DJKillaQueen

TFL fund road improvement schemes on a two year rolling basis. So that basically means the council comes up with a selection of schemes it can apply for funding for every two years. This junction is definitely part of the current bid, along with other junctions around the park. I know this from meetings I attended last year. Some road improvements that were also part of the current bid have already started work but I don't know if they are being funded by tfl or not. It is very easy though to email southwark's Principal Transport Planner, Simon Philips if you want to know anything Poppy. He'll be able to give an update on any planned works.

And you know as well as I James that the council have recognised the junction needs improvements and as a reuslt it IS part of the TFL roadscheme funding for the current session.

It is being looked at. The junction is part of the rolling two year tfl funding programme for road improvements and consultation started a year ago.

I agree with H and Otta. I think Miss Z was having a bad day and maybe things weren't handled best from both sides (and we can't know the whole story from one side). What I would also say is that if you are paying fees to a school there will always be additional costs....uniforms, equipment.....that's par for the course. A person can either afford it or they can't. Most parents would love to send their kids to public school for example.....but most can't afford it. The hours part is interesting. In film, tv and stage work there are limits on how many hours children can work or perform in a day/week. That's why children cast in musical theatre rotate for example.

Sounds like a good school to me.

lol nette........ She just sounds like an old fashioned head to me. If you run a school that people pay to send children to then you are only as good as the results you achieve. That often comes hand in hand with strictness and demanding standards. It won't be for everyone. Yes the tone of the letter is abrasive but just to play devils advocate and put a different spin on it. The school play as she rightly says is a team effort. It takes time to rehearse and it's not easy to replace someone at a late stage at the drop of a hat. I think that is where Miss Zoe is coming from.

We are doing a street party and fun day where I live.....any excuse for a party is fine by me :)

I agree Tomy...the now 'clear' road travelling south seems likely to encourage speeding. A speed calming ramp has been put in at the Solomon's passage point so maybe that will counter that a little. I think we should wait and see how it works out especially with the busy summer coming and the increase in park use that brings. There were very few accidents before when cars, busses, cyclists and pedestrians had to negotiate parked cars that forced then to slow down. If we now see accidents occuring then there will be a good case for lobbying the council to reverse some of the changes. What I don't want to see is the parking on the park side ever becoming pay and display though.

LOL H........;-)

I second Nunhead Surgery too.....have looked after me for 20 years and have always been brilliant.

I think the rule is that once a pedestrian has steeped onto a crossing you must give way but that a pedestrian must wait for approaching traffic to stop before doing that or be sure approaching traffic is far away enough for it to safely stop. That means the onus is on the pedestrian to facilitate safe crossing.

Eh Clio? I think I was defending Katurner was I not? Never quoted myself before but.... I would say that that offering a price that is only 63% of the asking price is not reasonable... Did you read that bit Clio? I have no idea if it was a reasonable sofa Bob but it looked nice in the photo. I could have downed a bottle of vino and sunk into a drunken coma quite snuggly on it (one reason why I don't have white sofa coverings though :-$ )

I have nothing but love for you bob.......be it misunderstood love or not :))

But the OP asked for 'reasonable offers' or the asking price of ?275...not ONO.

I understand ONO perfectly as I do 'reasonable offer' which is what the OP was asking for. Maybe we should debate just how much lower than asking price reasonable is and then decide if the OPs angst has some validity. I would say that that offering a price that is only 63% of the asking price is not reasonable...although I would have politely declined the offer had it been me rather than venting tbf.

Best thing to do is to put 'no offers' and reduce the price if it doesn't sell after a period of time. I do think some people seem to take the mick in the for sale section - bartering down even on the cheapest items. I can understand why katurner lost their temper, because that's all the opening post is (a momentary loss of composure) and nothing worthy of the same old ill feeling and ridicule from the usual suspects (which imo is equally as bad mannered as the accusations they lay at the OP).

The view from the top of the Bussey is great too. Thank goodness Mayor Ken never got his folly tram scheme going as Southwark and then leader Nick Stanton had decided it would all be better flattened for a a massive martialing yard.

I don't mind texts now that I have a BB with a querty keyboard (hated them before with all that tapping the same key and hoping you got the letter you wanted) but I do think it means people call far less than they used to. Seems that 90% of communication is now written.

The roof of the old station looks amazing.

The event organiser can request the premises superviser eject anyone causing nuisance to other guests and customers (without any obligation to return entry or ticket fees) and it's perfectly legal to do so. You can even bar them. I have ejected and barred people from certain events at our Tenants Hall for similar behaviour. If they won't leave of their own accord you can call the Police to escort them off the premises (and on occasion I've done that too). No T&C's needed.

By making one side double yellow lines along a stretch that was previously parking both sides, they've effectively made it easier for cars to speed up that side of the road (something I pointed out in the consultation process). Parking on both sides was in itself a form of traffic calming but it should be safer for cyclists now who won't need to swing out around parked cars (so maybe that was the thinking). I agree with PB that the pinchpoints seem to be designed to facilitate pedestrian crossing but then why not have just have zebra crossings?

I think it will be great to finally see this work happen and great praise should be heaped on Eileen and Peckham Vision who have fought very hard and for many years to bring improvements to Peckham and to protect the historical aspects of the area too. I do think some are unfair in their complete dismissal of Rye Lane as something not worth bothering with. I love Rye Lane...I can get mostly what I need from there, and love the cultural and ethnic diversity. I can get many things I need from ED too but find Lordship Lane totally bland in comparison. Horses for courses I guess.

But E-dealer...that survey only looked at TEN countries in Europe...and both of the two countries fairing worse than the UK do have far more pedestrian crossing points and similar higher population counts.....so I just tend to think that higher populations naturally see more accidents whatever is done to try and prevent them. There are I think 50 countries in Europe? So to say that the UK is one of the worst 'in Europe' from a survey of just ten is not proven. Penguin I think makes some very good points regarding the differences in how people travel in some other countries. The style of town planning and urban living plays a part. Town planning is not something the British though have ever been particularly good at and given how often Southwark repeatedly dig up and amend the same junctions and stretches of road doesn't exaclty fill me with confidence in their ability to design any kind of working road scheme. I did though find this document online....... Pedestrian Mortality It may be a little out of date bute it's interesting reading and note the decline in fatalities in the decade before the report was written (and at a time of large increase in vehicle ownership). I think many things have been achieved compared to the past. I think to be fair Wulfhound, journey time, traffic congestion etc always depends on time of day and route taken. Just because some journeys along some routes at certain times of day see average speeds below 20mpr is not a justification for a blamket reduction of urban speed limit imo. Drivers should be able to drive according to the conditions or lose their licences for not being good or attentive enough drivers (on this point I would be in favour of mandatory retesting every 15 years for example). I think the reason why average speed limits work on motorways is because all the traffic flows one way. It is an entirely different thing to try on a busy urban road with people crossing and junctions every 50 metres or so. Just won't work. The interesting thing to me are the trials currently on various roads in London where signage and kerbs, crossings etc have been removed. All the evidence seems to be that everyone behaves far more responsibly and safely in those open shared environments....so perhaps the suggestion that it's the removal of boundaries and rules that lead to safety more than vice versa has some demonstrable truth to it? Of course any accident is an accident too many but when I was a child I remember things like the Tufty Club and the Green Cross Man. There was constant advertising and efforts made to get the message on road safety accross to young people. Recently the government engaged on a campaign of hip adverts aimed at teenagers (the largest pedestrian group for fatalities)......but it doesn't seem anywhere as intensive as my years spend as a member of the Tufty Club or watching the green cross code man on tv. I like the idea of junior zebra crossings though and lollipop men and women are very effective ways to get children safely accross roads. There are also more RTA's in the contryside in the UK than urban areas too.....

But there is nothing a driver can do if a pedestrian walks out in front of them at point blank range. Pedestrians have pavements. Many roads have designated places to cross. To say that pedestrians shouldn't be expected to walk a further distance to use them is ridiculous. I do conceed the arguement that slower speeds reduce the seriousness of injury where accidents happen - there's no arguement there, but to claim that reducing road speed accross the borough to 20mpr won't impact on travel time is rubbish. The majority of B roads and above at various times of the day are empty enough to drive at 20-30 mpr. When I work out of west london I motorcycle there. Suggesting that journey should be done at a max of 20mpr is ridiculous. The majority of drivers have never had a collision with a pedestrian and never will.

Can you provide some evidence or a link to data that demonstrates the uk has one of the worst fatality rates within europe? I'd particularly like to see if the data shows more incidents in urban areas or rural areas. There is no justification I think for assuming all drivers can not drive safely above 20mpr or for assuming all pedestrians are incapable of crossing roads safely if the speed limit exceeds 20mpr. Nowhere in this debate is anyone acknowledging thst pedestrians need to take repsonsibility for their own judgement in choosing where to cross a road safely. Edited to add that the only survey I could find that supported the claim that the uk has one of the worst fatality rates in europe is a 2008 survey where only ten countries were compared (out of how many in Europe?). Not suprisingly, countries with higher populations sit at the bottom (germany, spain, italy, uk) and with not much between them and countries with smaller pops sit at the top (belguim, denmark, sweden, norway). It's a meaningless survey for determing that imo. France isn't in there but I'd like to know how many people die on their zebra crossings where drivers don't have to give right of way for example. The only thing of interest to me from the survey is that the other countries with large pops have far more zebra and pelican crossings than the UK and yet similar levels of fatality occur. So what does that say? It says that a certain percentage of people will exercise poor judgement no matter what is done. And given the vast majority of accidents emanate from poor judgement that is where I think efforts to improve road safety should be targetted. Some drivers need to think more about the way they drive and similarly pedestrians need to think about the way they interact with traffic. There are safe places to cross EDR. People just need to use them.