rodneybewes

Billy Childish is playing at Stewart Lee's ATP in April. It's a cracking line up: http://www.atpfestival.com/events/atp042016/view/eventinfo.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Comments on this thread are unlikely to change the > outcome. Get involved. Well said. I wonder how many will? There's a few who feel that passive aggressive online posturing actually amounts to something.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This it what happens when you take away > underground crossings. The works aren't even > completed and already a needless death. Well done > Southwark Planning. Lorry driver arrested for dangerous driving. Again. But yes, let's blame it on Southwark Planning instead.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/elephant-and > -castle-crash-air-ambulance-lands-at-roundabout-af > ter-lorry-hits-elderly-woman-in-south-a3174026.htm > l > > So much for safety improvements. No pedestrian > ever got hit by a vehicle in an underground > crossing. I agree. They should make all vehicles in London drive underneath in tunnels so the rest of us can enjoy ourselves.

IngridB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Bigger Picture Film Club > http://www.thebiggerpic.co.uk/ , based at the EDT > http://eastdulwichtavern.com/, has seen audiences > cut in half since the arrival of the ED > Picturehouse. This is so sad, like people > flocking to a new supermarket chain rather than > supporting the local independent shops. East > Dulwich is pretty good at keeping going to > independent shops, it would be wonderful if they > checked what was on at The Bigger Picture before > automatically looking at the Picturehouse > website. > > In a recent article on MostlyFilm The Bigger > Picture Film Club has been described as 'about as > perfect as you could > get'http://mostlyfilm.com/2016/01/18/the-pictures- > get-bigger/ Also repeated on Dulwich OnView > http://dulwichonview.org.uk/2016/01/20/the-bigger- > picture-film-club-is-about-as-perfect-as-you-could > -get/ > > Its quite disheartening for the volunteers... I > know because I am one. > > For example, on Thursday, TBP is showing the > German film Phoenix, with Nina Hoss, an > extraordinary film, introduced by an expert in the > industry, tickets ?7 with all profits going to > local charities. It would be fantastic if you > come along and check it out! Ah, I'd love to see Phoenix again, probably my favourite film of last year. I'll try to nip along.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Our service is fine - always has been. > > The "superhub" is a piece of crap though. Need to > restart it every couple of days, and the range is > rubbish. Think I'm going to buy a proper router, > and run it in "modem-only" mode. Definitely the way to go. The superhub is hopeless.

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Creative solutions= spread Boris bikes further > south. Extend tube lines south > > > Road pricing that takes in to account the 200+ > deaths per year from air pollution in Lambeth and > Southwark, and the hundreds of injuries caused by > vehicles on the road? The true costs imposed in > terms of kids' loss of freedom of movement, blood > pressure from constant noise, social losses from a > population that shuts itself in private cages to > move around the public realm? > > All of a sudden, that ten minutes of time saved, > or that feeling of being in a nice snug cocoon > with a stereo instead of freezing your arse off on > a bike at 10pm, or that made-it-in-life feeling of > being able to show off in your SUV bought on cheap > credit, won't look so attractive. > > Also need to be smarter about light mobility in > general. Some people can't cycle or find walking > middling distances hard, but that doesn't mean > they need a two-ton car to trundle a mile or two > to the shops or the doctor. Electric mobility > scooters should be subsidised to the point of > being effectively free, and should be allowed > anywhere that bikes are. > > Did notice our MP tweeting her support for the > road being reopened - the day after attending a > climate change meeting and demanding urgent action > on CO2. 2+2=5. Very much agree with improving pedestrian mobility and alternative electrically-assisted para-pedestrian mobility.

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > well said wulfhound and rodneybewes etc. Some > sanity here at last. I'm not sure it's sanity, it's just the usual when it comes to self-interest. It's very easy to live inside your own bubble. It's like the people who want a better health service for all and quality of life for pensioners but vote against actually paying for it. People want to be able to get around in their cars quickly and easily in an expanding modern conurbation - but also want to minimise the risk of their kids, family and friends getting hideous diseases. It's fine when you just run along as usual, not looking outside your environment. Then something awful happens - lung cancer, kid run over, cyclist crushed, annual season ticket makes your work more and more uneconomical. At the end of the day the whole debate doesn't really matter - they aren't going to build an underground for south London, or miraculously improve congestion, or find a cure for cancer etc. They are going to close roads, increase the cost of driving, tax pollution and extend the congestion charge. The question is - how much pressure can we bring to bear to improve our mass transit and alternative provisions for pedestrians and cyclists. Closures around Loughborough Junction and a whole load of junctions around London like Bank are going to happen, we already know that.

I agree Davidk - congestion and pollution are massive problems. I don't think our elected representatives are doing enough but they do realise that the impending fines for our horrendous pollution problems allied with the recognition at the increase in disease and death it causes is going to bite everyone at some point down the line so at least they doing something. It's a tricky position for them given the short-termism of a good proportion of the voters in the country. In reality not many people give a toss until they, or someone they love, is directly affected by it. Then they care a great deal. It's hard not to laugh at the solution to the congestion and pollution problem being keeping as much traffic on the road as possible by making it easier to drive but it does get overtaken on the hilarity front by the extend the tube to south London solution. Which we know won't happen for decades, if at all. In reality, the Loughborough Junction closure will be back, along with many more like it, as it will cut the numbers of vehicles on the road. I was very glad to see that the City get it as well. They are now going to close the Bank junction to all traffic apart from buses and cycles and pedestrianise the rest, thankfully.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm still not buying the Irish are a distinct > race...nationality, yes Well, for the purposes of the law race includes colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin. And we're talking about the law here, so...

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It seems unlikely from the accounts I've heard > that the motivation behind the attack was the > individual's race. I suspect that they were abused > because Clarkson didn't approve of the dinner he > was served. It's shameful and pathetic behaviour, > but a racially motivated attack? Is anyone actually saying it was racially motivated? I thought it was motivated by Clarkson being his usual utterly twattish self with the use of the victim's nationality as an accompanying insult being a racially aggravating factor. Not aimed at you Rah Rah Rah but I'm always amazed by the fawning over Clarkson in this country and the many apologists for the man who happily used the N word on camera and made a joke about Asians being "slopes". Well done to the producer for putting this kind of stuff on the record - hopefully he will be getting extra cash from the BBC as they tolerated the unfunny, boorish fool's behaviour for way too long. I hope he lightens Clarkson's pocket a fair wedge while he's at it too.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rodney - possibly it's just my extended family, > true. > However I grew up in a small town in the 80s and > being working class was part of a community where > my peers (and in many cases their parents) were > milking the welfare system for all it was worth. > One friend even got the DHSS to get him a mortgage > on a flat that he was renting, because he > demonstrated the mortgage payments would be less > than rent was. > Many could survive on welfare at that time, and, > with a bit of cash work on the side, quiet a few > had quite comfortable lifestyles in this pleasant > coastal town. The only definite exceptions in my > extended family were the Pakistanis who make up > 50% of my family, who'd come to UK in the 1970s - > they worked (and roped their kids into the work) > all hours and had market stalls / shops etc. while > being accused by white locals of stealing white > people's jobs !! Ah, I would probably agree back in the 80s. It was a grim time all in all but I always thought there was some hope back then that whatever befell you things would eventually turn around, recessions and unemployment would lift at some point and there was some safety net. And some people were able to game that. For young people today there is very little of that kind of hope - a fair section of society will never own their own home in large parts of the country and are being driven into low-paid jobs that have very little prospect of turning into better paid ones over time. In fact they are being driven towards the lowest common denominator. Benefits have been drastically curtailed for the young so woe-betide any who are forced by circumstances out of their home. And at the end of it they can look forward to a pension that will just about keep them in a subsistence existence and evey then they will only be able to claim it later in life than previous generations. And that's if there is anywhere for them to live when they get there. There are a lot of strong motivators for kids today not to fall into the abyss that is gaping before them - being of benefits doesn't look like some kind of shangri-la. Horribly, a lot of young people I know today, including those that have what would have been regarded as quite good jobs 20 years ago, look forward to the future with fear. Welcome to the 21st century, poor bastards.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My white working class extended family expect > benefits, housing allowance etc and when they do > have a job play sickies etc. basically milk it to > the hilt, as do there peers. > The Gujurati who runs the local corner shop cannot > read or write, never takes a day off and of his 4x > kids two are in medical school to be doctors, one > a scientist the other an accountant. > > By comparison white working class from this > country (and obvs I'm generalising, so please) are > lazy, expect too much and will be pizzed all over > by those coming here who recognise (and > appreciate) the opportunities. > 'We' seem to have lost grip of the basic precept > that all you need to do is an honest days work, in > a large part the fault of continuous Govts > allowing the population to abuse what was meant to > be a welfare structure for those in need, as > opposed to those who can't be arsed. Same applies > to attitude towards school. > > Generalising but not a million miles from truth if > you're honest. > > ETA: let's see if this gets accused of being > racist, if I was generalising about non-white it > would take only seconds ! I don't know how racist it is but the great majority of working class white kids around me are desperate for a job and worried about their futures. I don't see a whiff of complacency or laziness amongst them - they want a future they can't see at the moment. Seeing as we're on the generalisations, maybe it's just your family ethos?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That is correct - you must stop if you hit a dog > (and a small list of other animals often found on > a farm). If necessary, you must leave your details > and, if you are the animla's owner, you must give > your details to the driver. Plus you must report > the accident to the police. > > Curiously, if you hit a cat you can drive on > (well, at least according to the law). > > But why would you not stop? It will almost > certainly be deemed the animal's fault, so not > only would you not be responsible for the dog's > vet bills, but you would find out who the owner is > and they (or their pet insurance) are financially > responsible for any damage to your car. Thanks. Weird you have to call the police if you hit a dog but not a cat.

Mustard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thoughts to the dog's owners. It's illegal not to > stop after you hit a dog. Did anyone get the reg > number? Is that really the case? If a dog runs out in front of you and you hit it do you have to report it to the police or something?

Help-Ma-Boab Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did Richard Madely not get pinched once as well? Yup. They renamed them Pinch and Judy after he raided the local supermarket.

That tax on plastic bags has got a lot to answer for...

davidk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought you meant drivers more broadly. > > I completely agree. Bus drivers are incentivised > (and punished) on the basis of speed of service, > not ride quality or safety. And bus companies are > extremely poor at dealing with complaints about > poor/dangerous driving. > > No real reason apart from politics and culture > that the speed of buses (and all motor vehicles) > couldn't be restricted to the posted limit > remotely using GPS systems. I think that there is a trial of this about to start which should be interesting. Agree about the unfeasible targets put on to bus drivers which I have heard are a major source of stress for them. Construction companies have faced the same criticism for giving large incentives to contract tipper-truck drivers to go as quickly as they can whilst not explicity telling them to break the law. If there is one danger to look out for on London streets, whether you are a pedestrian, cyclist, motor-cyclist, car driver - whoever - it's anyone who's on a schedule.

I didn't think so.

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That was why pavements were invented. > > If people used their brains and applied common > sense which is sadly lacking there would be no > problem. Are you talking about drivers here? Couldn't agree more. Think of all those pesky punitive rules we could do away with like speed limits and traffic lights, parking restrictions and MOTs. Alas, lots of them don't which is why these awful rules are put in place.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Emilydina > > Thank you for saying that, I may not be popular > either after posing this but I agree entirely with > you, people need to take responsibility for safe > guarding themselves and their family. Roads are > dangerous places I agree but that's why we have > pavements to separate pedestrians from vehicles. > Granted crossing the road brings pedestrians on to > the road but that's why the Green Cross Code was > invented (bring back Tuffty and the green cross > code man) > > It takes both pedestrians taking care when > crossing the road or when getting out of cars and > for drivers to be aware of the danger they present > to pedestrians. > > I wasn't aware of a bus driver loosing his job and > I feel sorry for his family, and sadly if this > happens again we will start to see a decline in > drivers hence the potential for less buses > resulting in more cars on the road (a vicious > circle) > > Again, Emilydina, a well presented voice of > reason. > > (Time to hide under my kennel from the howling > mob) There might a decline in drivers you say... interesting... On a brighter note, it might actually encourage people to obey the speed limit. Just imagine such a thing! You're right thought, it's too much to ask...

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The thing which particularly annoys me about all > this is the implicit assumption that we could all, > could we be bothered, switch happily to cycle > transport, and that not doing so is inherently > selfish. That is to say, that Southwark is blessed > with no disabled people, no elderly and infirm, no > very young children, nobody who needs to transport > items which are heavy and/ or awkwardly shaped for > bicycle transport, nobody who, whilst able bodied > themselves has to transport any of those in the > categories above and so on. Or, if there are such > poisonous and pointless people in Southwark, then > the inadequate public transport, not (mainly ) > traveling east to west, not (frequently) > operational at weekends or in the late evenings > and so on will be entirely adequate to meet their, > frankly, irrelevant needs, until they have the > decency to move or die. And until then we will > endorse a council which is intent on making the > travel lives of these parasites increasingly > difficult, hopefully, if we can blag in CPZs > expensive, and frustrating. Despite the histrionics I agree that the focus should be more balanced on a range of different solutions to getting around London. I think cycling is the least expensive and ticks most of the boxes which is why it's up there - tubes in SE London would be lovely but let's face it, it's not going to happen any time soon. I also agree that cycling isn't for all. However there are plenty of people who would take it up if it were safer - me for a start. The more people like me on cycle paths into town the more room for those who aren't able to cycle.

The 20mph speed limit change was well publicised and is pretty much London wide now. Agreed, I didn't see anything about individual local road closures, although I fully expected to see them narrowing lanes and redesigning junctions etc as part of the extension of the cycle networks. None of that is a great surprise. first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68, I agree with you and that was the point > of the question. I do not recall major changes to > junctions, proposed road closures or 20mph on > every arterial road possible, as headlining > policies. On the other hand free swimming > was......? > > It is my view that the speed and breadth of > current change was not mandated and we should have > been consulted. Cycling infrastructure is being > built under the guidance of a Dutch expert; as > many have said, London is not Amsterdam. > >

I'm not too bothered about the micro detail of road closures, they might or might not be a good thing according to their specific circumstances. The blanket 20mph speed limit has been broadcast all over the place and is being implemented pretty much across the board. I wouldn't expect them to consult on that on a road by road basis, I'd expect them to implement it as it is a broad manifesto promise. I'm all for local democracy but not at the expense of actually getting things done. The idea of a war on motorists is pathetic, they are the most pampered group in the capital. If a terrorist group caused the kind of damage on London that motorists did we'd be bombing a small country right now. Two things have made a massive difference to life in central London - the congestion charge and the 20mph limit in the city. Roll them out across the board I say. As a completely separate point - which it is - I only agree that promoting cycling at the expense of cars is the way to go is because it's the most feasible. If they made moving pedestrian walkways to get about London I'd absolutely support that, but they won't. There is no status quo when it comes to driving in London - it is just getting worse. Doing nothing is not an option. @Uncleglen - if you are going to send politicians to Coventry for being self-serving, biased idiots then you wouldn't vote for any of the them, surely?

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not wanting to get into a broad debate about the > mechanisms of local politics but just to ask that > if you voted in Labour at the last Council > elections did you expect the sort and speed of > change we are now experiencing in ED re 20 mph, > closing roads, changes to junctions, roadworks > everywhere, mass reduction of parking, an agenda > to get you to use a bike? > > Did you expect to be further consulted before > actions were taken or do you fully support the > speed of change we are now experiencing and trust > it will all turn out for the good? I did expect, fully support and actively campaigned for the speed limits and expansion of bike lanes (not fully implemented in my opinion). I expect them to carry out their electoral promises, as they should. I also think democracy is a two way street and citizens have a duty to actively engage in the process properly rather than sitting on their arses and getting powerlessly outraged by things their local councils do. If you want to change things get out there and change them. Ironically, as mass communication has improved our ability to communicate with the people we vote in we've become more and more lazy and useless at doing anything ourselves. It's also telling that the majority of threads on this forum are not about poverty, food banks, immigration etc but about how people drive around town. By the way, you've lumped a whole load of things together there and your use of "agenda" is charged. It's clearly a loaded question.