louisiana

shell_8 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The view from Dawson's Hill on a sunny day is > phenomenal, as is the view when you come over the > brow of Dog Kennel Hill Dawson's Hill and the bit of ED that featured in Spooks last week. Doesn't feel like the city at all and it's only a minute's walk from my house. Love it. While the view coming over Dog Kennel is always a welcome sight, Dawson's Heights does - for me - detract from the scene.

Ah, yes, Bent Coppers, the official - Met - story. (Legal cases linked to this lot still going on through the noughties...and there were serious offences committed by their contacts/people they were handling, in this area, including on the street and in public places. It was not just about the drugs.)

I blame Glenn Beck.

Marie81 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Beej, please read my posts above before > commenting. I am not naive at all and know its > people from all walks of life who deal and use > drugs. My point is that pushing drugs is illegal > so why be so blatant selling on a busy pavement in > broad daylight? The blatant cheekiness of it > pisses me off! I'd say a lot cheekier were the SIX coppers at East Dulwich police station who were prosecuted for fairly major drug dealing and related offences. *They* were cheeky. Well beyond cheeky, really: they were contributing to some of the really serious shit going on in this area in a pretty direct fashion.

Ratty, did they have the knives individually secured in a locked cabinet under the control of the manager, or were there just stacks of knives at the waiters' service station? :)

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Its pretty remarkable that this happened after a > solid week or two of widespread pushing from > airlines and some travelers for finally relaxing > the existing security measures Remarkable indeed > > I totally agree. Intelligence is a good thing. The > whole theatre of security at airports is a sham Bruce Schneier coined the term security theatre back in the early noughties, and ever since it's been going from bad to worse. > > But then lots of people say the feel safer. Cant > win The purpose of security theatre is to make people feel safer by being able to demonstrate something (anything!) is being done. Its purpose is not to make people safer. Suppliers of security theatre equipment also do pretty well out of it.

Twirly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This seems to happen a lot, it annoys me too, and > I'm just a car driver I didn't take a pic of the funniest one of all on our 2-hour trip, as I was on the bike at the time. But the funniest was a car driver who had not just stopped beyond the stop line: he'd stopped about 15-20 feet *beyond the ASL line*, beyond the red light etc etc. This was at The Cut (Waterloo). He'd just made up the place where he decided to stop.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > louisiana Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > I took mine with my camera phone and hope > others > > do to. Given the Met don't seem interested in > > enforcement, this may be the only avenue for > > getting something done. > > As people have noted, a photo cannot be evidence > of an infraction. So the best you are going to > achieve is worry the motorist.... If you think I'd be concerned about 'worrying a motorist' who has broken the law, then perhaps you don't live on the same planet I do. It's really no different from naming on the interweb motorists who are kerb-crawling prostitutes (who have AFAIK not actually committed an offence in law), which is what the police already do. Worrying about being exposed as shit drivers that break the law might just have more of an effect than not having to worry about actually being fined and having points on their licence.

UnderhillOliver Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If someone's sitting in their car dealing drugs > > out of their window for 3 hours, you might want > to > > consider reporting it to the police. > > I would if it was bringing a lot of trouble with > it but they're pretty peaceful on the whole so it > doesn't bother me > > -------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > sorry but is this a wind up? No it isn't. Someone drug dealing > down the road from your home doesn't bother > you???? There are probably people 'dealing', in one way or another, on most streets in this country, and commonly in middle class homes. So while it is perhaps not as common as driving a car, it probably is as common as riding a bicycle. And most of the time nobody pays any notice. So you're not bothered about someone going > through your belongings whilst you're at work or > your loved one having a knife put to their throat > on their way back from the shops?? What do you > think is at the route of most crimes..... they're > not doing it to buy penny sweets! That's about as a complete misrepresentation of drugs as you can get. There are hundreds of thousands of middle class people buying and taking drugs every week. They do not rob banks, use knives (except when filleting fish or pruning their wisteria) or rifle through people's handbags. They pay their own hard-earned cash for drugs. Simple as. What you're referring to is the few people who are hooked on certain drugs (crack and heroin), whose price is determined by the criminalisation of same, and who rob to pay for them. If drugs were de-criminalised, their price would fall and their distribution would no longer be controlled by criminals, and much of the problem of theft etc. would be at an end. But successive governments have been consistently two-faced about the whole issue, and refuse to listen to expert advice (so much for evidence-based policy!), and so we continue with the current farce. And don't tell me that controlled (under the MoDA) drugs are 'dangerous': this government has no problem with the free circulation of some of the most dangerous drugs of all, and criminalises drugs that frankly it's difficult to find any evidence to characterise as more dangerous than carrots. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext

Senor Chevalier Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The other day when I was reduced to positioning my > bike diagonally in what was was left of the cycle > box I saw another cyclist pull out a digital > camera and take a photo of the car registration > plate (and motorist) of a vehicle that was sat in > the box across the ASL. > > I have no idea whether the evidence was being sent > to anyone or whether it could be proved that the > vehicle was stationary and the lights were red at > the time, but it did surprise the motorist and was > quite amusing. > > Presumably if all cyclists carried a camera phone > and did this then the message would spread quite > quickly. Maybe a good one to do in the safety of > a crowd of cyclists rather than to a van full of > burly blokes when alone. I took mine with my camera phone and hope others do to. Given the Met don't seem interested in enforcement, this may be the only avenue for getting something done.

However, entering the ASL from any connected cycle lane is more often than not obliging the cyclist to enter the 'corridor of death' that everyone, including the Met and cycling organisations, say that cyclists should not go into i.e. cycling to the immediate left of and very close to a vehicle stopped at the lights. We have seen deaths of cyclists every other week or so in London from this cause. It's a very stupid place to be unless you want to commit suicide. But given that the majority of the time the entire ASL box is occupied by motor vehicles (who are thereby committing an offence), it's kind of a moot point.

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > louisiana Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But none of the vehicles in the photos are > > motorcycles, PR. They're all cars. And cars are > > certainly not allowed. > > That's not strictly true - they're allowed to be > there if the light was amber and they were so > close to (or already over) the stop line that it > would have been unsafe to stop (but I've no doubt > this wasn't the case). As you say, it wasn't the case. They just drove up to and past a red light. > > It might interest you to know that an offence > committed by failing to stop at the white line > before a red light and an offence committed by > failing to stop at the first white ASL line rely > on the same legislation* and as such, both > offences may be dealt with by way of a ?60 > Endorseable Fixed Penalty Notice that attracts > three penalty points on a driver's license. That - apparently - is the Department's view.

"Crime has been flat, and even declining over recent years." Yes. Particularly since six East Dulwich coppers were jailed for dealing drugs, perverting the course of justice etc etc. B)

I recently completed a couple of free sessions funded by TfL, to update my road skills. (I've been a cyclist since 1974, and have taken my bike to Cuba, but haven't done much London central cycling for more than a couple of decades.) My instructor was Stewart Vanns, who was really excellent. (You can select a particular instructor on the drop-down menu on the site listed below.) We ended up doing some fairly challenging routes, to discuss tactics (e.g. 360 degrees around Aldwych in rush hour!) as well as touring some of the newer routes opened up for cyclists that avoid the nastier aspects of SE London roads, getting updated on Highway Code/legal situations, and putting into practice some road positioning approaches to complex junctions. Really worthwhile and highly recommended. By the end, I felt I'd done the Institute of Advanced Motorists for cyclists, but it was all really quite painless and enjoyable. Book up for free instruction at: [www.cyclinginstructor.com] This is funded by TfL, apparently (not Southwark).

.

'A clot...of youngsters'. Excellent collective noun.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just a tiny point of information - in the London > Borough of Newham, motorcyclists are indeed > allowed to join the cyclists at the front at the > traffic lights. It makes perfect sense to do so. > We're gone before you know it, unless of course we > stall like I did the other day. Yikes! VERY > blushing embarrassed PeckhamRose with a hundred > angry motorists behind me! But none of the vehicles in the photos are motorcycles, PR. They're all cars. And cars are certainly not allowed.

puzzled: do get over yourself. It was hardly an insult.

And yes, in picture '5' you can't see the cycle symbol on the road as the car driver is 100% covering it. Perhaps the driver thinks he's a bike! There was also - during the session - a motorcyclist (big machine, too) who drove from one pavement to the other via a busy crossing and a traffic island, dodging the pedestrians. Another motorist who thought he was something else perhaps.

So much stuff on here, as ever, about cyclists taking the piss. And motorists? And pedestrians? I had an interesting afternoon out on the roads of south London with a cycling instructor this week. I'm a fairly experienced cyclist, who just wanted to update and hone her skills. During the two-hour session, I had more than half a dozen pedestrians try to get run over on the road (not look at the road at all before stepping out onto it, with their backs to the oncoming traffic), and a motorist try to drive over my bike while dragging on a fag, chatting on a phone and looking 180 degrees opposite the direction in which they were travelling. Then I got off my bike and took these two pictures: motorists taking the piss at an ASL, not a stone's throw from my home, on successive changes of the lights. If motorists behave as in image '4', there is no safe place for the cyclist to position themselves, without breaking the law. This happens at just about every change in the lights at this crossing.

... if they haven't wiped the footage first. (very common)

Now every time I turn my bike uphill from Dunstans around the 'MI5 safe house', I'll be thinking of Lukas running up that hill... It's pretty steep :)

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If I remember rightly the BHA wanted > "Do you have a religion?" which is an open > question. > Is a closed question. The answers can only be yes or no.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well I used to sell advertising on the LU, so > stories of those kind were my in-trade! Stock-in-trade?

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just to go back a bit, louisiana, what's the best > i.e. non-leading way to ask that question in a > questionnaire? First, you need to establish what you are trying to find out. Are you trying to find out whether people have a religion/'belong to' a religion or none? Or whether if they have a religion, what that religion is? Or whether they practise a religion? Or whether they were born into a religion (parents)? Or....? There are many possible angles. I would suggest that the drafters have kept the question deliberately woolly in order to pick up as many adherents as possible (perhaps people 'who identify with' a particular tradition). To my mind, more concrete is preferable; otherwise the question arises: what are you really counting?