goldilocks

Jhakaas is the takeaway and it is indeed fantastic - great vegan options too.

Hilarious take there - moments away from suggesting its pretty much all pro bono To be clear, the type of work Tristan (Tory candidate) does is very very far away from what you've suggested. ed26 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can't see what's wrong with this really. Every > time there's a General Election, there's plenty of > websites that guide people in voting tactically to > try to oust a monopoly party, where the opposition > is fractured. That's exactly what's happening > here. > > (And re the comment about cross-border planning, > it probably just means cases like if a UK Citizen > marries an EU Citizen and they have assets, family > or beneficiaries in both jurisdictions. Not > necessarily sinister).

Induction every time - its massively easy to clean - its super quick and responsive. Rubbish for charring peppers but honestly find it not a huge concern! Also - technically gas will be phased out so induction is cleaner / less polluting for indoor air as well. We switched to induction from gas about 10 years ago and I was skeptical but I'd never go back.

I mean we could keep picking out tiny bits of the comments here, or we could focus on the bigger picture which is that someone has 'created what is supposed to look like a local campaigning group thats just fed up with the Labour administration, and wouldn't it be great if everyone joined them, whereas in reality it looks increasingly like its been put together by the Tories to get past the fact that they're Tories and give the impression that everyone else is doing it Once again - Clive and Tristan aren't essentially independents standing on a Conservative ticket - they're Conservatives who have chosen to stand for the Tory party.

DO you think that having 2 Tories in a borough of Labour would 'do something to break the stranglehold' - having to form alliances rather than having Lib Dems who could join their natural grouping of Lib Dems on the council?

Oh - I'm not voting for either of them - just surprised that there seems to be a narrative on here of 'it has to be the Tories'. If you do feel the need to vote against the LTNs that's one thing, but not sure it's a jump straight to endorsing the Conservatives. Also , if a 'vote them out' website which to all intents and purposes is a Tory website can only find 'solicitor / runner' as the best thing to say about one of them, its hardly a ringing endorsement is it!

But for the village ward - which is where the Tories are standing, its not James is it - its Raghav and Richard and they couldn't have been clearer on LTNs. This idea that its Conservative or Labour is laughable - Lib Dems have been serious contenders in the Village at the last election too, and their main feature here is that they've not chosen to stand as Tories. Voting in Tories because you claim to believe that perceived inequality is wrong is frankly laughable. Its like the voters of Hartlepool saying 'well we have food banks now, we didn't have them when Labour were in power' as though its a positive.

I'm sad that the Labour councils have implemented Tory policy but imagine that voting Tory would 'shake the arrogance of the incumbents' is a pretty odd take. Why not vote Lib Dem in the village - its a) not the Tories, b) they also want the LTNs removing and c) would be able to form part of the Lib Dem contingent on the council rather than being the 2 sole Tories in the whole borough. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I imagine locally voting Tory in the Village and > LibDem in ED/Goose Green is the best way to shake > the arrogance of the incumbent Council, but it > still makes me sad that the Labour Party I > supported for over 50 years has implemented Tory > Central policy.

The Vote them Out thing is very suspect - they've tried to look credible, but as has been posted all parties except the Tories are criticised. The criticism of the Lib Dems who have seemingly the same 'take out the LTN' policy as the Tories is particularly 'weird'. Also entertaining profiles section - despite being a clear Tory mouthpiece the best they can find to say about Tristan the Tory prospective cllr is that he is a solicitor and runner! Mind you compared to Raghav Parkash of the Lib Dems 'Not sure where he lives', its pretty extensive!

How would a reduction in council tax for those with one car help anything? Despite this alternate reality where everyone in an LTN owns multiple vehicles, the fact that we live in zone 2 means that very few people use a car for work and the majority of families who drive locally have one car for school runs / kids activities / supermarket / gym trips etc. What council services are people not using by 'only' owning one car?

That is your view that you have repeatedly made. The alternative approach is that they're a tiny step in what needs to be an overhaul of the dominance of private car travel in our cities and provide some safer routes for active travel. They are by no means enough but they are a small step towards encouraging people to change their travel habits and make driving a less convenient option.

Confirmed - it was in the last newsletter that data was being collected - the ATC strips that are down are collecting data, once they're finished they get removed

I was talking about Oct / nov / dec / jan 2021/22 This data is collected and not available on the site. THey weren't stopped, its been confirmed they are still collating info.

It isn't though Heartblock. Some of the data is available - but not all. For example nothing later than September 2021 on any road, and some of the earlier stuff is 'patchy'

Can't even agree with this Rockets - i don't think 'its clear they're manipulating data for their own advantage' - i can't get past that its just general underwhelming levels of competence in terms of being able to arrange the process by which it all needs to be shared. I share your frustration, but not your conspiracy theories. I have written to Cllr Rose and requested the data be shared though. You'll be unsurprised to hear that I haven't had a response .

I'm similarly confused @legalalien and also increasingly and continually frustrated by the council's inability to release the underlying data that would make all of this clearer. The document does say that it is being uploaded to the site, though i not there is no timeframe attached to that comment.

There may be additional secondary places locally - they won't be at ED Charter though unless the standards fall dramatically!

Its true their could be some level of inaccuracy. However, Penguin's concern appears to be that electric cars will be counted as ICE cars - if so the modelled pollution will be overstated rather than anything else? I think though that the modelling will work on averages, and unless you had an area where there were way more EVs than the norm - eg a majority then this concern wouldn't be valid.

How would this differ for the Conservative candidates in the village? At least the Lib Dems would be part of a wider group in the council rather than 1 or 2 lone Tories! Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > alice Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Back on subject: Looks like Libdems are now > > against Dulwich LTNs. Good. > > Don't be naive. Their Southwark policy will not > allow them to do what they are claiming. Look at > the northern Southwark LibDems!

haven't seen this information - but from the question its clear neither have you! This is despite you being adamant it had gone up. There seems to be a spate of 'information / not information' going on at the moment - saw on twitter some claims about traffic on lordship lane oct - oct, but its weird as the info on the Council's report is to September. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On LTNs - has anyone seen NOx and PM data for peak > times on ED Grove post LTN implementation? What is > the current plan to mitigate for traffic on ED > Grove, Croxted, GV, LL? > Has anyone this information?

In terms of the address you need to use for school applications it has to be the one where the child normally lives or lives most of the time. If you really will be sharing custody 50/50 then technically you should be able to use either address, but you may want to check with Southwark about what they need to confirm this. They ask for child benefit letters or eligibility - so which of you would get child benefit if you claimed it? I don't think that a mile would be an issue from a friendship perspective by the time they get to secondary though - especially not as surely it would only be for half the time anyway?

Gosh - how is life under your tin foil hat? Cllrs often call in at street parties - I'd imagine it gives them an opportunity to meet people in their ward and get their 'faces seen' at a time when people aren't complaining about something and its a chance for them to hear from people who live in a specific area. The council has set up a defined process for street parties and councillors turning up gives a great opportunity for them to talk about how the programme of street parties in Southwark works at bringing neighbours together etc. THe idea of cllrs attending isn't a thinly veiled attempt at bribing them with a slice of Victoria Sandwich! Doug85 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wasn't there a ruckus about this funding after the > East Dulwich LTNs first went in and residents put > up some pretty nasty Halloween decorations that > took the proverbial out of the businesses on > Melbourne Grove? 'You'll be dead next' outside > their businesses etc and had some kind of party. > It was pretty bad. Seem to recall EDSTN account > tweeted Councillor Victoria Olisa went to the > Halloween thing they threw. > > As if the advice to get local councillors on board > with your LTNs by inviting them to street parties > wasn't crass enough, it sounds like there is now a > very good chance of overlap of lobby group members > and residential groups that received money for > street parties. Definitely Helen of CAD, (isn't > she also EDSTN Twitter as well?) and lives on one > of the roads is on record advising other lobby > groups to use street parties to get local > councillors on side and romance them over LTNs. > > Maybe one of them if on here they can tell us what > they spent that ?500 on and if any of CAD and > councillors attended?

haha - ok! Its just that 'One Dulwich' is inexplicably 'Real One Dulwich' on twitter which always makes me think of Donald Trump so didn't seem implausible that this group would go for a similar title! legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry, by using the ?Real..? I was trying to > distinguish between the original ?Clean Air for > Dulwich? group which applied for funding in 2020 > and which I think are the ones associated with the > Clean Air Dulwich Twitter account, and the > bogus?or- otherwise ?Clean Air for Dulwich? making > the 2022 application. I don?t think anyone is out > there calling themselves RCAFD! > > From past experience groups do seem to get funding > without having been at the presentation evening, I > guess that may be in cases where they?re applying > for funding from multiple wards, whose break out > sessions are held simultaneously. Not sure what > happens if the group is unable to attend > altogether.

I'm not sure how much info is passed to the council in advance, but know that the meeting that was on the you tube channel is where the decision is made re funding. Often for some wards there are many more times the applications than funding so there are often things that aren't funded, or that only get partially funded. There are also things that don't get funding because they don't align with the purpose of the scheme, for example requests for things that will have an ongoing funding requirement rather than being a one off cost. I believe that once grants are made you have to provide details of the spend in line with the objectives and the receipts if not supplied via council suppliers (eg where things like bike racks are requested i don't think people go out and source their own). Aside from anything else, calling yourselves 'Real Clean Air for Dulwich' is a) Trumpian and b) looks hugely disingenuous, like it isn't a situation where the coincidence is just one of those things. Also @ Rockets - looking at Clean Air Dulwich on Twitter - their bio says 'not funded by Southwark Council' so 'they have certainly funded Clean Air Dulwich' doesn't look like a 'certainty' from that. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you look back at the 2020 funding application > for "Real Clean Air Dulwich" it seems to have been > in the name of "Clean Air for Dulwich" > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s8744 > 8/Appendix%201.pdf > > So you can see why there might be confusion. From > memory the council isn't keen on paying money into > individuals' bank accounts for this sort of > thing. > > > > slarti b Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > CPR Dave Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > I think "Clean Air Dulwich" also sometimes > call > > themselves "Clean Air for Dulwich" > > Do they? As far as I can see they are a > Twitter > > group with a web site (well, actually a web > page) > > both of which call themselves "Clean Air > > Dulwich". > > > > As far as I can see, CAD are not an > incorporated > > organisation of any kind. They look to be a > small > > anonymous group of local activists who overlap > > heavily with groups such as Mums for Lungs and > > Friends of Dulwich Village Junction (sorry > > square). But I guess the main point is they > are > > chums with and support local councillors Newens > > and Leeming, which presumably is why Newens and > > Leeming were happy to pay them ?6k of > taxpayers > > money without carrying out the due diligence > they > > were meant to do.

Hi - I'm afraid I don't know anything about that school, but just wanted to say that you can add him to wait lists of other schools that are closer if you didn't include them in your original 6 schools. I believe that you contact the schools directly and ask to be added to their wait lists (hopefully someone who's done that can give you clear advice). There is usually movement on waiting lists between now and September and whilst no one can confirm whether spaces at your preferred schools will become available, I understand that by adding yourself to additional wait lists (eg if you'd prefer Deptford Green or somewhere like that but didn't add it originally for example) this wouldn't mean that you'd be moved off the other wait lists you were placed on for your preferred schools. You could also call up your preferred schools and find out where you are on their wait list to understand the likelihood of a place.