| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/4296968.stm That map looks all wrong, but I don't have time right now to pick the bones out of it. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
"John Rowland" wrote in message http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/4296968.stm That map looks all wrong, but I don't have time right now to pick the bones out of it. The detailed map is available he http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/cc-ex/maps.shtml The charge will end half an hour earlier at 1800 apparently. Ian |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
So even more people now can't drive to work in the week, but can't use
the tube at the weekend, requiring both a car and expensive train tickets. |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
Paul Weaver wrote:
So even more people now can't drive to work in the week, but can't use the tube at the weekend, requiring both a car and expensive train tickets. Very few people in that part of London *require* a car. It is a lifestyle choice, not a necessity for the most part. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632911.html (Skye seen through mist and low cloud from Kyle of Lochalsh in 1999) |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:21:56 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote: Paul Weaver wrote: So even more people now can't drive to work in the week, but can't use the tube at the weekend, requiring both a car and expensive train tickets. Very few people in that part of London *require* a car. It is a lifestyle choice, not a necessity for the most part. Quite a few, like me, drive *out* of that tax-grab area against any congestion in the zone, right into congestion around it - westway west-bound for example, Scrubs Lane, all those nice roads which would have more traffic after the area is Kengested and will have even more when the ShepBush mega shopping-opolis (conveniently avoided by the expansion) opens next year. See this for what it is: more tax. Some value is returned in better buses but the whole cost is excessive and fares are still too high. Cars are still required by families and odd-hours workers. The smart way to reduce congestion (not that this expansion has it, 5% of the area at most has congestion) is to close off zones and reduce flow. Classic example Hammersmith bridge. Close it and traffic "evaporates". But hi-tech cameras and 50mi/year "costs" are much more fun than closures and pinching. -- New anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
"Colum Mylod" wrote in message
... The smart way to reduce congestion (not that this expansion has it, 5% of the area at most has congestion) is to close off zones and reduce flow. Classic example Hammersmith bridge. Close it and traffic "evaporates". Er... not quite. I remember a miserable afternoon spent trying to get from Barnes to Hanwell. It should have been a doddle using Hammersmith Bridge, but it was then closed for repairs (is it still closed, or closed again?). Using Chiswick Bridge (the westerly nexus of the North and South Circular Roads) was excruciating because Hammersmith Bridge was closed. The traffic certainly does not "evaporate", even if the residents of the approach roads (some of whom seem very self-centred over this issue) think it does. It simply goes elsewhere (because it has to). I remember a saying my grandmother frequently used - "full bellies never think of empty ones". |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
JNugent wrote:
"Colum Mylod" wrote in message ... The smart way to reduce congestion (not that this expansion has it, 5% of the area at most has congestion) is to close off zones and reduce flow. Classic example Hammersmith bridge. Close it and traffic "evaporates". Er... not quite. I remember a miserable afternoon spent trying to get from Barnes to Hanwell. It should have been a doddle using Hammersmith Bridge, but it was then closed for repairs (is it still closed, or closed again?). It's open, and has been IIRC for at least 4 years. Using Chiswick Bridge (the westerly nexus of the North and South Circular Roads) ... Those two roads actually meet at Chiswick Roundabout, and the South Circular Road crosses the river via Kew Bridge. Chiswick Bridge carries the A316, the link to the M3. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
"Richard J." wrote...
JNugent wrote: "Colum Mylod" wrote: The smart way to reduce congestion (not that this expansion has it, 5% of the area at most has congestion) is to close off zones and reduce flow. Classic example Hammersmith bridge. Close it and traffic "evaporates". Er... not quite. I remember a miserable afternoon spent trying to get from Barnes to Hanwell. It should have been a doddle using Hammersmith Bridge, but it was then closed for repairs (is it still closed, or closed again?). It's open, and has been IIRC for at least 4 years. Good - though I'm sure I recall a proposal that it should be closed again - and a campaign by Castelnau residents that it should not be reopened after those extenive repairs. Using Chiswick Bridge (the westerly nexus of the North and South Circular Roads) ... Those two roads actually meet at Chiswick Roundabout, and the South Circular Road crosses the river via Kew Bridge. Chiswick Bridge carries the A316, the link to the M3. Quite right - it was Kew Bridge I meant. |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
Very few people in that part of London *require* a car. It is a
lifestyle choice, not a necessity for the most part. Aside from people that work outside the train/tube hours (i.e. start before 9AM on a sunday). I'm thinking about nurses at Chelsea & Westminster Hospital for example. Basically unless you work government hours you're forced to risk a dangerous night bus that takes 3 times longer than a car, and that assumes there's a direct bus from where you live to where you work, highly unlikely. I'm writing this at 02:31 on a Monday morning, from work, just outside the new extension area. Won't affect me directly as I live west of London. Many of my collegues will have to take a new route in though, along more congested roads. While I'm just outside the zone, If the building was 800 yards East we'd be in it. It's going to cause enough problems with added traffic arround the bush at lunchtime (when some of my shifts start - yes, the shopping centre wont help either). FYI the last tube east from work on a Sunday is 2327, the last train west 0005. Not much good when you finish at 0030. But journeys in the zone will speed up by 5 minutes. Assuming 2 journeys per day, for an £8 cost, the point of the zone is to make life easier for people on more than £48 an hour. Ken - the rich man's mayor. |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
Colum Mylod wrote:
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:21:56 GMT, Chris Tolley Paul Weaver wrote: So even more people now can't drive to work in the week, but can't use the tube at the weekend, requiring both a car and expensive train tickets. Very few people in that part of London *require* a car. It is a lifestyle choice, not a necessity for the most part. Quite a few, like me, drive ... Cars are still required by families If true, one wonders how anyone ever managed before. But since people plainly did manage before, perhaps it isn't a necessity, but a lifestyle choice. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9767296.html (4TC unit 8001 on the Weymouth Tramway on 31 Dec 1989) |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
In article ,
Chris Tolley writes: Colum Mylod wrote: On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:21:56 GMT, Chris Tolley Paul Weaver wrote: So even more people now can't drive to work in the week, but can't use the tube at the weekend, requiring both a car and expensive train tickets. Very few people in that part of London *require* a car. It is a lifestyle choice, not a necessity for the most part. Quite a few, like me, drive ... Cars are still required by families If true, one wonders how anyone ever managed before. But since people plainly did manage before, perhaps it isn't a necessity, but a lifestyle choice. It's a positive feedback loop. People get cars, so they use services further away, which means services tend to get concentrated around places people can drive to rather than where they can walk to, so services aren't local any more, so people get cars. Not a lifestyle choice at all; just reaction to economic stimuli. -- SAm. |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
Paul Weaver wrote:
forced to risk a dangerous night bus That's nonsense, and you know it. Night buses may be less than ideal, but they are not per se dangerous. We don't live in a US movie dystopia. You are starting with the unproven assumption that transport is necessary at all. People do not generally *have to* live so far from their place of employment. The main reason that there is transport congestion is that there are too many people on the move. They may have all sorts of reasons for choosing to live and work where they do, but in our society, that's exactly what it is in the vast majority of cases, a choice. (AIH, in my case, there isn't a choice. my house, is supplied by my employer, and is next to the building where I do a lot of my work.) -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9767304.html (4TC units 418 and 422 and men with red flags at Weymouth Quay, 1985) |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
"Sam Nelson" wrote in message ... In article , Chris Tolley writes: Colum Mylod wrote: On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:21:56 GMT, Chris Tolley Paul Weaver wrote: So even more people now can't drive to work in the week, but can't use the tube at the weekend, requiring both a car and expensive train tickets. Very few people in that part of London *require* a car. It is a lifestyle choice, not a necessity for the most part. Quite a few, like me, drive ... Cars are still required by families If true, one wonders how anyone ever managed before. But since people plainly did manage before, perhaps it isn't a necessity, but a lifestyle choice. It's a positive feedback loop. People get cars, so they use services further away, which means services tend to get concentrated around places people can drive to rather than where they can walk to, so services aren't local any more, so people get cars. Not a lifestyle choice at all; just reaction to economic stimuli. The first three words of your second sentence destroy your conclusion. |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
Sam Nelson wrote:
It's a positive feedback loop. People get cars, so they use services further away, which means services tend to get concentrated around places people can drive to rather than where they can walk to, so services aren't local any more, so people get cars. Not a lifestyle choice at all; just reaction to economic stimuli. I didn't get a car until I was 40. I managed fine until then. I wouldn't have a car now if it were not for that fact I had been told that my employment would require it. Some people are told to get a car for their job, but the majority of drivers made a choice to get one. You note this in the first few words of your second sentence, but go on to dispute that it is a lifestyle choice. I feel I'm on fairly safe ground asserting that most people who learn to drive make the decision to do so before they are 20, which is before the things you point to are likely to matter to most of them at all. There's joined-up thinking in your response, but not enough to convince. |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 10:44:09 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote: Quite a few, like me, drive ... Cars are still required by families If true, one wonders how anyone ever managed before. But since people plainly did manage before, perhaps it isn't a necessity, but a lifestyle choice. You've sort of got the choice to opt out of the society your kids, school, outside activities etc. exist in. But only sort of. Like you sort of have the choice to buy your kids Clarke's sandals instead of trainers :-) |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:07:50 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote: I didn't get a car until I was 40. I managed fine until then. I wouldn't have a car now if it were not for that fact I had been told that my employment would require it. So does it require it, or doesn't it? If you were misinformed, rejoice and sell it. |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:07:50 GMT, Chris Tolley I didn't get a car until I was 40. I managed fine until then. I wouldn't have a car now if it were not for that fact I had been told that my employment would require it. So does it require it, or doesn't it? In general, with a city location, in and of itself, it does not. But I am working in what most people regard as a rural location, and that tips the balance the other way. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10934302.html (the Gornergrat Railway, Switzerland) |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
"Chris Tolley" wrote in message Paul Weaver wrote: forced to risk a dangerous night bus That's nonsense, and you know it. Night buses may be less than ideal, but they are not per se dangerous. We don't live in a US movie dystopia. You are starting with the unproven assumption that transport is necessary at all. People do not generally *have to* live so far from their place of employment. The main reason that there is transport congestion is that there are too many people on the move. They may have all sorts of reasons for choosing to live and work where they do, but in our society, that's exactly what it is in the vast majority of cases, a choice. (AIH, in my case, there isn't a choice. my house, is supplied by my employer, and is next to the building where I do a lot of my work.) I wonder why so many people are travelling to work at all. I heard on the TV last week that 1 in 9 people work from home now broadband is widely available, although many people in non computer jobs have been working from home for years. Yet the trains are over crowded in the morning going into London. Traffic congestion seems to get worse everywhere. Where are all of these people going? Ian |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
Colum Mylod wrote:
The smart way to reduce congestion (not that this expansion has it, 5% of the area at most has congestion) is to close off zones and reduce flow. Classic example Hammersmith bridge. Close it and traffic "evaporates". Traffic might have evaporated from Castlenau/Lonsdale Road and the surrounding roads to the south of the bridge. But, it miraculously condensed on neighbouring bridges, with Putney seeing most of the increases, although Chiswick and Kew were affected. While it was a great boost to the quality of life to many in the area to the south of the Bridge, closing Hammersmith Bridge was not a "victimless crime". Tolling the bridges, though - that's not an idea much mentioned. Given the voracious traffic wardens in Wandsworth, especially, tolling the bridges would bring in a whole wedge of new revenue. |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
In article , Huge says...
Jesus Christ but you're dumb. How do people as dumb as you achieve adiulthood? Perhaps you could enlighten us from your own personal experience? -- Conor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
Huge wrote:
I didn't get a car until I was 40. I managed fine until then. So that makes it OK for you to tell other people how they should live their lives? If you'll kindly tell me where I gave *anyone* any instructions on how to live their lives, then I'll recant. Has it occured to you that other people are not your property? Has it occurred to you that it is possible to post to a newsgroup without being insolent? -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9767225.html (APT 370 004 at Crewe in 1979 - when even snazzy liveries were simple) |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
Huge wrote:
I look forward to hearing that you've died of typhoid What a strange ambition to have. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p11654414.html (Over-powered? 143 566 on push-pull duty at Birkenwirder, Berlin, 1999) |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
Huge wrote:
How do people as dumb as you achieve adiulthood? If you tell me what adiulthood is, I might be able to help you. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9925977.html (319 381 descending the 1 in 27 leaving London Blackfriars in 2004) |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
Huge wrote:
Chris Tolley writes: Paul Weaver wrote: forced to risk a dangerous night bus That's nonsense, and you know it. Night buses may be less than ideal, but they are not per se dangerous. We don't live in a US movie dystopia. You are starting with the unproven assumption that transport is necessary at all. People do not generally *have to* live so far from their place of employment. The main reason that there is transport congestion is that there are too many people on the move. They may have all sorts of reasons for choosing to live and work where they do, but in our society, that's exactly what it is in the vast majority of cases, a choice. Jesus Christ but you're dumb. How do people as dumb as you achieve adiulthood? A Person chooses to live in place A but to live in place B. Very few of us are obligated in where we work and where we live so very few of us have no choice in planning our daily travel. While the example of nurses at the Chelsea and Westminster is slightly extreme in that there is very little affordable housing within walking distance of that bit of the Fulham Road - it is disingenuous to say that there is none. If you can choose, you have different options. Commuting is a lifestyle choice, same as what make your TV is, which supermarket you buy your groceries from and which newspaper you buy in the morning. People choose to live some distance from their work, it is not thrust upon them by some dictat from the government. If a nurse decides that they cannot safely or economically work at a hospital in the congestion charging zone, I'm sure that they'll be able to find work in countless other hospitals around the country. If that hospital suffers longer term trouble because of it, I'm sure we can rely on the press to highlight the causes. Meantime there are several night buses that go directly outside the Chelsea and Westminster hospital to cheaper parts of town (where more normal people live) - and in barely less time than it would take to drive and certainly cheaper. |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
"Huge" wrote in message
... How many times did you have to hit yourself over the head in order to become this stupid? Perhaps you *really* want to go back to a world without electricity, refrigeration, immunisation, mains drainage, etc., etc., etc, and ... personal transportation. There is very little need to run a car on a regular basis if you live within a few miles of central London - "The roads of Britain are clogged with small, peroxided women in sunglasses, driving children a quarter of a mile to school in vehicles designed to cross the Sahara." (Iain Murray) Ian |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
In message , Laurence Payne
writes On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:07:50 GMT, Chris Tolley wrote: I didn't get a car until I was 40. I managed fine until then. I wouldn't have a car now if it were not for that fact I had been told that my employment would require it. So does it require it, or doesn't it? If you were misinformed, rejoice and sell it. Not quite the same thing I know but two jobs I've had over the years both specifically required the successful candidate to have a driving *licence*. not once in either job was I required to drive. -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:07:43 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote: Not quite the same thing I know but two jobs I've had over the years both specifically required the successful candidate to have a driving *licence*. not once in either job was I required to drive. -- Why quote-marks around "licence"? |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:34:40 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote: How do people as dumb as you achieve adiulthood? If you tell me what adiulthood is, I might be able to help you. Chris spotted a typo! Chris spotted a typo! Chris spotted... |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:17:51 GMT, "Ian"
wrote: I wonder why so many people are travelling to work at all. I heard on the TV last week that 1 in 9 people work from home now broadband is widely available, although many people in non computer jobs have been working from home for years. Yet the trains are over crowded in the morning going into London. Traffic congestion seems to get worse everywhere. Where are all of these people going? Are we wrongly connecting "1 in 9 work from home" with "now bb is widely available"? I doubt that 10% of employed workers work from home. I'd believe that a lot of people lose their jobs and have a go at self-employment. |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
|
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:07:43 +0100, Ian Jelf wrote: Not quite the same thing I know but two jobs I've had over the years both specifically required the successful candidate to have a driving *licence*. not once in either job was I required to drive. -- Why quote-marks around "licence"? They were asterisks indicating emphasis, not quote-marks. Does Forte Agent misinterpret them? -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:34:40 GMT, Chris Tolley wrote: How do people as dumb as you achieve adiulthood? If you tell me what adiulthood is, I might be able to help you. Chris spotted a typo! Chris spotted a typo! Chris spotted... Among other things. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9680311.html (82 002 between duties at Coventry in 1977) |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
"Chris Tolley" wrote...
Paul Weaver wrote: forced to risk a dangerous night bus That's nonsense, and you know it. Night buses may be less than ideal, but they are not per se dangerous. We don't live in a US movie dystopia. You are starting with the unproven assumption that transport is necessary at all. People do not generally *have to* live so far from their place of employment. You are so right. If only all the £25K - £30K functionaries of central government and the London local authorities would shake off this morbid desire they all have to live in the shadow of Dagenham gasworks or Greenford "leisure" centre and just buy flats in the West End, the City and Kensington, eh? The main reason that there is transport congestion is that there are too many people on the move. They may have all sorts of reasons for choosing to live and work where they do, but in our society, that's exactly what it is in the vast majority of cases, a choice. (AIH, in my case, there isn't a choice. my house, is supplied by my employer, and is next to the building where I do a lot of my work.) And those who are not in such a fortunate position - what sort of cake do you suggest they should be let eat? |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
"JNugent" wrote in message ... "Chris Tolley" wrote... Paul Weaver wrote: forced to risk a dangerous night bus That's nonsense, and you know it. Night buses may be less than ideal, but they are not per se dangerous. We don't live in a US movie dystopia. You are starting with the unproven assumption that transport is necessary at all. People do not generally *have to* live so far from their place of employment. You are so right. If only all the £25K - £30K functionaries of central government and the London local authorities would shake off this morbid desire they all have to live in the shadow of Dagenham gasworks or Greenford "leisure" centre and just buy flats in the West End, the City and Kensington, eh? The main reason that there is transport congestion is that there are too many people on the move. They may have all sorts of reasons for choosing to live and work where they do, but in our society, that's exactly what it is in the vast majority of cases, a choice. (AIH, in my case, there isn't a choice. my house, is supplied by my employer, and is next to the building where I do a lot of my work.) And those who are not in such a fortunate position - what sort of cake do you suggest they should be let eat? Do you really consider it fortunate that when leaving your job you also have no option but to find somewhere else to live? |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
"Brimstone" wrote...
"JNugent" wrote: "Chris Tolley" wrote... [ ... ] You are starting with the unproven assumption that transport is necessary at all. People do not generally *have to* live so far from their place of employment. You are so right. If only all the £25K - £30K functionaries of central government and the London local authorities would shake off this morbid desire they all have to live in the shadow of Dagenham gasworks or Greenford "leisure" centre and just buy flats in the West End, the City and Kensington, eh? ... too many people on the move. They may have all sorts of reasons for choosing to live and work where they do, but in our society, that's exactly what it is in the vast majority of cases, a choice. (AIH, in my case, there isn't a choice. my house, is supplied by my employer, and is next to the building where I do a lot of my work.) And those who are not in such a fortunate position - what sort of cake do you suggest they should be let eat? Do you really consider it fortunate that when leaving your job you also have no option but to find somewhere else to live? It all rather depends on the terms offered. It happens to more people than you might think - including my family when I was a boy. Many such workers nowadays buy a property of their own which they let out, in order to have a bolt-hole if they need it (modern landlord-tenant law quite properly allows for a tenancy to be determined within six months if the property is needed as a home for the owner). |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
In message , Laurence Payne
writes On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:07:43 +0100, Ian Jelf wrote: Not quite the same thing I know but two jobs I've had over the years both specifically required the successful candidate to have a driving *licence*. not once in either job was I required to drive. -- Why quote-marks around "licence"? Because I was making the point that they only wanted a qualified driver, not necessarily someone with a car. -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:32:04 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote: Why quote-marks around "licence"? They were asterisks indicating emphasis, not quote-marks. Does Forte Agent misinterpret them? -- So they were. On this screen they're very similar. Sorry. |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
JNugent wrote:
"Colum Mylod" wrote in message The smart way to reduce congestion (not that this expansion has it, 5% of the area at most has congestion) is to close off zones and reduce flow. Classic example Hammersmith bridge. Close it and traffic "evaporates". Er... not quite. I remember a miserable afternoon spent trying to get from Barnes to Hanwell. It should have been a doddle using Hammersmith Bridge, but it was then closed for repairs (is it still closed, or closed again?). ... The traffic certainly does not "evaporate", even if the residents of the approach roads (some of whom seem very self-centred over this issue) think it does. It simply goes elsewhere (because it has to). No. Of course some goes elsewhere, but some evaporates too. People choose not to travel or not to drive. The stats show it. The effect increases over time as people move house or change jobs. Similarly most of the traffic that now occupies the M25 didn't exist before the motorway was built. Colin McKenzie |
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
|
London Congestion charge spreads westward in 2007
JNugent wrote:
And those who are not in such a fortunate position - what sort of cake do you suggest they should be let eat? ITYF it's brioche; cake is a mistranslation. If you are going to make a point, I think it might be best to make it without resorting to sarcasm. I'm happy to debate anything I said, and correct it if necessary, but you'll need to make a case. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9680391.html (Hauling cakes? 92 034 Kipling heads south through Longsight in 2004.) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk