Dulwich dweller

The shops are only obliged to give 1% of there profits to their designated charity. The rest can be used for ' overheads ' and managers salary which are decent. Most staff other than managers are unpaid volunteers. In BHF's case they were using people forced to volunteer or otherwise have their benefits stopped. As for valuing items there is a website especially for that purpose. I somehow doubt charging £35 for an item that cost £40 when new will be in that online book/ directory. But yeah it's Dulwich and if you can't afford things go elsewhere. I stopped my regular visits to the Brixton branch of BHF after I offered support/ help to a volunteer who was clearly going through withdrawals and was visibly distressed. She informed me that she was a crack addict and had various mental health issues. She was forced to volunteer for BFH or be sanctioned by the benefits people. Disgusting. I have never entered one of their outlets since. It's a shitty industry in many ways is the charity sector but not if you're making a crust from it.

Do they pay rent? Volunteers generally staff these places bar the manager. It's amazing how 99% of charity shops manage to exist. I mean the ones that shift the same donated brand for under £10. They were covered in gold, diamonds and made especially for a lucky bargain hunter willing to pay near full price for secondhand goods. I mean vintage, up cycled retro etc etc.

They wanted £35 for a pair of used jeans a few weeks ago. It's definitely not a charity shop going by the price of things.

Let the moderators ďecide that. You just carrying on sniping from the sides.

Of course they do. Have said before that unless there's regular incidents of criminality or serious breaches of H&S then nothing will prevent it from going ahead. Noise and the odd report of antisocial behaviour carries no weight. The consultation is just a box ticking exercise as is the PR team used to fob people off. Waged bullshitters destined for a career as estate agents. The council work in partnership with the event organisers and not with their tax paying residents. It's why the organisers get away with what they do and pay lip service to concerned residents and their responsibilities regarding, clean up, maintenance and reinstating. Gala is a low risk event and that suits the council and old bill. Unless it out grows itself I can't see it going away anytime soon. You'd be less annoyed if the council just said bugger you we need the money and that's that. All the cobblers about sustainability, green this green that, local community, consultation, stake holders, blah blah blah. Its cobblers and insulting to the good people of our community.

There are safety issues because of mobile phones being used in cars. They are a distraction. I have no answer to your to your scenario but I don't think ending up in a ditch is as common as motorists using their phones for one reason or another. How often to you see ditches in London / big cities?

Meaning it's not much use if you're based up Lordship Lane direction and not on its route in Dulwich. The station being almost the last bit Dulwich that it serves. The direction of travel I had in mind was from Nunhead Lane where the 78 stops near the 484 stop on the Rye and heads. towards East Dulwich Station.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood you, but the 47 doesn't seem to be much help as a step in the journey to get to East Dulwich from London Bridge Yes you've misunderstood. I didn't suggest you use the 47. I'm aware of that. It has to get to ED station some how

I'm not confusing anything. You are borderline trolling against and making huge assumption. I’ve read this thread back three times. My view is that you'd make a good mp but a terrible liar. I've spent enough time on this thread now to conclude that you are a troll. You ignore paragraphs only to respond with irrelevant and repetitive tripe. Feel offended and virtuous as you want but you won't be getting another response from me. You're not dim, you're on a wind up and trolling. With modern tech there should be a way to render a mobile useless once inside a car. No hands free just no signal. Years ago we had a geezer pasS us on the M4 whilst having an electric shave.

Same old tricks. It's an opinion and not an attack You do nothing but attack anybody or thing that isn't on two wheels whilst willfully ignoring the streams of arseholes willfully ignoring even the most basic of highway code rules. Again last week I had lovely time with my grandson who was on half term. Up top and up the front of countless buses. We keep hearing figures on how many cyclists are being injured and framed to attack motorists. Well given the risks and lunacy that we witnessed last week daytime I'm quite shocked those figures aren't higher. The risk taking alone that we witnessed from cyclists was astounding. Hardly any on bikes adhered to red lights. Flying across junctions more in hope than knowledge that they wouldn't be hit. Bikes going between cars and buses Kerb side whilst being brushed by vehicles. I'm not talking about your average arsehole that's pulling wheelies whilst trying to negotiate traffic. I'm talking about people that are probably full of good intentions and conscious about the environment but they are a danger to themselves and their immediate surroundings. You don't tailgate buses and Lorry's who's driver aren't aware of there presence. Climate caring or not common sense and caution needs to be applied but I see little of it. I saw little of it when I cycled myself. I do not drive and haven't done in decades. I was keen cyclists until I moved back to London. In my experience for all the good conscious cyclists there is you get far to many bad/ lazy ones. There was some bonkers stuff witnessed last week alone.

It's normal procedure to all of a sudden cut back on affordable homes or social,housing obligations. All housing is affordable if you can afford it,The developer pays the council an ' agreed ' sum ' towards social housing elsewhere. Often miles away from the new yuppie hutches and buy to,let's that are advertised as business ventures. As with the new Heygate and most other new builds it will be advertised in glossy estate agent magazines overseas and sold off plan before the project is even completed. It stinks but the corruption is rife amongst the developers and councils. Its just another episode in the mass social cleansing of London.

Fair enough. I got it mixed up with 47. 78 passes Tooley Street at the other en It doesn't take long to get to Peckham because it literally cuts through Peckham. I understand why you go via the elephant albeit a tad longer to do so. I had the 484 in mind to carry on your journey from Peckham Rye but only if you're based near East Dulwich rail station.

Not with an ebike it isn't. Still condescending I see.

The 78 from London Bridge to Peckham Rye is a much quicker route than going via the Elephant and Camberwell.

Yes I have read your posts otherwise I wouldn't be replying. You said it doesn't sell stuff that you want and that you hope it closes down. Two separate sentences. I'm not Imply that you want it closed because it doesn't provide for your needs. So the occasional lack of staff on tills and having to wait ( another posters observation) is reason enough to want it gone? You can self serve most of the time. FFS? Now now.

Park life.

Luckily I'm at the bottom of the Rye in the Gardens so fortunately not too put out by the noise. I doubt it's very pleasant if you live closer. My issue is about the councils seemingly underhand way of communicating and dealing with local residents concerns and opinions. Basically these type of events go ahead regardless. That to me is a bit snide, dishonest and not how a council should treat its residents. There's a fair bit of damage done to the park and all for the benefit/ profit of a private company and PR consultants/ professional bullshitters.

I asked why you go in given that you'd rather it closed because it doesn't provide for your needs. I have never seen the till not being manned, ever.There are also self service checkouts. Many of the brand sweets and crisps are smaller in size. I guess that's why they cost less to buy.

Not cheap for what exactly? I find them cheaper than Superdrug and Co op for the bits I get. I think you'll find if you look for them. Packs of Beetroot, Brown sauce and other food items are much cheaper than other high Street names. You said that you want it closed down so why would you go in there in the first place? I find certain shops and a particular eaterie on the lane to be way to expensive so I steer clear. I don't want them closed down though.

Get them every evening riding the pavement along the rye coming from East Dulwich Road end. Its a poorly lit stretch and it can be hazardous when alighting the bus at the Gardens stop. No lights or reflective/ bright clothing. But hey they can see me so that's fine. Plus cars are evil, heavier and hurt people unlike bikes when they hit you.

They seem to think that it's residents are green. As in naive that is given the amount of dishonesty and cobblers that they come out with. Its like buzzword bingo. Sustainable, organic, green, stake holders, local jobs blah blah blah. Absolute cobblers and box ticking.

You can get small wing mirrors which are easy to attach. I used to use them and found that they were a real help. They enable you to remain focused on the road and obstacles ahead of you without the interruption of having to look over your shoulder. They're not expensive, flash or gimmicky. In fact I think all bikes should be equipped with them. I'd certainly suggest them for cyclists who can get a bit nervy on busy roads. They're essentially another set of eyes.

There is no debate to be had with you because you just roll out stats and evade pertinent points. The irony of you bemoaning the lack of debate isn't lost on me.

Way to avoid the issue and churn out the same old cobblers. No I don't think cyclists don't know what a red light is. Again not my point. Why do you think many cyclists willfully ignore red lights? I never mentioned speeding cars. I'll suggest what I know to be true. If one is breaking the highway code then they're unaware. None of the above has anything to do with knowing the highway code. Your repetitive posts stink of either stupidity or trolling. Debate the points raised rather than fart out the same old cobblers.

It's just as welll that I didn't say that drivers are safer than cyclists because they've had there test. I never mentioned driving or cycling standards.My point was about the highway code and being able to know what signs and symbols represent. It's quite clear to me that not everybody understands what a red traffic light represents, or a no right turn sign, or one way street. If you're jumping red lights and entering one way streets when you're not supposed to it suggests to me that there's little or zero concern for anyone's safety. Also. I'm fairly confident that everybody is aware that a moving car will do more damage than a bicycle when there’s impact. You're reading to much into my post. Literally ignoring what I typed about ( highway code) whilst stating the bleeding obvious. I'm also fully aware that many cyclists are indeed motorists. Not my point. There are many many cyclists that don't yet drive and don't know the highway code. That in my opinion isn't ideal for anyone. Certainly not for the cyclist as you keep pointing out. I mean why would you dart through red lights when there's big lumps of moving metal with the right of way? Why would you cycle in the wrong direction down a one way street? The highway code exists for the people that use the highways. 5hwt should apply to all users. I know the cycling and motorist issue is divisive just as Brexit is. People on either side of the debate are entrenched just as you are. Your response to my post is standard for this debate. Ignore the point made and just roll out stats that can be found on almost every page of this debate. Do you really need to inform Pele that a car does more da,age than something that you can lift with two fingers. It's hardly breaking news is it! It's also completely irrelevant and sidestepping the issue. It's almost condescending. Car heavier than bike shocker.