goldilocks

Judging by your posts you have an agenda and no idea what is happening in any of the units you've posted. Your argument would be much stronger if the units weren't being quickly re let.

Chemist move is zero to do with the street changes and everything to do with them moving to the health centre - they were previously linked to the dr surgery on Melbourne Grove - both have moved into Tessa Jowell. Callows is now on the main road but seems to have quickly sold the lease. The barbers closed and was immediately re let to Art K. The other hairdresser seemed to have some falling out with the landlord and couldn't agree a commercial rent that worked for them - assume the landlord has someone else lined up now as its under offer. If these units were remaining empty you'd have a point, but with the exception of the chemist they're not - also not sure whats happeningi re the chemist as there are plans to build on the old health centre.

Play the ball, not the player Metallic!

It says that the council put in a new count and that they hadn't monitored at the earlier points of this process. It doesn't however say that their comparator was modelled - instead this is a previous council count from general monitoring (pre OHS) that took place at the sanme point. Its not that you disagree with the analysis - its that you don't believe the starting point! heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh Goldilocks - it is all there in the latest > newsletter from Southwark Council - it actually > says it is a 'new' count and from the point where > I said it is, you can go look at it on ED Grove. > > As I tell my students - look at the raw data, and > all confounding data, especially when a drug > company, researcher, organisation is desperately > trying to prove something they believe in is right > and analyse it yourself. > > You know the true scientific method is always the > best - why do we choose the null hypothesis?, > because the purpose is to prove whether or not the > test/treatment/intervention is supported, which is > separated from the investigator's own values and > decisions. > > It states the exact opposite of what an > investigator or an experimenter predicts or > expects - so they should have started with 'LTNs > do not reduce traffic and pollution or increase > active travel' then proved this wrong.

Ok - so @legalalien thinks that their eyes at random points are obviously more reliable than counters because they don't trust the council. @Heartblock doesnt' believe the council data and goes further and tries to accuse those who look at the data points provided and don't think its a conspiracy of 'gasslighting'. Anyone else?

What 'evidence' do you see on East Dulwich Grove @legalalien. The last evidence showed that traffic had fallen substantially outside Heartblock's home, but they don't believe the evidence. Do you also not believe the council's data?

I'd also received that letter and was surprised. Wondered if they were overstating powers and was going to look into it. Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have just received a letter/ pack from Thames > Water saying that they now have a statutory right > to force all households (presumably in London) to > have smart water meters - whether they want one or > not. > > Whilst I have nothing against actions which will > help conserve water, it is a bit rich that the > largest single waster of water locally - Thames > Water with its horrendous history of leaks - > should now be able to enforce what will almost > certainly be higher charges to line the pockets of > their owners at the expense of London > householders. > > The old water rates had some oversight, but these > charges, which will be based on Thames' > interpretation of usage, will be open ended and > uncapped (and will be unilaterally imposed within > 12 months of the meters being fitted). Of course > some people will reduce their usage, by washing > less (them and their clothes) or other economies - > but this sort of open ended-pillage (particularly > when other prices are soaring as well) - and by a > company which is notoriously wasteful and > inefficient (how many times locally do they shut > roads to 'repair' exactly the same stretches of > pipe?) does seem unacceptable, at least to me it > does. > > Water rates were one of the few charges which were > predictable - you knew at the beginning of each > fiscal what the monthly pain would be - but now we > have a foreign owned monopoly (it is owned by > Kemble Water Holdings Ltd, a consortium formed in > late 2006 and formerly owned by Australian-based > Macquarie Group's European Infrastructure Funds > specifically for the purpose of purchasing Thames > Water) able to charge effectively what it wants. > > There is nothing, of course, that we can do about > this - but did this come as much as a surprise to > other ED-ers as it did to me, or have I just been > asleep whilst it happened around me?

Rockets questions are fine - but the fact that no one on here has answered them is not conclusive, its just that no one has the answers he needs. They'd need to come from the council and I as much as anyone else am hugely frustrated by their lack of responsiveness on this. first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is appropriate to query data that does not seem > to make sense. > > Rockets has asked some important questions. Thus > far, no-one has come forward with a credible > response.

No- I'm not, I'm talking about the data that was released in the last council tranche of data which showed that traffic outside Charter East Dulwich and the Health Centre had actually fallen compared to counts pre changes being made. Rockets keeps trying to undermine this data and I can see that there are questions and I can't answer them, but the fact remains that there is data that shows a fall. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is no data that shows traffic counts between > Melbourne Grove and Townley Road has fallen from > pre-LTN levels to the current date. I think you > are confusing the so called "ED Central > Northbound" 'data' that is from the Health centre > to the Harris School Northbound a mere 40 metres - > disputed figures at the best. > ED Grove traffic along the whole road (which had > no turn-offs) has risen by at least 25% - > Southwark Council data.

I'm not gaslighting, I'm pointing to data that shows that traffic on the section of road between Melbourne Grove and Townley Road has fallen. Data you choose not to believe - but still data that exists. You present your opinion as fact regularly. I use data.

Regular reminder that Heartblock's street and the area by the schools hasn't seen an increase in traffic overall and that there is zero evidence showing that congestion or idling is more prevalent in that section.

I think that most people would to be honest. I'd always redeliver on my road / next street. On occasion when I've had post for the other side of East Dulwich (same starting letter on the street) I've just popped it back in the postbox for them to have another go (though before current postal delays!).

It sounds like communications have broken down, but also if you are continually on the receiving end of complaints about noise that you really can't stop happening, it might be hard to deal with. The recommendation to keep a noise diary is a good one - what the noise was, how long it went on for, what time it was etc but then perhaps view this as objectively as possible to determine whether it really is noise that goes beyond normal living in a property. You say, you hoped they'd move - perhaps they do too, but housing is expensive, the jump from a flat to a house is enormous and honestly you can't buy a house for the same price as a flat in any of the areas you mentioned. Maybe they will move away, but unfortunately you can't control that. Victorian conversions aren't great for soundproofing - I'd imagine that when you walk around they hear you, probably your television or whatever other noise you make as well. Ultimately, living in flats comes with some degree of neighbour noise - as does frankly living in a house. Obviously most of us try to consider neighbours and get along as well as possible though. When it becomes something that bothers you it is horrible and can become consuming, but I don't think that you can ask a family not to make noise at 7am etc.

Or they're just living in their flat? They're a family with two small kids, it sounds likely that they're making normal amounts of noise- they're not having huge parties all night every night but babies and toddlers cry at night sometimes, some more than others, as they get older they make more noise too. The quiet enjoyment thing does also cut both ways - it doesn't entitle people to 'quiet' so much as mean that they shouldn't be continually disturbed in their lives. Once something starts to annoy you though it is many times worse than it would be otherwise. Honestly, buying a Victorian conversion and not expecting any noise is unreasonable. That said, having kids shrieking every morning before say 7am is also unreasonable so its about finding a balance. Perhaps they too can't afford additional soundproofing? Once they get older they'll be plugged into screens.

they do provided they have enough battery to do so - if they've only been driven a short distance, or the heating / air blowers are on and they're charging devices etc, the engine may stay on.

I think that the advice above about trying different earplugs is good, if you can get a decent nights sleep then that should help. the thing to remember is that whilst the kids are small, it sounds like they're no longer babies and toddlers so will become much less noisy over the coming years - they'll hopefully wake less early and as they get older they play in different ways, so hopefully you'll notice an improvement reasonably quickly.

The Lib Dems are doing their normal thing of saying - 'us - oh, no, we wouldn't have done that thing like that, we'd have listened' whilst entirely refusing to say what their view is at all. They're the political equivalent of a stripper saying 'i can be whatever you want me to be honey'.

Apparently you should call Southwark Parking enforcement who will then come out and ask the offending driver to switch off their engine. Clearly this isn't an efficient option, or even very effective. A scheme like in New York where you could film offenders and submit video evidence for cash reward would be a much quicker route to compliance!

I guess that is one way of looking at it. Alternatively, you could say that there is someone who has set up two local organisations and then used these to lobby the council for a plan for permits for local people to drive through filters keeping anyone who doesn't live in Dulwich Village out, who has now decided to stand in local elections and thinks that there are more votes in adopting a different stance. Its not even possible to claim that Clive has been backed into this by virtue of standing for the Conservatives given that the infrastructure changes were pushed through under mandates from Conservative central government in order to prevent a 'car led recovery'. Its a calculated 'play' to maximise the chance of votes, whilst knowing that even if elected their promises to remove all measures won't even be within their control unless there is a widespread shift of control in Southwark overall.

I'm 100% sure I'm correct though. I'm not mistaken. I just think its interesting that Clive is now campaigning for a different one than the one he has personally put forward as chair / founder of two separate organisations. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm pretty sure that the Dulwich Alliance poster > said "no to 24/7 closures" and said nothing about > "yes to permits". I just googled it to see the > image. So I think you might be mistaken about > that? Is anyone on here from DA who could advise? > I can see a One Dulwich image with "yes to > permits". > > Did the DVRA suggest timed restrictions, or > resident permits? I don't know the answer to > that, btw. > > Personally I don't care if Clive Rates personally > supports timed restrictions and or resident > permits, as long as he understands the difference > between his personal preference, and the need to > represent the views of residents. Not > understanding that difference seems to be what has > gone wrong to date. > > Am hoping the LD and Conservative canvassers might > call by so I can see the whites of their eyes and > decide how to vote!

Clive Rates (conservative candidate) was the founder of the Dulwich Alliance. The Dulwich Alliance circulated a poster that literally said 'yes to permits, no to 24/7 closures' - so that sounds pretty clear on timed closures. Clive is also chair of the Dulwich Village Residents Association. Incidentally this association submitted a proposal to the original council consultation suggesting timed restrictions. So that's 2 separate instances where Clive Rates has been personally involved in campaigning for timed restrictions for a very limited (yet also undefined) group of Dulwich Village residents.

You have said twice now 'it looked as though he was trying to break the mirror' - i'm saying it didn't. The point is you don't know, but yet again you present your opinion as fact. I'd imagine that up the road the driver had endangered the cyclists life - thats generally how these things go. Fear and adrenaline make people react. In an ideal world you wouldn't hit windows - but then in an ideal world cyclists would be segregated from rubbish drivers (or even good ones who have lapses in concentration - cos you know, we're human!), or failing that, drivers would take extra care around those who they have more likelihood of injuring. Anyway - the precise rights and wrongs of this case aren't going to be known or determined here. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Northern and Wasely - in two posts you demonstrate > why so many people are taking issue with cyclists > at the moment. > > 1) Northern - you fail to acknowledge that the > cyclist was in the wrong. He was as much of an > idiot as the driver but you defaulted to that > Pavlovian "the cyclist is never wrong" that so > many pro-cycle default to. He hits the car window > twice with force, he may even have hit the wing > mirror (the noise is very loud as it is picked up > by Jeremy's mic from the other side of the road) > and it looks like he is trying to break the window > and or mirror. The drivers' reaction is as bad as > the catalyst for it but you cannot defend the > cyclist, as much as I am not defending th driver. > > 2) Wasely - the "no compulsion to use it" > narrative is one that also grinds on other road > users at the moment (it's a close second to the "I > can so I will whether I need to or not" - ride two > abreast/ride in the middle of the road + > narrative). When I cycle I am mindful of other > road users and if there is infrastructure I use > it. > > I presume you can't see how frustrating it would > be to be stuck behind a bike using a carriageway > that has cycling infrastructure along it? I > suspect as a cyclist himself he felt that you > didn't need to be doing that and that he would > have been in the bike lane. > > As I have said before if every road user treats > others as they would like to be treated then > everyone could get on swimmingly but there seem to > be a lot of my fellow cyclists who seem to think > that following the rules and needing to consider > other road users does not apply to them.

Picking up on these points because I think its interesting. 1. A lot of people on here are angry about fines - seen as a 'tax on motorists / unfair capital raising' etc. (heartblock you don't need to say this isn't what you think as I've said 'a lot' rather than 'all'). 2. In response there seems to be a 'vote them out' approach being pushed - fine, this is the point of democracy - all good so far. People can be angry about the measures and the fines and can make this known at election. 3. However - here is the bit I struggle with. The conservative candidate was the founder of the Dulwich Alliance. The Dulwich Alliance didn't actually campaign for removal of measures, instead they have campaigned for timed restrictions with residents permits. 4. If such a thing was possible, it would likely just be the people who live within the area where filters apply, so the majority of people would still be restricted AND liable to fines on more roads - given how drivers have struggled to see multiple roads signs to date, it seems likely that this would result in even more fines. The Dulwich Alliance policy is literally the Conservative governments approach to lockdown restrictions played out in transport. They want others to have to abide by rules, they want to be able to fine those who don't, but they also want to be able to do what they want as the rules shouldn't apply to them. march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you support the Dulwich Alliance who are > lobbying for a camera-controlled permit scheme > @metallic? > > Presumably this is what the Conservative > candidates for Dulwich Village will be promising > also, given their close ties with ?the alliance?. > > > > Metallic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ?1.472 million in fines paid from the Townley > Road > > Camera since it was put in. Even more > apparently > > from Dulwich Village camera looking north. What > a > > sin to punish decent working people with these > > restrictions. > > Figure sent to me by friends who received it on > > the grapevine.

Oh good - we've moved through cyclist bashing onto the 'war on motorists'. Its like an abridged version of the comments page on the Daily Mail. Do we even try to stick to the topic any more, or is this the 'get out your populist pet peeve' section?

This is an interesting thread - especially as Charter ED is supposed to have / going to have an autism unit so likely that more parents of pupils with SEN are likely to have selected it in terms of hoping it could provide better support.