El Presidente

A cynical data harvesting exercise that has no public policy making value whatsoever. Thankfully the unanimous response of the forum is to see through this. The Lib Dems should be ashamed of themselves. And just for clarity. NO

It is true Costa are the best of a bad bunch when it comes to chain coffee. But their offering is so inferior to the many brilliant coffee shops in East Dulwich. The Brick House, Kanella and Tart to name but 3 do really, really great coffee. But if Nero's is anything to go by, people prefer familiarity to quality. It's always busy, despite serving the least inspiring, most insipid coffee in the whole of LL. So as much as i won't set foot in the new Costa, if they do open in the londis site, i suspect they will do well.

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So lets condense these postings : Don't give them > anything because they are loaded/drug fiends/ > alcoholics/smokers/ users of an over priced coffee > shop but donate to cat charities instead. > > all heart all the time. Of course far better to show your 'heart' by giving drug addicts the means to buy more drugs and eventually kill themselves. As long as you can tell people what a 'good' person you are, that's all that matters to people like you.

RubyGraeme Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They are brothers, and not homeless. I know they > have housing, and their lovely mum lives round the > corner from me. They have alcohol and drug > addiction problems. I think their mum would be > horrified if she knew. They used to pester her for > money but that seems to have stopped, obviously > they're making enough from asking for money > outside M&S. They had a brother until five or six > years ago who died from circumstances to do with > his addictions, very sad. Say "Hello, Chris" or > Hello, Danny" but please don't give them any > money. Perfectly put.

Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have a heart guys, > > Crushing cuts and austerity measures (whatever tf > that means....) means there's increasing levels of > people in unfortunate circumstances and on the > streets. Yes, that means it's more visible, even > in cutesy Dulwich and yes, even outside of M&S, > and - I've got more news - it's only going to get > more apparent as public services are dismantled > further. > > OP, if you do want to do something, you could ask > if you can get the person anything while you're in > the store (warning; this might lead to a > conversation and you realising the person is > human). If you want to assuage the guilt > conveniently without having to converse, drop > something into the Foodbank box, or give to a > local hostel or charity directly. If you can't > donate money or you'd rather not, get involved > with campaigning for better support, volunteer, > contact your Councillor, visit the surgery, write > to an MP, anything. Just don't get involved with > hateful stirrings on the internet :) Professional begging has nothing whatsoever to do with so called 'crushing cuts'. It is a business like behaviour exploiting people like you who feel the need to 'assuage the guilt'. There is nothing to be guilty about by avoiding giving money to scam artists who divert cash from other much better causes. Even homeless charities warn against giving to these kind of people.

Clearly a professional begging syndicate operating in the area. And clearly a profitable one judging by all the people on here who give them money just so they can feel a bit better about themselves.

Ghosts do not exist. *Thread closed*

> > I would be interested in your alternative > proposal? I would propose a phased approach that was proportionate to the risk. The consultation puts two broad three proposals for tightening the rules. Those that affect heavy vehicles only would reduce emissions, affects the most polluting vehicles and targets primarily those who choose to drive into the area. These should be supported. Those that affect light vehicles should be scaled back. The fairest solution would be to allow an exemption for residents while the policy was evaluated. This would put choice at the heart of the proposal. It would still improve air quality as it would deter those who choose to drive into the zone, without penalising those who live in the area and have no choice. The impact of these changes should be evaluated before deciding whether a further tightening was necessary.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Calsug, > Air pollution hits the poorest the most. In > Southwark the most polluted roads are roads which > disproportionately have our poorest residents - > Old Kent Road, New Kent Road, Walworth Road, > London Road, Peckham Rye, Peckham Road, Camberwell > Road, Camberwell New Road... > https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article-abstra > ct/39/3/485/3076806 > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/1 > 9/poorest-london-children-face-health-risks-toxic- > air-poverty-obesity > > Totally agree public transport improvements are > necessary. Trams can be quickly built an deployed > and no plans in place to do this. > The taxation raised will be used to maintain > current public transport and the appearance of TfL > fares freeze. Whether this is true or not is just one consideration. This doesn't inevitably lead to a conclusion that a regressive flat tax should be imposed on people who can't afford to buy new cars. There are other ways pollution can be reduced without resorting to imposing a ?12.50 daily charge on people who need to drive for good reason i.e work, they can't walk etc. Public transport is not a solution for everyone. Walking is not a solution for everyone. This is a tax on working class londoners with little or no political voice to please a group of overly vocal, environmental do gooders who either aren't affected by it because they don't have jobs that require it (i.e local councillors) or can afford to buy new cars. Progressive politics in action!

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > El Presidente Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Your arrogance is astonishing and palpable > "most > > people, of all incomes, don't need to use cars > as > > much as they do". Who gives you the right to > > decide that? > > Who gives you the right to decide that you can > drive your polluting dangerous machinery around as > much as you like without any regards for the > suffering it's causing for others? > > > You also ignore those who CAN'T walk or cycle. > > What if you are too old, infirm, unwell, have > > kids, can't lift the shopping etc. > > Ah, the good old people who advocate limiting car > use are attacking the elderly and disabled > argument (well done for the shouty capital > letters). If people need to use cars nobody > objects to their using them - if the people who > could walk or cycle would do so, rather than > selfishly use their cars to go half a mile to the > shops, there would be more space on the road for > those who need to use them, more parking too. > > You want to use your car whenever and wherever you > wish. Be honest enough to admit that, instead of > trying to make the right to pollute the city some > sort of crusade for the poor and disabled, it's > dishonest. > > You won't change your tune though, so good day to > you, I'm off to walk a mile and a half to the > cinema. I can see you are struggling with some basic concepts here, hence you trying to make out i have some ulterior motive. But as i said already - this won't change a thing for me. I will be able to use my car whenever i want without charge. Others won't. It is regressive policy that will affect people who can't afford it the most. You know that but, be honest here, because it won't affect you, you don't care.

> > As I said above, 50% of lower income earners > neither own nor have access to a car. No I'm not > saying lower income people don't need cars (it's a > bit much to ask me a question then call me > arrogant for the answer you've made up) - most > people, of all incomes, don't need to use cars as > much as they do. If having to shell out ?12.50 > makes someone walk a mile to the supermarket > instead of driving that's to the good. One third > of all car trips in London are for journeys under > two kilometres, journeys that could be walked in > twenty minutes or cycled in five - that's a > disgrace. Your arrogance is astonishing and palpable "most people, of all incomes, don't need to use cars as much as they do". Who gives you the right to decide that? And even if your figures are right (source?) that means half of people on low incomes do have cars. That's a lot of people poorer so you can force your middle class ideology down their throat. You also ignore those who CAN'T walk or cycle. What if you are too old, infirm, unwell, have kids, can't lift the shopping etc.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > El Presidente Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This is an appalling tax on people who through > no > > fault of their own have cars that don't meet > these > > standards and just happen to live somewhere. It > is > > a regressive tax that will hit people on lower > > incomes harder. ?12.50 every time you need to > > drive your car from outside your home? Even if > you > > use your car once a week you are talking ?600 a > > year. This is just gouging the public for cash. > > 50% of people on lower incomes (>?25k) neither own > nor have access to a car. It's not just gouging > the public for cash, it's attempting to reduce the > air pollution which is literally choking London to > death. Unless you don't believe the scientific > evidence about pollution, it's hard to see how > driving around in the most polluting vehicles is > defensible. I firmly believe in the science (though it is just scaremongering to say 'it is choking London to death'). A phased approach that increased penalties on heavy vehicles and gave some kind of exemption for residents would be a much more sensible approach than this blanket tax on people who through no fault of their own have the wrong type of car. And are you saying lower income people don't need cars? That's just arrogant and out of touch with reality for working people. Those on lower incomes (of which i would include people earning beyond ?25k in London) do have cars, often use them for work and are more likely to have the old cars which this will hit. This is a massive overreaction that will excessively penalise low income people living in London, which is already a stretch. It's political grandstanding designed to appeal to middle class green zealots who don't care about the plight of low income working londoner's. p.s my car will be fine before you ask

This is an appalling tax on people who through no fault of their own have cars that don't meet these standards and just happen to live somewhere. It is a regressive tax that will hit people on lower incomes harder. ?12.50 every time you need to drive your car from outside your home? Even if you use your car once a week you are talking ?600 a year. This is just gouging the public for cash.

So the soonest any funding proposal will be considered is April 2019. Which means many years before anything could possibly happen. Not good enough.

Tried this place once. Nice but not so nice that it was worth how much they were charging. Very specialist businesses like this need a top class offering that stands out or else be much more affordable so they can be an everyday purchase. This had neither and i'm surprised it lasted as long as it did.

Denmark Hill is a disaster waiting to happen. Plans shown three months ago with no action yet taken is not good enough. This needs emergency action.

Clear driver error.

We have actually reached the point where in the eyes of some, accurately describing an individuals appearance is racist.

Gentrification, for lack of a better word, is good. Gentrification is right, gentrification works. Gentrification clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Gentrification, in all of its forms...has marked the upward surge of mankind.

Oooh planning talk. This is fun.

This place used to be great - amazing, innovative food. And then i think they changed management or chef or something and the food went downhill fast. Had a terrible meal there last time and stopped going. Still loved it for a glass of vino though.

I asked them on Saturday and they are definitely not linked to the old Lucas. looks like a nice cafe, nice owners etc Opens next weekend i think.

They keep knocking at 9.30 at night because every so often someone is mug enough to actually give them money. Cheers.

PLEASE STOP

pg500 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'll be objecting to the new development. El > Presidente - yes we do need more houses but I'm > sure you will agree good city planning requires a > fine balancing of numerous factors including > narrow commercial interests, housing provision and > the quality of the public realm. If we were to > follow your simplistic "but we need more houses" > argument we'd soon be concreting over Hyde Park > and Hampstead Heath. It's simple, not simplistic. And comparing some run down bit of old industrial land to Hyde Park is absurd. As ever NIMBY's always find a reason to object. And then complain when they or their kids can't afford houses. You can't have your cake and eat it.