rodneybewes

The admin's call would only be a good one if you had proof. If so that's all to the good and you can show it and everyone's happy. If it is only hearsay then "ban the user, remove all their posts, shame them and help the trader if they need to push charges" is a poor call, surely? If someone posts a bad review and you/the trader feels it was done maliciously surely you can say so and everyone can make their mind up about it? - people seem to respect your word. And if you can prove it was blackmail then do so and by all means go medieval in the internet age on their asses.

That's exactly it. If someone posts a review you use your judgment to decide how much weight to give to it. Probably based on a lot of factors - provenance, tone of post, how many other people are saying the same thing. Banning people for giving a bad review means you can't trust the reviews any more. Think admin had too much coffee yesterday... Not sure if the forum has quite that much power by the way, whenever I mention to people round here that I buy stuff from it they've never heard of it. And when it comes to procuring services I'd always rely on the word of people I know.

The alternative scenario is that the tradesman did shoddy work, refuses to remedy it and the person has said they'll be posting their experience about it if it isn't fixed. Said tradesman then claims he's being "blackmailed" and gets his mate to post it on the forum in order to spike their guns and make them look like a liar. The person then gets banned by over-zealous admin after giving a perfectly truthful review. Both scenarious are feasible. Who knows what the truth might be?

As said before, vehicle excise duty is based on emissions with the principle the polluter pays. The more the pollution the more you pay - lorries pay a lot and electric cars (currently) nothing. Road building and maintenance is paid for out of general taxation. So if you are a tax payer and you don't drive, you pay for them anyway. And if you are a tax payer and a cyclist you pay for them. In fact pretty much all of us pay for them, all working people and pensioners. Roads aren't just for cars. They used to be for all users. They've just come to be dominated by cars. In lots of urban centres, for a variety of good reasons, there is a need to cut the amount of vehicles on the road. At the same time cycling is increasing a great deal. At rush hour many of the bridges in central London cyclists are the dominant road users (i.e. more of them than other types of vehicle). As time goes on they will naturally edge cars aside in these areas, just as cars have done to other road users in the past. For built up urban centres this is a good thing. It cuts pollution (both air and noise), it cuts serious accidents and deaths, it allows room for and speeds up public transport and mass transit and improves the general health of the population through exercise, whilst at the same time reducing burden on the NHS which saves money. So, on that basis, we should tax polluting vehicles more (especially in cities via congestion charges generally) and not tax cyclists at all. I both drive and cycle in London.

If you have a bit of dough then you can't really beat the Sonos/Synology Nas/Google Music route. Expensive though...

Try the free trial Kaspersky download - you can get it for a month, it doesn't ask for credit card details or anything like that. Usually nukes them straight away. Malwarebytes isn't the best unfortunately, but it is free.

Medley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > My one top tip - look people in the eyes. > Pedestrians, drivers, motorcyclists, other > cyclists if needs be. It's an instinctive human > reaction that once they've looked you in the eyes > - not just seen you, but looked you in the eyes - > they properly acknowledge that you're there and > consequently give you space. Told to me by my > cycling instructor and boy oh boy does it work. > Particularly with pedestrians - it's often as if > they've been pulled back from stepping into the > road by a bungee. Seconded, big time!

And thank you to Annasfield for bringing this up. I posted mine straight back.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's just arrived. > > Probably straying into territory of 'the > unquestionable' here .. but what would it take for > The Sun to be forgiven Merseyside way? I don't think it's unquestionable territory, it's a very valid question and one I've thought of myself. To start with I don't think it helped that the editor MacKenzie apologised publicly and then subsequently told a group of businessmen at a lunch that he had had to say it and that he was "not sorry then and I'm not sorry now." He then kept his mouth shut until David Cameron told him he should acknowledge his lie and apologise - a couple of hours later he did so. He then asked for an apology from the police for misleading him - we now know for a certainty what many people suspected - that journalists at the tabloids and police were entirely in each others pockets. You can't blame people for thinking he'd say anything to get himself out of a mess, and he represented the Sun at that time. Once you've had one hollow apology you're entitled to distrust the next one, surely? Quite apart from Hillsborough I'm no big fan of the Sun for various reasons but I do feel that their Editor, Dominic Mohan, gave a sincere apology and he obviously had nothing to do with the reporting then, and I feel for him having to make it being blameless himself. But you must understand the feeling on Merseyside about the Sun. If it had happened and the truth had come out a week, a month or even a year later and the Sun had apologised they would probably be selling papers on Merseyside now. But when you link that to literally decades of trying to find justice before the final (and I think sincere) apology, having been through decades of people still blaming the fans quite wrongly for causing it, you can understand it will be a long time before that goes away. Remember, they didn't just blame the fans for their own deaths, they accused them of murdering those who died, pissing on their corpses, looting their bodies, sexually abusing a dead woman. And that held for decades. Up until very recently I heard a lot of people who should know an awful lot better repeating those lies for truth. Imagine everyone who'd been affected by that tragedy hearing that all that time. That's for nearly thirty years. Finally the real truth has emerged, although there's still much to uncover. So I think what would it take is not the right question. How long will it take is the better one. After all, the living victims have had the injustice for nigh on 30 years and only now has it been acknowledged. Maybe they'll buy the Sun in Merseyside in 30 years time.

Plusnet were bought by BT and their ratings have slipped ever since. Here's a decent comparison guide - http://www.thinkbroadband.com/isp/compare.html?isp_7=1&isp_77=1&isp_21=1&isp_22=1&isp_84=1&isp_6=1&commit=Compare.

The best one in East Dulwich is Zen internet. It's a bit more pricy but consistently gets the best reviews by miles. The big ones are cheaper tend to be fine until there is an issue and then you find out what they are really like unfortunately.

These give you an idea: http://www.police.uk/metropolitan/00BEGW/crime/.

No, I will continue to do exactly what I am doing now in the full knowledge that nothing will happen and it will make absolutely no difference to the quality of life of people who live around me. How evil of me. I know this will be frustrating for you but see it as a form of training for when you take up slightly more important issues such as road safety around schools, quality of local health care or violent crime in the capital.

edcam Wrote: > > Well those would be legal wouldn't they, so > acceptable. Logic innit? No it isn't logic. Why confuse legality and acceptability? It was legal for the bankers to bring us all to the edge of ruin. Is that acceptable to you? The judgment about "whether it's ok to bend the rules" is excercised every minute of the day in every walk of life, whether you like it or not. And by the police, no less. They do that because they have this thing called prioritisation which exists because we live in a real world, not some science-fiction dystopia or Frinton. This means they spend more time on crimes far more serious than cycling on the pavement, thank god. I cycle every day into work and back and for the last 5 feet of my journey coming home I come up onto the pavement to my gate if there isn't anyone there. For me, that's acceptable. And honestly, with all the things that are going on in this area of London (never mind the rest of the world) it makes me laugh to see the outrage caused by incidents like someone being told to get off their bike near Smithfield market. Christ.

Applespider Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Having said that, I'd like to see better cycling > provision - not least for the family I saw > crossing Vauxhall Bridge this morning. A mother > and two little girls (8 and possibly 6) in the bus > lane making their way over the bridge northbound - > I'd have preferred to see the kids on the pavement > there since potentially having to cross two lanes > of traffic to go straight on the northern stretch > made me shudder at what might go wrong. It makes you shiver doesn't it? Child seats on the back of bikes in London traffic... I have a few friends who are keen cyclists in Holland and they regard London cycling provision with utter horror. I tell them that it's the nature of the city and that drivers, cyclists and pedestrians are equally selfish and uncaring about each other's needs but they don't quite believe me yet. Couple more visits and they'll get there though.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No Henry b - cyclists should stay off the pavement > full stop. Motorists and pedestrians should > similarly follow the rules. It's quite simple > really. The judgement all about whether it's ok to > bend the rules has too wide a margin, so half > hearted codes of conduct don't work. Well, apart from shared pedestrian/cycle pavements I presume? Or is that still full stop and half-hearted etc?

Indeed there are. Sad to see that the present government aren't seeing this terror for what it is. Take this from the 3rd July this year. Lord Tebbit: My Lords, how many cyclists actually pay the fixed-penalty tickets which are issued to them for offences such as riding on the pavement to the danger of pedestrians? My noble friend may know that they habitually give false names and addresses; there is no way for the police officer issuing the penalty notice to know that. What are we going to do? Are we going to compel cyclists to have some form of identification so that, if issued with a penalty ticket, they are required to pay it instead of just scoffing at the law? Earl Attlee: My Lords, it is up to the police to decide how they enforce road traffic law, and they have the necessary tools to do so. I gently say to my noble friend that the police look at where they can deploy their resources to reduce casualties. Although it is extremely annoying for noble Lords to see cyclists riding on the pavement, and although it does cause accidents, it does not cause fatal accidents. Their "scoffing" will continue unabated with this kind of attitude and where will we be then? Surely there can be no other important matter for police to attend to in the interests of public safety than this? And of course it is always sad to see the venerable and gentle Lord Tebbit being slapped down in such an undeserving way...

Into the incident referred to? Or cycling on the pavement generally? I think not. You're pulling my leg I think.

You're right - the cops are bound to cover this up. We need an parliamentary enquiry.

The prams really should be licensed as well for identification puurposes - most of them have never even taken the pushchair test. I bet none of them contribute to the pavement tax either. One of them ran over my foot when I was buying my organic cous-cous on Saturday and I cried all week. Tears of blood they were. We need a week long push by a team of community wardens to deal with this menace.

By road, not as the crow flies.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark Community Wardens will over the next > couple of weeks be holding special patrols along > Lordsihp Lane targetted at pavement cycling. I don't agree with cycling on the pavements generally, but of all the things that these wardens could be doing to make our lives safer they pick this? Wow.

They're all pub bands down this neck of the woods. Brixton is nearest but you're best bet is to head up on the overground to Highbury, Islington etc for the academy, Lexington, Union Chapel etc. Direct train home as well if you forego the post-gig beers. I've seen some bearable pub bands down here but no decent proper bands.

GEEKASAURUS Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know the original post wasn't referring to the > shared space on rye lane, but that truly is an > awful place to cycle (and i'm sure for > pedestrians, to walk also). No one seems to have a > clue that there is a little cycle lane. Does > anyone else here ride on it? It really would be > better if it were completely segregated. My bell > just doesn't seem to cut the mustard going along > there. Bells don't really cut the mustard in places like that where there a high concentrations of pedestrians. You need to expect them to be sharing your space and slow right down accordingly. It's the same in the City of London and the West End.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > henryb Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Nigello Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > >> I have been living in London 20 years and > have > > never seen anyone cycling dangerously on the > > pavement. Mostly there are going slowing and > give > > way to pedestrians. > > > I don't know where you live but I see it pretty > much at least once a week. I also see cyclists > jumping red lights and ignoring pedestrians on a > daily basis (and that's no exaggeration.) A fair > proportion of cyclists screw it up for those that > do observe the rules of the road. It's that sort > of cyclist that winds up lorry drivers/bus > drivers/taxi drivers, whose dangerous driving is > inexcusable but it explains their antipathy > towards cyclists in general. Agreed. I cycle to and from the city every day and there are plenty who cycle badly. I've seen quite a few get tickets in the city from police as well. I don't really understand the antipathy to cyclists though. Quite how anyone can look at the separate stats for death and injury caused by cyclists and those caused by other road users and reserve all their spleen for bikes is beyond me. I don't agree that drivers dislike cyclists because they've seen them ride badly. Most aggression I've received from drivers has not because I've been cycling badly but because they just don't feel that they should have to share the road with me at all and I've somehow "held them up". If that were the case then drivers would despise each other all of the time. Anyone who drives a car around south London regularly is exposed to terrible drivers all of the time.