nxjen

Come off it, while people in their sixties are certainly older, you know full well that Garages was referring to an older and possibly less mobile demographic. People in their sixties are spring chickens!

When I?ve placed a click and collect for Tu Clothing, I?ve collected from the Argos section of DKH Sainsburys which seems to me is never busy and I guess that?s where you have to leave returns? It opens at 8am but before 11am you should be fine.

?Are we sure they are talking about Blue Brick cafe? I didn't think it was open today?? Yes, the discussion is about the Blue Brick Cafe on Fellbrigg Road, not to be confused with the Blue Mountain Vegan on North Cross Road Interesting it?s suggested that Costa (Cafe Nero?) should be reported for tables blocking Zenoria when the pavement has in fact been widened there.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Widening would work well because it would widen > the pavement. 🧐 OK but I don't think that would leave room for 2 way traffic. The cafe management cannot be unaware of the problems, they're just hoping to get away with setting up a cafe on a pedestrian through way.

If this was just temporary until indoor seating was permitted, I wouldn't have a problem but as OP indicates it's been going on for a few years. The road is already very narrow, not sure how road widening would work.

If you?re talking about the Blue Brick Cafe in Fellbrigg Road I totally agree. The situation is made worse by customers pushing the tables together so the pavement is totally blocked to passers by who have no option but to walk in the road. The pavement immediately outside some shops/pubs/cafes is a part of the businesses premises: this is not the case here, it is all part of the general public?s right of way.

I agree that turning the stalls around to face the street has been a good move. It was difficult to make progress along the pavement before and would be impossible for visitors to socially distant. If people don?t feel safe visiting the market then they?ll stop coming which won?t be good for shops or stalls.

Which can be appealed, an expensive process for the council. When the land was given over for a community garden to be created, it was only as a temporary measure pending the completion of final plans. How can you be certain that the Council could have prevented its destruction? Don?t get me wrong, I?d rather see a garden than a car park.

Yes they would have had input during the planning process but ultimately it was not within their powers to keep the Community Garden.

What?s the council got to do with the community garden?

As the LTNs have been implemented on the Government?s instructions to councils, it?s clearly not the Tories

To be able to give any consideration to your argument, we need to be able to view the source where it is claimed above data from Prof Aldred?s research has been re-analysed and different conclusions reached. But nothing has been forthcoming.

Half is - the railway line forms the boundary between South Camberwell and Goose Green wards with platform 1 in South Camberwell.

"You can check the individual postcodes related to the relevant roads to get a picture of the census data for residents and social housing." It's not as easy as that. For example, I inputted SE22 8EQ the postcode for Kwikfit. As you will see, it brought up a page that includes data for other postcodes, some of these are in Grove Vale, others are not , and some postcodes that are in Grove Vale are missing. There is not just one group/page that covers all of Grove Vale. Anyway, that aside, let's have a look at the data which says regarding ethnic group: White: English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British 48.8679% White: Irish 3.2075% White: Gypsy or Irish Traveller 0% White: Other White 14.5283% which gives a total of roughly 66%. For white ethnicity. Then it gives the breakdown for other ethnicities and I haven't checked the overall total but assume it comes to 100%. https://www.ukcensusdata.com/south-camberwell-e00020408#sthash.eQIvWjat.dpbs So perhaps you can see why I have a problem with your quoted figure. If you have another link for stats related just to the whole of Grove Vale, then, as I've requested before, please post.

?If you look at census data it has 70% social housing residents on Grove Vale, 63% BAME residents.? Thank you for this, I have been trying unsuccessfully to find the census data. Would it be possible to post a link and for Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove to get the overall picture? Edit: OK, I?ve found data from the 2011 census but this is presented in groups of postcodes rather than streets so it doesn?t appear to be possible to extrapolate data for individual streets. If you know of a website where this is possible do please post a link. Nevertheless, I looked at a couple of randomly chosen subsets and none of the residential figures came close to the quoted figures. The only place nearby with higher figures, though not as high as quoted, is the Dog Kennel Hill Estate which is not on Grove Vale. Either way, these figures are now 10 years old and cannot be regarded as accurate. Regarding the businesses in Grove Vale, does this figure relate to the number of BAME owned businesses or does it include the total number of people who work there e.g Kwikfit, M&S, the timber yard etc

I thought the subscription year for garden waste collection started at the beginning of April so it?s not an issue, at least not for a couple of weeks

As no source has been given for this figure, despite my asking, it's very easy to dispute.

This is a screen shot from the Fair Air for East Dulwich go fund me page.

No information regarding the 60% BAME claim?

?It doesn't seem to say high proportion of social housing but rather high proportion BAME. I have no idea where the statement comes from but imagine if we can prove it impacts people disproportionately we might have more of a case.? I read it that it is high proportion BAME AND social housing but I guess that is a matter of interpretation. Of course the 60% figure has been put in to make ?more of a case? but if it?s not true, and evidence of my own eyes tells me it's not, then fraudulent information is being used to raise money. As someone who is neither for or against the LTNs it makes me wonder what other false information is being cited. The points James Barber highlights from research currently under peer review points are interesting. What I most object to is that fake concern for false demographics is being put forward to make ?more of a case?.

Describing Lordship Lane, Grove Vale and East Dulwich Grove, the fund raising page states these ?roads are residential, many with a high proportion of BAME residents (as high as 60%) and social housing? What is meant by ?as high as 60%? and how was this figure arrived at? Do you mean 60% of the total residents of these roads are BAME and if not what do you mean? Can you explain where the social housing is in these roads that add up to a ?high proportion??

?Patel and Dick need to go. Both seriously out of touch? Patel should go, but one of the leaders of Reclaim These Streets does not want to see Dick go and neither do I. It is though the Mayor who is in overall charge of policing in the capital - should he not go also? (Playing devil?s advocate here)

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure why the roadworks haven't been carried > out overnight, given it's such a major route. I?m sure those who live close by are very glad they weren?t

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pritti Patel now says it was infiltrated - and she > had a conversation with the commissioner on > Friday. > > Maybe she should publish that conversation ? From what I?ve seen, the peaceful vigil was overwhelmed by those with their own agenda. There is to be an independent enquiry, the results to be available in a couple of weeks. I don?t think how it?s been presented in the mainstream media is actually a reflection of what happened so I welcome this enquiry.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 37 bus for me when I go down for my blood pressure > - I think maybe only those who need to should > drive. > > It's not a joke that it goes up if you get > stressed is it - so no stress for me. If you were to walk, which I think is quite doable for you, it will be even lower