Zebedee Tring

No, I don't oppose ANY alteration to the junction. However, I DO oppose massive expenditure on an unsatisfactory and potentially dangerous scheme when a much more satisfactory scheme could be adopted a fraction of the cost. Many people who understand the technicalities of this much better than I do have outlined such alternatives at length on this thread, which you can read at your leisure if you haven't already done so. I thought that you would support the careful spending of public money (yes, I did realise that it is TFL money, but that is public money just as much as Southwark money). There's too little money around for it to be wasted.

As I have already suggested, they don't have to spend the money. They could just forego it and do their bit towards avoiding wasting scarce public sector dosh and spending it on something more socially useful.

Wouldn't it be good if Southwark (through Cllr Mark Williams) were to say "Boris Johnson and Tfl have given us ?200K to rework the Townley/EDG junction. However, unlike certain politicians who love their vanity projects, we are very keen to save public money and will not be spending the ?200K by making a mildly unsafe junction a much more unsafe one". This would be a good move in an election year. But most unlikely.

I agree fully with what @Woodwarde say. Whoever is responsible for this potential enormous waste of public money at a time of massive cuts, it'll be the locals who will be landed with the resulting problem.

Q. Where is the cycling money coming from? A. Tfl. Q. Who is responsible for Tfl? A. The Mayor of London. Q. To which party does the Mayor belong? A. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think that it's Labour.

I won't ask you which party you will be supporting, Duvalier. To paraphrase the immortal words of the Peter Sellers character in "I'm All Right Jack", your vote is a matter between your conscience and the ballot box.

The problem with Conservatism is that eventually the working poor run out of the money that they should have earned but which their employers have failed to pay them. Yes, a pretty bigoted statement, but no more bigoted than the same anti-Labour/Socialist statements that have been quoted at least twice on this thread. I am opposed to the current proposals, but slagging off Labour is only going to encourage Councillors to say "It's those damned Dulwich Tories again. We won't listen to them".

Actually Melbourne Grove has improved recently. The reception staff are now polite and efficient and I have received good service from doctors and nurses/nurse practitioners. There is still a delay in getting appointments, but this seems to be a problem common to most practices these days. This improvement may be down to the practice manager who has been in post for about a year now and who was previously a nurse practitioner.

Without in any away condoning the role of Cllr Mark Williams in this sorry affair, although he is the relevant Cabinet Member, he is not the Chair of the DCC - this is Cllr Andy Simmons. There is plenty to criticise in these latest proposals and about the way that so-called "consultation" has taken place. However, this thread now seems to be turning into a Labour/Socialist bashing session. This is no way to get the politicians to change their minds. Any politician reading such posts will say "Oh, it's just a load of bloody Tories in Dulwich sounding off, we don't need to listen to them."

If a driver swears at you when you are crossing on a pedestrian crossing, then just walk across the crossing as slowly as possible so that he (normally "he") will have to wait that bit longer because of his rudeness. The danger is that a maniac like that might just move off and accelerate into you while you are still crossing. So many drivers must be suffering from serious lack of self esteem if they behave like this.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When a driver behaves like this, just keep calm > and say to him "willy problem" (assuming that the > driver is male). As however the truth hurts, he > may try to kill you! Jacqui, my criticism was directed at violent and/or abusive MALE drivers who frighten or insult other drivers, especially female drivers. I thought that this was obvious. In fact it was a female friend of mine who came up with the idea, with the positive approval of many other women. I do think that some men who have a problem with their manhood (and not just the size of their genital organs) behave like this. It's of course totally unacceptable.

When a driver behaves like this, just keep calm and say to him "willy problem" (assuming that the driver is male). As however the truth hurts, he may try to kill you!

In the early 80s Lewisham Council declared the borough a "nuclear free zone". It was commented cynically at the time that if the Soviets were flying over London in order to drop a nuclear bomb, the crew would be told "You mustn't drop it on Lewisham - it's a nuclear free zone". Another example of right on box ticking.

A power cut can surely be caused by accidental damage.

People who talk about power "outages" rather than power cuts. Another Americanism.

Is "the Gazette" the London Gazette? An official UK journal, in which it is required that certain statutory notices should be published.

Perhaps we should forcibly remind Southwark Councillors that there's a General Election in three months time and that the behaviour of the Council on the consultation issue might affect the way that we vote. Labour Councillors are surely aware that their party is not sitting on a 150 seat majority as it did in the days of Blair. Or do they care?

James Barber has replied to me to confirm that the 20mph limit could be enforced. However, he says that it is a matter of whether the Police will enforce it or not. Frankly the police fail to enforce other potentially more serious offences such as illegal parking, particularly where the vehicle is parked in a dangerous place, so I reckon that they won't have the resources to enforce a Borough wide 20mph limit.

James Barber has replied to me as follows: "Yes the 20mph could be enforced. It's a matter of whether the Police will or not. Yes, but as a stratgic decision skips over most councillors and community council involvement."

James, perhaps you could answer the other question that I asked, namely what is the legal basis of the 20mph limit - i.e. has it gone through the full statutory procedure imposing a 20 mph limit? If you don't know the answer to this, perhaps you could check this with the Council's Director of Legal Services.

James, I haven't read through all of the "Confusing Speed Limit Signs" thread, so perhaps you could tell me: (1) Is the Borough wide 20mph limit (a) an advisory limit or (b) one which is actually legally enforceable? (2) If (1)(b) is the case, what is the legal basis of the 20mph limit - i.e. has it gone through the full statutory procedure imposing a 20 mph limit?

First mate, I've asked James Barber for his comments on his "East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?" thread.

Loz, I'm glad that we've agreed on that. Although Lord Brabazon (whom I remember seeing on TV when I was very young and who was almost a caricature of a Colonel Blimp type figure) didn't want to draw attention to lesbians and hoped that they would stay out of sight and out of mind, I'm sure that he wouldn't have been happy if it had been legally possible for lesbians to go around indecently assaulting young girls with impunity and that he would have done something about it.

I haven't read through all of this thread, so perhaps someone could tell me: (1) Is the Borough wide 20mph limit (a) an advisory limit or (b) one which is actually legally enforceable? (2) If (1)(b) is the case, what is the legal basis of the 20mph limit - i.e. has it gone through the full statutory procedure imposing a 20 mph limit?

Extract from Section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956: "(1) It is an offence ... for a person to make an indecent assault on a woman. (2) A girl under the age of sixteen cannot in law give any consent which would prevent an act being an assault for the purposes of this section." I would therefore suggest that it was clear beyond doubt at the time that the 1956 Act was passed (and almost certainly before then) that a girl under 16 could not consent to sex with anyone, whether they were male or female. Any subsequent legislative changes have simply developed and extended the concept of "invalid consent" found in the 1956 Act relating to the inability of a person (male or female) under 16 to give valid consent.