exdulwicher

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you suggesting a park-in? I think that would just create gridlock and possibly exacerbate the situation, not solve it. You'd also run the risk of pissing off all the students and parents whereas you kind of need them on side. Everyone (except Southwark Council and coach drivers) can see that pollution is bad, action needs to be taken so having peer pressure from the students and parents would really help but just parking up and blocking the coaches from even getting into Townley Road (and the knock on effects on traffic backed up into E.D Grove, LL and Carlton Ave) would result in a backlash, not support.

Penguin68 Wrote: > Alleyn's can't simply duck away from this. They've been ducking away from it for years. In all their Open Day literature it even stated that there was plentiful free parking in the residential streets surrounding the school. > And, frankly, for an educational establishment to be turning a blind > eye to clear breaches of transport etc. regulation is hardly an appropriate lesson for their pupils. The school claim it's nothing to do with them, it's the fault of the coach companies. The coach companies deny all knowledge (or more to the point, they're not interested in hearing the complaints and becasue it's several different coach companies, they all just blame the others because their drivers would never do anything like that, sorry Sir/Madam, you must be mistaken). The council (who are responsible for enforcing parking infringements and engines idling) lack the willpower and resources to do anything more than show a token effort every once in a while and one even responded to a complaint by saying "oh it's OK, the pollution blows away" That in itself is staggering - a council enforcement officer, paid for by council taxes basically saying "yeah, not going to do anything about this breach in the law here". Congratulations Southwark Council, it's that attitiude from humanity as a whole over that past 200 years or so that has comprehensively wrecked the entire planet. Nice to see you're continuing along the same path. Also, can I have my council tax that funded that idiot re-paid please? It's got to the point where it needs a regular group of activists down there with placards and banners and someone to pull the external engine cut-off switch if it's left idling! ;-)

rollflick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Other tremendous examples mentioned like Barcelona > or indeed closer to home in London did not take > this bizarre approach of residents mini-referenda > on each traffic restriction that Southwark seems > increasing driven towards. It's a silly way to > design area wide traffic measures that won't > deliver the radical changes we need to breathe > clean air or enable 8-80 year olds to feel safe on > foot or cycling. Plus without holistic area > measures like emissions based CPZs, you risk > ending up with more pollution on through roads. "consulting" the general public with traffic plans (in fact with most things...) is a recipe for disaster. Most people will say that where they live / work / play / shop should be free access for them at all times but everyone else should be charged / restricted / banned. They want - no, they demand - free parking at all times for them while simultaeously saying that everyone else should get the bus, walk, or be charged to park. It's why consultations take years of back and forth; people comment, the proposals are taken back and re-worked, they're re-presented to the public who again complain bitterly and round we go again. Eventually, the option that is proposed is so watered down that it becomes pointless doing it but they do it anyway and you end up with a scheme like Dulwich Village or the re-worked Townley Road / East Dulwich Grove junction where coaches clog the road up cos it takes them an hour to turn around the extended pavements.

Some guy called Jack Daw. He's stark raven mad though.

http://m.quickmeme.com/img/78/782a39098bc6501556a37be9ca9684fc7df9b26f68b8af799adf2141145e333a.jpg

Crows are ace - super intelligent and if you work with them enough, they can learn to speak a few words too! They're certainly pretty trainable, they'll come on command.

DovertheRoad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > peckman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dont fly then . If you want to and have the > luxury > > to choose your type your aircraft you have too > > much money or time > > Nah. As a consumer in a conpetitive market we can > choose. Unlikely - you can never really guarantee what aircraft you'll be on and on some routes you simply don't have the choice. There's the other factor that about 95% of passengers won't have the slightest clue what plane they're on, most just don't care. mrwb Wrote: > Which is why I'll be waiting until the fixed Maxes > gave done 1000s of cycles to check it's actually > fixed properly. Imagine if you'd have tried that approach with the old Comet... ;-)

There's points for it either way. On the plus side, it minimises queuing (there's invariably someone in the queue rummaging in a purse going "oh, do you want the 42p, just a second..." ), it's cheaper and easier for the shop (less risk of break in for cash, no chance of an employee with sticky fingers in the till, no cash deposit fees). But there are some negatives too - it generally means that kids can't go in there (I suppose you can argue that as a good or bad point depending on if you want a bunch of schoolkids going into a cafe!!), plenty of people don't like spending money in that way as it does make keeping track of spending harder, it means that tips are much less likely for the cafe (if you're buying a coffee & pastry/cake and pay with a tenner, you're quite likely to drop at least some of the change in a tips jar on the counter but can't do that with a card) but the worst point is that there's no consistency. Some cafes, shops etc are card only. Some will only take card over ?10. Some won't take card at all (or they won't take certain types like no Amex, or no Apple Pay). And that can make things quite confusing for older people or non-regulars. Near me, the cafe is card only. The chippy is cash only. I've got no real problems with either but you do need to know and go prepared.

I've edited some of your comments (just by removing some lines, not actually changed any of the words as you wrote them!) because otherwise it would have turned into something you'd be scrolling down for a week but here goes: TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What started out as jotting down some quick > thoughts, has turned into an essay, this will take > you 5 mins if you get started, sorry! > > 8 REASONS I'M VOTING TO LEAVE > > 1. The Economy: A huge issue. What?s That? How can > I vote Leave when ?9 out of 10 economists? say we > would be worse off under a Brexit scenario? All the economic forecasts (even if they are short term) state we'll be worse off but "you think" that longer term (ie after we've been through another recession, had stagnant / zero growth, lost huge amounts of tax revenue and investment...) we'll be better off? Righto. > 2. Immigration: Finally, a controlled > immigration system is not just about attracting > doctors, teachers, lawyers and engineers, if we > need more low skilled workers to pick fruit for > example, then a sensible Home Office will ensure > visas are issued to the people the UK requires to > do this. Have you seen the Home Office systems? Some of the most badly designed, badly implemented "systems" ever, courtesy of one Theresa May (and various other Home Secretaries before her) all of who played the "immigrants are bad, we'll cut down on immigration" becasue they knew it played well to the Daily Wail brigade. https://www.freemovement.org.uk/theresa-mays-immigration-legacy/ Couple that with various scandals like Windrush and the overall tone of the campaign (especially the Farage poster of all the dirty foreigners queuing to get in) and you can't deny that the whole campaign was overtly rascist. Immigration rules are set by the country although there are overarching protocols from the EU around Freedom of Movement. You can read a simple guide of it here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43960088 Free movement is a reciprocal arrangement that allows people to decide for themselves where they want to live, that enriches our communities with different culture, perspectives and food ? and that supports our economy and public services. But free movement is supposed to come with conditions. According to EU law, after three months of living in another member state, citizens must be in work, looking for work with a genuine chance of employment or have their own health insurance and be able to prove they won?t be dependent on public funds. No UK Government has ever implemented these rules ? yet ministers have blamed EU immigration for decades of failures to build enough houses, fund our health service and support our schools. The policy was there all along but never implemented by the British Government. > 3. EU bureaucracy: Can you even name the ruling > bodies of the EU? (For the record, they are the > European Council, the Council of the European > Union, the European Parliament, the European > Commission, the Court of Justice of the European > Union, the European Central Bank, and the European > Court of Auditors.). Only two of those bodies are > elected by the people. The rest are appointed. The > European Council and the European Commission make > most of the rules in the EU - and yet they are not > elected bodies. So for example, if you think the > British government should support British steel > works or that the railways should be nationalised > again, you're in for a shock: EU law literally > bans countries from nationalising certain > industries. How many bodies, committees, commissions of UK Parliament / Government are there? How many civil servants running things behind the scenes? None of them are elected. Frankly the British public have shown themselves to be incapable of choosing a name for a boat, never mind electing officials to run every little detail. You don't elect the manager of your local supermarket or bank or GP, you assume that the people in charge know the general processes and skillset and you leave them to employ the best people to do that particular job. The European Council sets EU Policy Agenda and it's comprised of all the Heads of State - the British Prime Minister literally sits on this council. You voted for a governing party (historically either Conservative or Labour); the governing party selects the Prime Minister and the PM sits on the European Council! That's hardly "unelected". And you can read about the European Commission here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/index_en because there's way too much info for me to type out. Again, the UK sits on this Commission and has a defining role in how those rules and regulations are defined and implemented (and can veto or opt out like the UK has opted out of Schengen). And EU Law does NOT ban nationalisation: https://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-clear-nationalisation-is-not-against-eu-law/ and https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-railways-eu-rules-nationalise-single-market-restrictions-labour-a8968691.html > 4. One size does not fit all: No but by working together, everyone benefits. It's not one-sided, you can negotiate trade deals in exchange for debt relief for example. It's like having 27 neighbours, some very rich, some very poor but the poor ones will do all the work the rich ones don't want (like coming round and picking your fruit and veg, doing the DIY and washing the car) and the rich ones will give a few handouts in exchange for having a nice place to go on holiday rather than a third world shithole! (basic analogy but it kind of works) > 5. Sovereignty: The people of Greece, Portugal and > Spain all voted-in governments in the last few > years who?s plans/election promises have been > over-ruled by the EU. Greece, twice voted in a > government on an Anti-Austerity platform, but the > EU/IMF twice ignored the public vote and imposed > onerous austerity. As mentioned, the public don't have a clue. And if someone said to you, do you vote to live on ?50 or a week or just keep spending willy-nilly, you'll go with option 2 - except that Mastercard won't let you do that. The politicians can promise tax cuts and end to austerity but they can't actually make it happen, they've just promised whatever random bollocks sounds good to the voters. We are a sovereign nation, recognised by all other nations, with our own flag and currency and monarchy. AND, we have a pooled sovereignty with the European Union (Scotland and England have a pooled sovereignty as well). There are numerous different types of sovereignty but take your pick, we were sovereign before any Brexit vote came long. Just that people had no idea what it meant and many still don't. > 6. Shutting the UK off from the world: Many of the > comments I?ve read from the Remain camp warn us > that Leaving will mean closing ourselves off from > the rest of the world. I mean, come on? So are > they seriously saying that if we are not in the > EU, the UK will become North Korea? We will still > trade with EU countries, we?ll still cooperate on > things like security (do we not share intelligence > with the USA because they?re not in the EU?), > we?ll still welcome folk from all over the world > to the UK, and vice versa. I simply ask myself how > is it that other developed economies like > Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan all > manage to play their part on the world stage > without being part of the club? By taking YEARS (decades sometimes) to come to trade deals, visa requirements, tariffs and by having it simplified for them by the existence of the EU, negotiating on behalf of 28 countries using common standards and imports. It costs the same to bring your produce into Germany as it does to Greece as it does to the UK in terms of tariffs and standards. If you as an individual try and negotaite a deal on something, you've got a lot less clout than if you're negotiating on behalf of 28 people. Try buying one car and getting a deal vs saying "right I own a business and we want 28 cars, what sort of deal can we agree on?" > 7. Losing workers? rights: That's Government. Free from all those pesky things about maternity leave, sick leave, parental rights, overtime, etc https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/human-resources/working-hours-holiday-leave/working-hours/index_en.htm They can basically just overturn it and we'll be back to a low-wage economy with no safeguards or checks. Or do you think the Tories will just be like "oh yes, we'll be nice to you little minions..."? > 8. Its not about the individuals: Fair point, at least you're not hanging on Farage's every word so credit for that! > Either way I just hope the majority > of people are considering all the issues and not > getting caught up in the mud-slinging and insults > of this terrible campaign. Well the problem is that (as shown above by the rebuttal of pretty much all your points) they're considering the issues as written in the Daily Mail and The Sun. Both owned by billionaire Brexit-backers who are desperate not to get caught up in EU Anti Tax Avoidance law. Brexit will make a tiny minority of very rich people even richer and it'll make everyone else worse off.

Part of the Alleyn's 400 year celebrations. There's stuff on their website about it.

TheCat Wrote: ----------------------------------------------- > Other than to say, let's all remember this is a > forecast....it is not a fact. Yeah but you watch the weather forecast and plan activities, clothing etc around that because you know it'll be broadly factual. You might watch the stock market and know that most of the stuff going on there is again reasonably forecast able (if you know what you're looking for). Many games and sports you can sort of forecast the tactics if you're a keen follower of said sport and know the broad brush strokes of how it's played. Obviously there's a bit more luck involved but you can broadly expect a forecast in the right ball park from a decent sports pundit. But here it's just Project Fear? Here it's only a forecast and can safely be ignored because if you believe hard enough it'll surely all be alright? Weird.

Not sure any of this was written on the side of a bus.... https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831199/20190802_Latest_Yellowhammer_Planning_assumptions_CDL.pdf Yellowhammer papers - worst case scenarios of a no-deal Brexit. Not quite the unicorns and sunlit uplands is it? Doesn't look like we've regained much control of anything. Not sure that "sovereignity" puts food on the table or fuel in the car or medicines in the hospitals... Well done Leavers. Great work. Are you finally going to admit that you were all conned? Or do you still think all this is wonderful and just what the country needs? It's like someone who has been conned out of their life savings or pension and instead of being furious, is sitting there going "oh well I hope the scammer has a nice time on his holidays with my money".

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > diable rouge Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Boris Johnson rules out election pact with > Brexit > > Party. Senior Tory source: ''Neither Nigel > Farage > > nor Arron Banks are fit and proper persons and > > they should never be allowed anywhere near > > government'' > > > > That's quite the statement coming from the > driver > > of the Brexit clown car... > > And quite peculiar at this point in time. I wonder > why? The whole point of the "leaving the EU" referendum was to remove votes from Farage and UKIP and pull the right-wingers back to the Tory Party. Remain would win, the UKIP'ers would be shot down in flames, the Tories reinvigorated with all their former voters coming back from the UKIP / BNP / Farage wilderness and life could go on more or less as normal with the Tories quietly continuing to asset strip the country in the name of austerity. Sadly..... They're now terrified that Farage will take all their Leave votes. The remain votes have already gone to Lib Dem / Green and to a certain extent Labour which is why the Tories couldn't care less about Remain and are pushing their "leave no matter what" agenda because if they fail at that, all the Leave voters get fed up and disappear off to Farage. So now they're discrediting Farage as much as possible even though he was a useful ally to Boris in the Leave campaign. The smart thing to do now is to revoke Article 50. Remain would all come back and go "oh, you aren't that bad after all", Leave can safely be discounted cos they're in the minority now and Farage can take responsibility for the ultra-right wing lunatic branch which should have the effect of showing him up for what he is - a neo-Nazi thug albeit one who is marginally more educated than the Tommy Stephen Yaxley Robinson Lennon lot.

It's the Ordnance Survey aerial photography/mapping aircraft. Based out of East Midlands airport.

Agreed but added to that is the problem were now in where literally nothing "respects the result of the referendum" because it was never spelled out HOW we leave. With a deal (and if so what kind of deal) without a deal... Michael Gove said there's no chance of us leaving without a deal because we'll get a great deal. We were told that a deal would be "the easiest thing in human history". We were promised that we could stay in the single market. All sorts of random promises, statements, all of them total bollocks and none of them fully understood by the politicians and assorted hangers on making them or by the public hearing/reading them. May's deal didn't get rejected by traitorous Remoaners, it got rejected by ultra-hard Brexiteers for whom it wasn't hard enough (mostly because it still meant the UK would be bound by the new EU Anti Tax Avoidance laws). So until the Brexiteers can actually agree what "leave" means and until they can sell that idea to the public we can't leave! This is all it is to the tiny cabal of ultra-right-wing elites. A tax dodging measure so they can be even richer. There is no version of Brexit that benefits the general public in any way.

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But Sephiroth, you have just spent a week in > another EU country and said it was a blessed > relief. Why? > > As somebody who voted to Leave in the 2016 > Referendum I really don't think the UK should be > worried about how the EU are viewing us. I think the UK needs to be very worried about how not just the EU but the entire rest of the world is viewing us. Never before has a country voluntarily elected to make itself poorer, less influential, more isolated. Never before has a Government been shown to be so wildly incompentent. I mean, there are corrupt Governments, dictatorships etc but in a supposed democratic first-world nation, our Government has shown the world that it is composed almost entirely of a bunch of lying self-serving charlatans, spivs and incompetents. Newspapers all over the world are saying the same thing - countries are looking on in a mixture of sadness that a once-respected nation has sunk this low, incredulity that they're continuing on this course of action, and they're thinking - do we really want to do trade deals with these people, do we want them in collaborative porjects, do we want to use their services and goods, can we trust them? So yes, our world standing is vitally important to us.

Genuine question: What laws and rules are you looking forward to once we've left? What will you be able to do then that you can't do now? What aspects of your life will change for the better? What has the EU specifically done that has made your life worse?

Umm...he's kind of got a point about the traffic but NO, that is absolutely not appropriate for a lesson to teach you to look behind / around you and develop situational awareness. Nowhere even close to correct protocol. It's like saying "oh you've come to join the circus? Here's a whip, get in the lion cage!" I'd be talking to the training provider. To teach looking behind and signalling you go to a quiet (ideally completely closed) road, start off cycling straight and doing "glances" left/right then making it more of a look until finally you can cycle along looking over your shoulder and using visual references to the sides to maintain straight and level direction. Same with signalling, you start on the same road gently releasing one hand then slowly developing until you can hold it out to one side while maintaining direction. What he did was irresponsible at best. Hope you're OK and it's not put you off too much.

To be fair, aircraft are in constant development and it's not the airport that is responsible for what lands there, it's the airlines who run the routes in and out of the place who are constantly looking for quieter and more fuel efficient planes. The CS100 is now called that Airbus A220 (Airbus owning a majority stake in Bombardier) and the next size up, the Airbus A318 which is only allowed becasue it has steep approach capabilities (entry into LCY is about 5.5 degrees, compared to entry into Heathrow which is 3 degrees). That's it for "big" jets, the rest of it is still biz-jets, BAe 146 etc. And it doesn't allow helicopters - they mostly head off to Battersea.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would love that to be the case Blackcurrant but > it seems a little... um .... counter intuitive ? I'd say you're right, it's completely counter-intuitive since it means the buyer needs to factor in another ?100,000 just to get it to standard. It's not like moving into a property where everything is new(ish), functional etc but you just don't like the wallpaper. Some friends spent about 12 years doing this more or less as a business. Started off buying a tiny 2-bed flat on the cheap - did it up nicely (doing almost all the work themselves), sold it for a decent profit, spent the money on a slightly bigger property, repeated this process. They ended up with a lovely 4-bedroom house that they now live in. It was a huge amount of hard work, juggling it with a full-time job initially but they were both very good DIYers, had access to a lot of the tools, paint etc and they made it work. Helped by an upturn in the market and the area, one of their properties got them over ?50,000 in clear profit. The trick to selling is either to leave it as is and just say "needs extensive refurbishment" in which case the price won't be great unless it's an amazing location / unique house (there's a couple in the village that sold for big money even though they were in need of extensive modernisation just because they came onto the market so rarely) or to re-do it to a "plain" standard that is functional, safe and can be lived in while any further refurbishment is done "as and when" by the new buyer. Just need to price up the work that needs doing to bring it to that standard and the extra that you'll sell it for offset against when you want / need to move.

Link to a Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jul/15/invasion-electric-scooter-backlash and I guess this is The Observer one you refer to? From June though, not "yesterday" which in the course of this thread I assume to be Sunday 14th July... https://observer.com/2019/06/electric-scooter-injuries-study/ Personally I'd say the more small mobility devices there are over and above massive polluting mobility devices (cars...) the better. Our useless Governement is so paralysed over Brexit though that literally nothing esle is getting through Parliament. I was in Italy last summer, we were having a couple of drinks in a small bar on the corners of one of those lovely little residential, cobbled streets just watching the world go by. It was full of e-things. e-bikes (students, people doing the shopping, couples heading out for a ride along the river), e-scooters (seemed to be mostly kids but there were a few families too). Lovely atmosphere, quiet, peaceful - plenty of people strolling along unbothered by the little e-things which generally were fairly sedately ridden. I think in the entire time we were there we saw maybe half a dozen cars. It was so nice. It can work fine. The problem is that people see one death / injury and immediately start to invent laws banning them. Shame they don't do that with cars...

Look, there's one of them! Obviously not out on the streets raiding bins as it's learnt to use a computer! How do foxes take a dog for a walk? ;-)

http://www.uksteam.info/tours/trs19.htm Website of the scheduled steam tours. The Belmond (which is almost certainly what you saw) is based out of Victoria. If you're ever going through a station and see an unusually large crowd of people all with cameras and phones at the ready, chances are there's a steam train due through! London Underground do similar trips on a vintage tube train, usually out of Moorgate / Ealing Broadway. And finally, curry in Streatham, go to Taj Mahal, Leigham Court Road. More or less opposite Streatham Hill station which means a change at West Norwood if you're travelling to / from East Dulwich.

It is and London is some of the most protected and well-controlled airspace in western Europe. That said, emergency services (which is the majority of helicopter traffic around there) are exempt. Majority is still around 1000 - 1500ft; the sort of height where it can move relatively freely without cluttering up Gatwick and Heathrow radar and approaches. Track enough helicopters around there and you'll find a lot are in and out of Battersea Heliport but their descent pattern is almost always along the river. The idea of "Boris Island" airport (which has been around in one form or another since the late 1970s) was an alternative to expanding Heathrow, not a complete replacement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Estuary_Airport It'll never happen now. The best long term answer is actually to link other, smaller airports and use their capacity. HS2 could easily link Heathrow, Birmingham and Manchester airports - and once the HS2 spur goes up to there, Leeds-Bradford can hook in too. It's the most environmentally friendly option, it has the advantage that you're not reliant on ONE airport and it means you're not subjecting anyone to excessive noise because the load is spread around. It does rely on some good integrated project management though, lead at Government level and currently the Government is busy deciding which complete moron is going to wreck the country the quickest so who knows... *edited for spelling*

I avoided saying anything about fault, liability or blame because it would depend entirely on any incident. Who or what was hit by who, the injuries or damage suffered, the situation that lead to the incident and any other circumstances - for example is the bike roadworthy (other than the non-working or non-existent lights...). And of course the question of if it's sorted out by insurance or if it goes to court. There was a story in the papers only a couple of days ago about a cyclist / pedestrian collision - the pedestrian was on the phone and trying to cross on a red light; the cyclist had a green light and was doing about 12mph so not excessive but the judge still said it was 50:50 because once a pedestrian is in the road, they have priority regardless of what the traffic lights are showing. Although it still acknowledged that the pedestrian was half way liable for stepping out while distracted.