From: Brimstone on
"JNugent" <JN(a)> wrote in message
> Not many people have travelled into Central London (from outside it,
> obviously) for their grocery shopping since the days of Samuel Pepys,
> surely?
Is one suggesting that one does not shop at Fortnum & Mason (sniff)?

From: Brimstone on

"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)> wrote in message
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>>> He'd have gone to the NEC, GMEX or even Excel by bike, carrying power
>>> tools?
>> More likely by public transport.
> Have you ever been to Excel?

It it necessary?

AFAICS there are three DLR stations adjacent to the site, the underground is
a few minutes walk and there are a number of bus routes that pass the door.

>> AFAIR he left his tools at his current place of work, or had them
>> supplied. I don't recall him carrying them to and fro on a daily basis.
> Mmm. I don't think that's exactly viable these days... It might've been
> safe back in the days when a chippy only needed a hammer, a brace, and a
> hand-saw, but leave a multiple of grand of power tools kicking about?

I agree that life has changed more than somewhat since 1965, but we're
talking about travel, not the less than savoury habits of some people.

>> The NEC (assuming you mean the one near Brum) from west London is a bit
>> far for a daily commute, even by car and made worse by being utterly
>> boring.
> It's a lot nearer than GMEX is...

Indeed, but who would want to go to Manchester, for any reason?

From: Squashme on
On 21 May, 20:02, JNugent <J...(a)> wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 21 May, 16:00, JNugent <J...(a)> wrote:
> >> Squashme wrote:
> >>> ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.trac...(a)> wrote:
> >>>> Squashme <squas...(a)> wrote:
> >>>>> What would that be, for corner shops, and why can't corner shops do it
> >>>>> now? They have been around for a long time, after all.
> >>>> you cannot carry the variety if you only have a few hundred customers,
> >>>> corner shops are now places you nip out for the stuff you forgot, a
> >>>> paper or a bottle of wine and a lottery ticket.
> >>> How many meals can you eat? How much "variety" do you need? It's not
> >>> necessarily an improved diet.
> >> And you know best as to what other should and should not be eating, eh?
> > I probably know better than much of the population, and I'd guess that
> > you do too, unless you believe that people have a human right to
> > choose to be obese.
> Are you claiming that they don't?

Not unless buses are built bigger. And obese people in shopping malls
are unpleasing to the eye. They could surely find some more useful
ways of spending their money. Still, it's obvious why 4x4s became

> Are you the *only one* with rights, then?

I'm a cyclist. I don't have rights.

> PS: Ever seen "Nuts In May"? You really do remind me of Roger Sloman's
> character "Keith" - with his censorious attitude to the chav campers who cook
> sausages for breakfast.

Could be worse.

You should try censorious sometime, you could probably hack it.
From: Squashme on
On 21 May, 20:00, JNugent <J...(a)> wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 21 May, 16:14, JNugent <J...(a)> wrote:
> >> ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 18:05:22 +0100, JNugent
> >>> <J...(a)> wrote:
> >>>> Bluewater, rather like its older "twin", Lakeside, doesn't actually sell
> >>>> groceries.
> >>> wrong, I go to the John Lewis food Hall there (Waitrose in all but
> >>> name)
> >> There's a M%S food section as well.
> >> No competition for Asda and Tesco there, eh?
> >>>> For that reason both Lakeside and Bluewater are analagous to an old-fashioned
> >>>> city centre (catering for what geographers call "high-order shopping"),
> >>>> rather than to inner-suburban high streets ("low-order shopping" - especially
> >>>> groceries etc).
> >>> wrong, they are not in centres of population like a city centre, they
> >>> are not at the hub of the PT network, you have to drive there. I've
> >>> tried Bluewater PT, it stops before the cimema complex closes.
> >> No, you are wrong in saying "wrong", because I did not make the claims you
> >> attribute to me. I agree that PT at Lakeside and Bluewater is less than
> >> optimal. Just like it is everywhere else, in fact (with the possible
> >> exception of central London). Did you miss the word "analagous", or just its
> >> meaning?
> >> Those centres were designed for the car-borne customer. They are successful
> >> because (among other things), families in cars are treated abominably by
> >> local authorities.
> > What precisely should the councils do to improve the treatment? Would
> > the victimised motor-families be willing to pay for it?
> Visitors to town centres and other inner-urban (certainly including those
> whoe aim is to spend money there) should be allowed to get in and out of town
> without hassle, for a start. That means no obstructions, no petty
> restrictions, no deliberate delays, no "discouragement" and no general air of
> surliness such as one currently gets (and has had for some years) from those
> whose jobs are actually supposed to be to help, though they interpret that as
> "hinder".
> Then there's car-parking. The councils should remember that they need the
> visitors more than the visitors need them.

Assuming that they do behave thus, why do you think that they do?
Motiveless malignity?
From: Squashme on
On 21 May, 19:33, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-> wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 20 May, 19:35, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-
> >> wrote:
> >> Squashme wrote:
> >>> On 20 May, 18:28, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> JNugent wrote:
> >>>>> Derek C wrote:
> >>>>> [snip]
> >>>>>> The answer to Labour's hatred of motorists is quite simple.
> >>>>>> Railways, buses and other form of public transport are highly
> >>>>>> unionised and the trade unions are their major source of income.
> >>>>>> Also they still live in a time warp dating back to the early part
> >>>>>> of the twentieth century, when only rich toffs drove cars. The
> >>>>>> proleteriat rode bikes, used buses or travelled 3rd class on
> >>>>>> railways.
> >>>>> It's part of the answer, but not all of it.
> >>>>> The further answer is that Labour has always been wedded to
> >>>>> quasi-religious views of the world, with pat faux-rationalisations
> >>>>> and prescriptions for every social phenomenon.
> >>>>> You can see the advantage. Once formulated, the "catechism" can
> >>>>> easily be imparted to the ultra-faithful (councillors, senior
> >>>>> officer of councils, etc) and disseminated to the more docile
> >>>>> sections of the population who prefer to let Labour do their
> >>>>> thinking for them. The 'Boxer' effect...
> >>>>>> Many bicycles these days are actually very expensive fashion
> >>>>>> accessories for rich yuppies. The middle and lower classes now
> >>>>>> drive around in cars, because this is the most practical way of
> >>>>>> getting around and doing your shopping, now little local corner
> >>>>>> shops have mostly been closed down in favour of our-of-town
> >>>>>> supermarkets...
> >>>>> ...though only because they are an improvement on the corner shop
> >>>>> (something a true believer absolutely *will not* hear).
> >>>> Stores like Tesco Express wil be the final nail in the coffin for
> >>>> the corner shop - and quite right too.
> >>> Aren't you a "corner shop"?
> >> I'm a small independant trader yes, but not in retail.
> >> Several large companies have tried to lauch handyman services &
> >> failed. B&Q for one.
> >> I'm more efficient at giving the customer what they want. Corner
> >> shops aren't.
> > What would that be, for corner shops, and why can't corner shops do it
> > now? They have been around for a long time, after all.
> They simply didn't - or couldn't respond to a changing market.  Tesco et al
> are incredibly successful because they know what their customers want &
> provide it.

How many corner shops could become a Tesco's?
Big fierce animals are rare.