DJKillaQueen

Hugenot, you are obsessed with demeaning the validity of any views other than your own. James is not misguided in his views on this, so give the insults a rest. He is absolutely right on the point regarding the lack of reliable data that Network Rail could have used to determine the no. of passengers using London Bridge, esp in reagrds to it being used to change for other services to for example Charing X. You are not the ultimate authority on anything - really you aren't. And sometimes you are just plain wrong. South London has always had a raw deal from the rail and tube networks (esp the SE), at the expense of other areas of London (notably the North). Plannned extensions and projects like the tram link have never come to anything - priority always being given elsewhere. South Londoners deserve better.

I agree with Jeremy. Given that many people using London Bridge do so to change then I'd find yet ANOTHER change a big deal. Sending South Londoners East to then go West again? The whole point of the LB Victoria route is that it provides a direct link for South Londoners to two fairly central good connections both West and East of the City. The new routes have everything to do with opening up the East section of London because of the olympics etc while taking away a direct link that is important to South London. In other words the ease of connectivity of South London has been sacrificed for East London.

That's true. I think Labour took four NOC boroughs in London and one from the Conservatives (don't quote me on that though - just remember a fair few going red).

However, I believe that the protest groups are also deliberately keeping their members poorly informed - and suspect they have a hidden agenda of protest for protest sake, rather than a better service for commuters. Why don't you go and find out something about the various groups involved first ......they include some very well established and respectable groups like Peckham Vision and stalwarts like Eileen Conn who has spent her life fighting for a better area, both economically and socially. You are talking nonsense. So how will rail passengers travel by rail to London Bridge from 2012? THAT's what the campaign is about...preserving South London's Rail links to the city and tube network instead losing another fast direct service. Given how poorly connected South London is, the campaign is indeed well informed and in the eyes of many fighting for something worth saving.

I wonder if anything would slow the type of driver that wants to speed? Yes full humps can slow emergency vehicles (although police cars have strengthened undercarriages) but they usually take other faster routes - no fire engine will go hurtling down a residential road - they still have to drive safely. So it seems to me that we have square humps because an emergency vehicle might use that road occasionally, when vans and other large axled vehicles use the same road every day many times over and at any speed they like! I'm not a fan of humps but at least a single hump going all the way accross the road won't damage the tracking or wear down tyres at one side. Nor will cars drive down the middle of a road and all the other slalom manoevres that cars do to get around the square ones. As a driver I find my eyes are on the humps and not on the road ahead as they should be but can't be when you've got crumbling mini pyramids dotted all over the road. On the other hand, the council recently put chicanes on a road near me. One chicane is so close to the 90 degree corner into Cheltenham Road that any driver might turn that corner and find themselves head on with a bus straddling the centre of the road as it comes out of that chicane. Even worse there is no cycle feed path at the edge so cyclists are forced into the chicanes too. Where is the common sense? One idea I like is to use barriers to make certain residential roads 'no through routes' at certain times of the day, like for example rush hour. An automated barrier could open and close at one end of a road accordingly and then stay closed at weekend when residents are most likely to be at home. They are used in other countries effectively.

In Peckham ward, four leaflets posted to council tenants by the Lib Dems said, and I quote 'Labour WILL transfer management of your home to Lambeth and the same company that has put ruents up by 17%'. There were no other details, just that glaring statement of fact. If that wasn't a blatent attempt to scare council tenants, at best an assumption reported as fact, at worst an outright lie, then what was it? It backfired anyway as all three seats went to Labour candidates. And Trump is right, if the former council was doing such a good job as you see it, then why did so many seats go over to Labour? Especially at a time when the electorate were not voting Labour for government. People obviously voted on local issues and on some of those, especially housing, the former council didn't deliver a high enough service.

Hi Scootagal, All council owned and leasehold propoerties in Southwark are subject to the decent homes standard and so a programme of imporvements has been rolled out including new windows and doors. Leaseholders are required to have the new windows but not the new doors but as I recollect that estate has already had that work done. However as a leaseholder, you would be liable to share the cost of any work be it decorative or structural to the exterior and communal parts of the buildings. And yes the costs can be prohibitive for some leaseholders. Some structural repairs are extremely expensive and can not be forseen and it's just one of those aspects of buying leasehold that you neeed to be aware of. Southwark does have a leaseholders organisation that work to make sure that leasehold fees are reasonable and fair and as a prospective leaseholder it would be worth your while getting in touch with them to see what the ongoing costs have been to that estate. They would also know of any work in the pipeline. Hope that helps.

lol let's just say I had support from others after your over-reactions to my posts. As for fairness, I've voted Lib Dem before. There are good reasons why the council swung back to Labour. Too many people were let down by broken promises and misguided priorities. Sure if you own your own home and live in a quiet street in a good area with nice schools you would never have known anything was wrong. If you were a council tenant, living in a property with poor heating, electrics, and kitchens and bathrooms more than 30 years old, told you would get new ones last year and now have no idea when and if that'll happen then you can be forgiven for not voting for more of the same. Now the Labour council have to sort out the decent homes mess, provide more council owned homes instead of selling off council owned buildings and land to private developers, improve the rate of council tax collection and expand recycling, improve roads etc amongst other things. If they fail on those things then the vote will swing back in another 8 years time. I think you strongly objected to any idea of dishonesty from the campaign material of the Lib Dems. But it WAS dishonest and that's why I didn't vote for them in the end.

TFL will send you free area cycle route guides http:// www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/roadusers/cycling/cycle-guides-request.aspx They have maps for every area with routes through many parks and cycle friendly and picturesque routes.

There is a campaign and on this link you'll find how to get yourself on the campaign email list http:// www.bellenden.net/ rail-cuts

The majority of Kings patients and staff are local people and Kings is an expanding hospital so Denmark Hill is a very important station. And yes the lifts are going ahead so not the act of a station facing closure. It's also a design that won't impinge on the Victorian structure so a lot of thought has gone into it. As for the Victoria - London service.....always seems packed out to me during rush hour so how Network Rail can think it has no purpose beyond 2012 is mystifying to me. The fight goes on over that one.

I was at a Kings members meeting yesterday where plans were unveiled to build lifts and walkways within Denmark Hill station to facilitate disabled patients using the station for Kings College Hospital. Kings Trust have lobbied for a long time for that facility so I would assume that there is no danger of the station closing anytime soon. There is though ongoing concern over the Victoria - London Bridge service but a campaign has been going for a while involving local councillors and community leaders to disuade Network Rail from their planned withdrawal of this service in 2012. You can read more here. http://www.bellenden.net/category/srug-topic/south-london-line-sll-victoria-london-bridge-peckham-rye

If they are the square one's it's not cars that damage them, it's usually because they are poorly built and/ or larger heavy goods vehicles. They do however damage a car's tracking (however slowly you drive over them) and I am fed up of paying ?50 every year at MOT time to have the tracking corrected. If it has to be speed humps then one's that go right accross the road should be the only option but emergency vehicles don't like them for obvious reasons. Like I and others have said earlier, wreckless drivers don't care what's there, esp if they have no licence or insurance. And even when caught and fined it does nothing to stop them. London has too many people, too many vehicles and too many narrow and residential roads. It's the nature of the beast unfortunately. Having said that though, the majority of accidents happen on rural roads and are not speed related (according to the dept of transport data) so maybe we are demanding perfection from something that can never be perfect, esp in a busy bustling capital city.

Hi James, To be fair to you I think those are some valid points in respect to the form of the Audit Commission and I particularly agree in respect to the 'out of date' thing. But there are some areas of the report that nonetheless are a fair and factual representation but you are right, it's usefulness to any council is negated if the report is out of date by the time it's delivered. I thought the whole point of the freedom of information act was to increase transparency? It does seem strangely selective of them to deny the FOI application. At the end of the day I think balancing books

Give it a rest Hugenot. You don't even live in London I'm told. And I don't even know why I'm bothering to waste my time replying to you (you are clearly on some mission to stalk my posts). My experience on the decent homes issue is as first hand as it can get as I sat on the progress meetings between the council and the contractors involved (throughout the entire process)....so whether you like it or not I have minutes that show that tenants were mislead and that promises were broken. I am not responsible for the points of the Audit Commission report but the criticisms are clear and I suggest you read it for yourself and take up any disagreements with them directly. It's all there.

Maybe we should rename it 'Rollercoaster Lane'.....! I find it particularly dangerous on a bicycle. You are forced to swerve out countless times to cycle round the potholes and it's only a question of time before there's a serious accident.

Hi james, Sorry I never made it home yesterday after getting knocked off my bicycle. And I'm backtracking posts. Yes i do read every word of election leaflets. And any party that lies will get equal criticism from me and most voters. By the way Southwark does NOT offer more plastics recycling than other boroughs. I can only put hard plastics in my recycling bags not soft plastics. Some others boroughs will take it all. Southwark is the 6th WORST council for recycling in the COUNTRY. Southwark's Housing department and particularly Kim Humphries was slammed for mismanagement. You are in complete denial of the views deleivered by auditors (who have no party preference). Where I live decent homes were set to come to us two years ago. Apollo was appointed to do windows, doors, kitchens, bathrooms etc. Residents had campaigned for six years to get the work done on an estate that has had no money spent on improvements in decades. At a public meeting tenants were assured all the work that needed doing would be done. They didn't tell us that the contractor had a contract only allowing for 38% of properties to be improved internally. No detailed survey had been done beforehand (incredulous)and 38% was plucked out of thin air (or as I suspect from a report created in 2002/3 giving a general estimate of the cost of the decent homes scheme to the borough as a whole). In reality more than 80% qualified for the work. The councils response was to withdraw the internal parts of the work from the contract with the promise that a few pilots would be done (to assess the final cost) and a new contractor appointed to complete the work. Apollo did the windows and doors and three pilots and have now left the site. There is no date or contract for the rest of the work. Broken promises and silence and you wonder why people lost faith in the previous councillors? Yes there isn't enough money for everything but to make promises and then break them is not acceptable. Maybe a Labour council won't do any better, we are going to find out soon enough but please don't continue with this idea that the previous council was doing a good job when the Audit Commission judged it to be the second worst in London. Take the rate of collection of council tax for a start...what's your excuse for that? Housing Services were given a red flag and there was equal criticism in that report of social care services. Those things speak for themselves.

I have complained about the state of Rye Lane for two years and James is right about the cold weather drastically exacerbating the problem. I think residents need to keep reporting the worst areas and hopefully the repairs will happen where they are most needed. Again it comes down to available money. ?100,000 doesn't go far. Having said that I've seen three junctions locally changed and then rebuilt a year later and one a third time. That is waste and down to poor planning in the first place. I do question the necessity of some road improvements while glaringly obviously needed repairs don't get done.

There will always be wreckless drivers whatever anyone does. I personally prefer chicanes to speed humps because humps damage a car axle's tracking (whatever the speed) and most careful drivers are being punished for a few road hogs. The UK has gone speed hump crazy and a lot of them crumble at the edges. The other thing I find works for most drivers are those automated signs that light up as you approach and remind you of the speed limit.

Hi james, Thank you for your response, Lambeth Housing issued letters to tenants stating an increase of 17% in rents while slashing repairs down to critical H&S ones only. The government then changes it rules which then meant Lambeth Housing could revise the hike to 14% but still only conduct critcal H&S repairs. Then why not say that in the campaign leaflets. The fact remains the raise was 14% not 17%. The only assumption can be that 17% is a more scary figure than 14% hence the campaign literature using it with no explanation of the facts There is a clear difference between an assumpotion and fact. The election literature stated as fact that a Labour council would transfer management of the housing department to the team currently managing Lambeth. Surely you can agree that is not the same as making an assumption but rather a direct attempt to frighten the electorate with assumption sold as fact. As you also know very well, the housing department under Lambeth was in very poor shape and the action that Lambeth took was an attempt to radically improve that situation. Sothwark Housing is not in any kind of similar shape to Lambeth so there is no reason to assume any similar measures would even be discussed. On the other hand the new Elephant and Castle development, the brainchild of Nick Stanton will have no local council owned housing to replace the council owned homes that will be lost from there. Social housing from outside bodies yes but nothing council owned. So the Lib Dem Tory alliance could be accused of caring less about council housing by cynics too (although I don't personally hold that view in general). Recycling - forget Labour for the moment. Yes there are improvements in recycling collection but the improvements are not as high as the Lib Dems originally promised. Four years ago I asked at a community council meeting why only one type of plastic could be recycled when other boroughs take all types of plastic. I was assured it would be improved. Four years later - nothing. I know there are technical issues involved and people need to be recycling in the first place but I like most people don't like promises being made and then broken. I have to go out but will come back in an hour to address your other points - esp decent homes because in that I have a very good example that illustrates how badly the council have gone about things. They are important points to make. Part 2 in an hour :)

First of all I'm not your sweetie. You don;t need to patronise anyone. I didn't mention pedestians at all. I was replying to a point made elsewhere by SOMEONE ELSE. If you'd read the thread properly you'd see that. I'm not het up about anything...simple engaging is a discussion. Is it possible for you to post a reply to anyone without personally attacking them? Very easy thing to do behind the anonymity of a PC granted because if you patronise people like that face to face you can't have any friends.

You haven't read a single word of my post have you? I did ask the local Lib Dem candidate....he had no answers and couldn't wait to run away. You haven't adressed a single point I have made on the Lib Dem Tory performance. I am a floating voter fyi and have voted Lib Dem in local elections in the past. I look at performance and then form a view. There are many good Tory and Lib Dem councillers but the fact remains that they failed whilst in control of the council in far too many areas. Not just my opinion but that of local government auditors. And I suspect your only issue is that you have no counter argument to any of that. I haven't bullied anyone. I've made a good case for why the lib Dems lost control of the control. You on the other hand have posted nothing but attempts to ridicule and belittle my cogent argument. Sad really.

I'm not but i know plenty of people who are and know where you are going with this. All that needs to be unobstructed for pedestrians are corners and crossings, which are part of the highway code and enforced. That's all that pedestrians need to cross the road safely, with ramps for wheel chairs user and the disabled. Some boroughs might have more or less of those and that's an issue for roads management. To argue that pedestrians should be given access over parked vehicles to other kerb space (apart from the obvious like bus stops) is not a valid arguement imo. That's what crossings exist for. Annd most road management teams will try to balance the needs of pedestrians and vehicles alike. But some pedestrians think they should be able to cross a road wherever they like, even when the safe option of a crossing exists. It's got to be a balance.

An obstruction is an obstruction but businesses don't own the highway outside their door so it's no argument to say they might miss out on passing trade if someone parks there illegally. As for pedestrians, I can't think of any vehicle parked at the kerb obstruscting a pedestrian. There are crossings for safely crossing a road and rightly so, a vehicle parked on those is causing an obstruction. As for corners, the highway code says that you can't park within a minumum distiance of a corner so yes that would be deemed as a reasonable obstruction. The fact remains that the vast majority of vehicles fined are causing no obstruction whatsoever to anyone, but simply parked along a point of a kerb that says they can't.

Let me put this in plain english for you. A political party puts out a leaflet telling voters that a Labour council WILL transfer housing mamagement to the team lambeth use to manage their housing stock. Secondly they then scare voters by telling them that that same team increased rents in the first year by 17%. Lie number one - no option to move housing management to Lambeth council has ever been discussed. Distortion number two - that actual rent increase was 14% (large yes) but not the 17% which was claimed in their leaflets. I can't see how you can argue with that. In fact at no point did the Lib Dems in their campaign take any responsibility for the poor management of housing, the poor performance of decent homes, the vast money wasted on the call centre and new offices, the poor record on recycling, roads repairs, providing enough school places, do I need to go on? That's why they came out as the worst borough council in London for management and performance and THAT'S why more people elected Labour councillers. Maybe you can now post a reply of substance.