nxjen

OK, take a look at these two photos. Outside the post office

The pavement is very narrow there and when there are people waiting for a bus it is impossible to walk by and maintain social distancing without walking in the road. Street widening on the other side of the road is irrelevant.

Could the fatality rate also have plummeted because the most vulnerable and the elderly are still shielding or at least not taking part in activities where they could be at risk?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is beginning to annoy me is that this looks > like a local Tory campaign and the Tories are > introducing this policy nationally. > Totally agree, vilifying Labour Southwark Council to detract from Tory central Government who introduced the policy.

Shrieker dontbesilly

A strong public health campaign warning of the dangers of smoking to health which led to many, many people giving up was the driver that changed smokers? habits, not any ?modal shift?. Turned out people weren?t so wedded to their cigarettes: I too can see a parallel here.

TfL have done the correct thing in closing the bus stop to safeguard pedestrians. It?s in a part of Lordship Lane where traffic is heavy, regardless of what?s happening on the other side of the road, and pedestrians should not have to walk in the road there to maintain social distancing. Outside Mrs Robinson?s would be a far better permanent position. ETA Someone said further up the bus stop shouldn?t be closed because it meant the elderly and disabled would have further to walk. Should just like to point out that pedestrians trying to pass those waiting for the bus, and the actual structure of the shelter, also include the elderly and disabled, and people with push chairs, who should not be forced out on to the road.

The bigger concern is the levels of pollution that arise because ?people want to keep their cars so that they can get directly to places safely without worrying about the weather, over crowded public transport or how much they need to carry on their journey [who believe that as] they've paid for their cars, pay ved and other taxes ... what's wrong with wanting to drive?

Flyingspur09 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The park isn't owned by Sainsburys, its council > property however they have an agreement with > Sainsburys to police / patrol it and open/close > the gates in the morning and evening. I?m surprised to learn it?s owned by Southwark Council. Whilst it?s categorised as a public open space, it is not included in the list of Southwark open spaces on Southwark Council website, neither is there a Southwark sign at the entrance. Prior to Sainsburys being built, the land belonged to Kings and I had always thought the whole site had been sold to Sainsbury?s or partially swapped with the Sainsburys sporting club facilities in Dulwich Village which was transferred to Kings. Sainsburys do have an agreement with the council to maintain the park but that was a condition of planning permission being granted.

Yes, the new location was actually printed on the blood test form I got from the GP but even if the old one is still shown you go to Tessa Jowell. As Gumshoe says, it?s so much better. And cool.

The remainder of these events have now been cancelled due to ?ambiguities? https://www.friendsofdulwichsquare.co.uk/ The legal advice that was sought makes interesting reading https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f20556c9901276144543bb3/t/5f36be2c471fb44cb171bb47/1597423177107/Legal+Advice.pdf

It is not the ?Dulwich Square? initiative that is forcing traffic elsewhere, like that it is the RESULT of the road closure.

How do you mean assessed and targeted? I don?t understand what you?re expecting them to do.

To be fair, all retail is having a rocky ride which is likely to get worse and I can?t really be against an initiative that might increase footfall to the area. I do though still have issues regarding social distancing and the obstruction it causes for cyclists and pedestrians.

I don?t think the commandeering off ?Dulwich Square? as an arts venue has much to do with the road closure argument. From the Friends of Dulwich Square website: ?We are passionate about creating positive uses for our newly formed square. Our first project is a socially distanced micro arts festival which is running every Saturday throughout August - more information below. We believe that the square will be a great benefit to our local businesses and we encourage all to shop-local and support Dulwich Village's wonderful retailers, cafes and restaurants. If you have any ideas for the square we would love to hear from you. We are not a platform to discuss the pros and cons of Southwark's Street Space initiative. We have set up this community group, purely to explore the potential positive uses of the space.?

Thanks for responding Jane. I?m guessing Southwark Council haven?t been involved in this marketing exercise at all at this stage.

Interested to read that the lady on stilts was paid for by Southwark Council - are you able to share how you came by this information? Am also interested in who is behind Friends of Dulwich Square beyond what is vaguely described on their website as ?A group of local residents and businesses.? Hmmmm ... where have I heard that before

One of the stated reasons the junction was closed was to enable social distancing during the pandemic. These events seem to be at odds with that. Another reason was to encourage active travel. People congregating in this manner create an obstacle for both cyclists and pedestrians.

"The boat people you referred to are economic migrants who probably have more money in their pockets than you or I." In that case why are they trying to come to the UK when it would be in their interests to stay in the country where they were financially successful?

Very contrived. Why would people want to hang out there when the more attractive and larger Park is just down the road?

seenbeen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL wrote...'We did that as students 30 years > ago ...' what you protested outside a cop shop > over a legitimate arrest? Really? I don't think so > somehow.... Yeah, we followed those arrested on CND demonstrations in the sixties and later in the eighties to the police station as well.

FM: It?s an NHS GP practice, albeit run by a private company, but all GP practices are privately owned. I also have to have a blood test next week and will be going there for it. Why don?t you pop along there and see which parts are open and report back to us instead of being so negative about a great new facility?

Perhaps women know that should they start doing a barbecue it won?t be too long before a man will start mansplaining how to do it and take the tongs out of her hands, in a very short while, she?s been sidelined. It does have its upsides: it leaves women free to socialise and any culinary disasters and resulting food poisoning will not be down to her.

I bit the bullet and got rid of the woodchip in my flat about 10 / 15 years ago and very glad I did, there was something so irritating about the woodchip. There were only very small parts in the walls that needed remedial work though I guess all walls are different. Before then I had painted over the woodchip and experienced no problems.

I have no idea what Germ Theory of disease is. Moving away from theory to observable evidence, growing up in the 50s, polio was a very real danger that paralysed and even killed children. Mass vaccination was introduced, as a result that particular disease was eradicated from the UK. Similarly, children born with congenital rubella syndrome have virtually disappeared in the UK as a result of teenage girls receiving immunisation. The OP wants to ?raise awareness of the dangers of vaccinations? when the danger lies in listening to the anti-Vaxxers.