Insuflo

Ah. So, LTNs in Dulwich Village ward were not an issue in the local elections in Dulwich Village ward in 2022? It was all about getting the Tory government out in the General Election, which happened two years later? If LTNs were not an issue in 2022, it’s perhaps because there was no great opposition to them. Any serious discontent would surely have been reflected in votes for anti-LTN candidates. But the Conservative vote went down by 6% (over the 2018 result) and the Labour/ Greens vote rose by over 7.5%.

I am truly loath to engage with your petty line of argument. Nevertheless, in the 2022 local elections, Dulwich Village ward returned 2 Labour councillors. On a 60.6% turnout, approximately 70% of the votes were cast for pro-LTN candidates (Labour, Lib Dem & Greens). I’m presuming that the Lib Dems were pro-LTNs, I don’t recall but even if we exclude them, the majority of votes in DV ward were taken by Labour and Greens candidates combined. In a respectably high turnout for a council election. In an election that various shouty types touted as a referendum on LTNs. So, fairly bleedingly (sic) obviously, the majority of people in Dulwich Village support LTNs.

The link below has further information suggesting that the shop demolition and square redevelopment is funded separately from the station upgrades, so will go ahead: https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/peckham-rye-stations-step-free-upgrade-has-been-put-on-hold-82360/

Thank you. Exclusive to all Papers, as they say in Private Eye. The story has now been covered by the Evening Standard but they also have a story about LU offering the branding of the entire Waterloo & City Line to commercial sponsors; they are running this as “Exclusive”, despite the fact that I read it on a London blog last week. They claim it to be “the latest cash generating initiative” despite it being widely touted when I was working for LU 25 years ago. I choose not to see a hidden conspiracy in this discrepancy.

The list of projects on the Railway Gazette link talks about “Peckham Rye congestion relief “ being delayed; is this the same as the redevelopment of the square in front? Or is it internal changes to the station? Is there separate funding for the two or is it all one project?

But you haven’t given any coherent reasons for questioning the research. Your obsession with the “Exclusive” tag on the Guardian article is just baffling. Take it up with the journalist or his subeditor. I came to the Guardian article via someone I follow on Bluesky (Christian Wolmar) posting a link. Despite being a Guardian reader every day for decades, I would never have come across the article otherwise. It never, as far as I can see, appeared on the Guardian home page or was run with any kind of prominence. So, the Graun is hardly trumpeting their exclusive. As the metrics show, it was available to other news outlets if they wished to pick it up.

In layman’s terms, I’d say: the war’s over, you lost. LTN’s result in cleaner air and safer streets; they are here to stay. Also, the BMJ Injury Prevention site also gives metrics for where the release of this research has been picked up and discussed: so far, 5 news outlets, 80 Bluesky threads and 22 X (Twitter) threads, both supportive and critical. All very transparent: https://bmj.altmetric.com/details/179050444

You certainly are. They’re not raisins, please don’t eat them.

Is it dark in that rabbit hole?

This is an interesting read: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/londons-low-traffic-zones-cut-deaths-and-injuries-by-more-than-a-third?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

The White Horse on Peckham Rye does various deals on evenings during the week: https://www.whitehorsepeckham.co.uk/drinks/

Don’t know about cafes but the Victoria and Montpelier pubs always have always encouraged people working during the day.

My spidey senses tell me sarcasm is dead.

“A bombshell…thrown into disarray…will send shockwaves through” Blimey. Where did the SN journo do her apprenticeship? The Daily Sketch? I thought writing like that went out with the Winter of Discontent. I believe nothing until I read it in the South London Press.

They posted on Twitter (@lb_southwark) yesterday morning to say that they were closed because they had no water. Thames Water has got the road up right opposite. I can’t find any updates, sorry.

Looks like there’s going to be a park lake bridge going spare soon. Dulwich should get first dibs on it; it’s what she would’ve wanted. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8g98zxgg6o

It’s not a listed building, is it? I can’t find any record of it being listed.

I beg to differ; it was on the original pressing.

I’m not getting into this. I don’t want to be Shot by Both Sides.

It does seem a common business strategy these days. River Island has just announced a similar restructuring: closing 33 shops and demanding that the landlords of a further 71 locations take a haircut.

If you owe the bank £100, you’ve got a problem. If you owe the bank £100 million, then the bank’s got a problem. It’s the same principle.

It’s being reported that Poundland has written to all its landlords stating that they will stop paying rent until all leases can be renegotiated at a lower rate.

That all makes sense, actually.

I see. But as I read it, Tesco would still need the agreement of the owners/ leaseholder to submit proposals, so would need Poundland’s cooperation? I suppose we’ll have to wait while this plays out. There’s applications re this site on the Southwark planning portal dating back over 70 years. In 1954, Woolworth’s applied to convert the original 4 shops here (Nos 29-35) into one Woolies but the council refused because the flats above the shops would be lost and there was a local housing shortage following the war. Small businesses being displaced by big chains on Lordship Lane was already a trend back then.

What this town needs is a monorail! Yesiree!