Jump to content

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, march46 said:

That’s such a depressing photo with so many cars blocking the pavement, isn’t it illegal in London?

No, not on roads designated as having pavement parking (there are a handful, typically in very narrow two-way residential roads quite far from any public transport where car ownership may particularly necessary e.g. for elderly or infirm residents ). I recognise this as one of them. Otherwise Southwark officials are particularly keen on booking cars with even part of one tyre on the pavement.

3 hours ago, Soylent Green said:

The sense of entitlement is in the marque of car.

Just to annoy - and it is the 'unentitled' marque of car (and their owners) which the ULEZ extension is particularly targeting - modest (working) people with modest cars aren't wanted here. Only the wealthy, with expensive modern cars. You might argue. 

  • Like 1

When I was at university, the facilities staff used to put warning notices on the windscreens of cars that were parked inconsiderately. These notices were printed on very sticky full A4 sized labels and were a nightmare to peel off, especially if it had rained after the sheet had been stuck to the windscreen. Just saying.....

  • Like 3

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Money has to be raised in order to slow the almost terminal decline of public services bought on through years of neglect under the last government. There is no way to raise taxes that does not have some negative impacts / trade offs. But if we want public services and infrastructure that work then raise taxes we must.  Personally I'm glad that she is has gone some way to narrowing the inheritance loop hole which was being used by rich individuals (who are not farmers) to avoid tax. She's slightly rebalanced the burden away from the young, putting it more on wealthier pensioners (who let's face it, have been disproportionately protected for many, many years). And the NICs increase, whilst undoubtedly inflationary, won't be directly passed on (some will, some will likely be absorbed by companies); it's better than raising it on employees, which would have done more to depress growth. Overall, I think she's sailed a prudent course through very choppy waters. The electorate needs to get serious... you can't have European style services and US levels of tax. Borrowing for tax cuts, Truss style, it is is not.
    • Labour was right not to increase fuel duty - it's not just motorists it affects, but goods transport. Fuel goes up, inflation goes up. Inflation will go up now anyway, and growth will stagnate, because businesses will pass the employee NIC hikes onto customers.  I think farms should be exempt from the 20% IHT. I don't know any rich famers, only ones who work their fingers to the bone. But it's in their blood and taking that, often multi-generation, legacy out of the family is heart-breaking. Many work to such low yields, and yet they'll often still bring a lamb to the vet, even if the fees are more than the lamb's life (or death) is worth. Food security should be made a top priority in this country. And, even tho the tax is only for farms over £1m, that's probably not much when you add it all up. I think every incentive should be given to young people who want to take up the mantle. 
    • This link mau already have been posted but if not olease aign & share this petition - https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-closure-of-east-dulwich-post-office
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...