandaise. And less than a fiver with a hot drink. Splendid.

The garden is 37' - the floorplan doesn't represent it in full but the dimensions are stated. Looks lovely to me, price aside. Mustard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Had a look at the details on that house. The > garden appears tiny, only a patio style, so that > makes the house too top heavy for such a garden. > You could find a 4/5 bed for much less money than > original asking price. Also, very close to > traffic noise and pollution, and difficult to > park.

It's Soooooo loud. AAARRRRGGGGHHHHH. Apologies folks, needed to get that out!

Anyone with issues should make sure they take photos of the signs as evidence to uphold any complaints - i noticed the disparity last night as I live on the road but as I don't have a car, I didn't really have any cause for complaint. I'd also suggest contacting James Barbar on his thread or direct contact details.

minder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where is that cedges? DPG? Venues have got a bit > lost on this thread! This was the conversation thread I was aiming for - apologies! Trying to reply on my phone is always a mistake! > ortuke Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > Try le chandelier if you want peace ? they don't > > really encourage kids I'm there so it remains a > > mostly adult only area I believe and the food is > > nice too... Cedges Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They don't really encourage people full stop, > that's the problem. first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > le Chandelier is fab and very people friendly and > serves the best tea, coffee and cakes around. > However they are not tolerant of buggies or > rampaging children...as someone else has mentioned > the space is too small for that and since everyone > pays the same for their chosen repast it seems > fair too. Unfortunately some mummies get very > snippy about this and choose to trash the > reputation of the place. Cedges Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not a 'mummy' and I get treated awfully in > there. Its hardly just that demographic they seem > to dislike. As for DPG - I think they would have had every right to request that customers don't consume their own food in their cafe - perfectly reasonable concept and I'm a bit horrified that people think that is appropriate to do so(baby food and anything dietary specific etc excluded of course).

I'm not a 'mummy' and I get treated awfully in there. Its hardly just that demographic they seem to dislike.

They don't really encourage people full stop, that's the problem. ortuke Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Try le chandelier if you want peace - they don't > really encourage kids I'm there so it remains a > mostly adult only area I believe and the food is > nice too...

I'm Mirto on Melbourne do gluten free pasta dishes.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or... Address the dog and his anxiety, which is > what's actually the problem. The OP is obviously conscientious and is from their above post dealing with the underlying problem. This is akin to suggesting that a woman who is raped should look at the length of her skirt to rectify the problem. Stupid comment in the circumstances.

I'd call it Tat. To rhyme with Cat. But then I'm northern.