TJ

If it is any help, and I want to avoid giving false hope, we had a place at Goodrich which we declined to Southwark, but 6 weeks later despite repeated calls, seems we still have the place judging by the letters we are getting. I will double check again tomorrow as the pressure for you all is unfair. I hope a glut of similar oversights by the clowns in town hall is happening and you all get a place.

You will probably find the skip was just dumped there by the skip company. They can be a bit like that. Its the scaffolders i find truly strange breed 'Kor facking ell laaarve, niice knockers hahahahahaha' yelled at 8am from the top of a building. Charming. at least the neighbouring house is being maintained and you will get a nice quiet middle class family living next door ( I jest).

Not quite universal, but in shopping areas, why not have something more engaging, then we can be left in peace elsewhere to manage our own lives without the need for borough wide 20mph nonsense. henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes those shared space schemes generally come with > a 20 limit. Any faster and the different road user > can't interact naturally and safely via eye > contact. > > Yep remove all the bumps, signs and clutter and > have a universal 20 limit. Perfect.

Have you tried carrying a tool box full of tools, steel beams, or 50 bags of cement, or bricks? They tend to be quite heavy so I am not really surprised they want to get close to the job. the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For weeks now builders have reserved space on the > road in three separate locations near me . I did > hide their cones but its getting very very > irritating! Do they actually have the right to do > this and maybe I could do it to?

I am equally passionate that we need to reduce interference in every aspect of our lives by local and central government and the individual should relearn to take responsibilities for their own actions. I am also concerned that our streets are becoming a assault course to everyone, bikes, cars and busses and travelling about in London REQUIRES an SUV to have any level of comfort. I am also very keen that all initiatives that are a struggle to justify, such as this one, are shelved and the money put to a better use such as giving help to stay at home mums or families on a single income. I know a colleague of yours who would probably appreciate that. In reply to your comments about barriers increasing speed - take a look at this link about simplifying streets and reducing visual clutter written by TFL: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/review-of-simplified-streetscape-schemes.pdf Rationalising traffic barriers, warnings and signals in fact had the exact opposite effect. It slowed traffic down entirely. It would seem, the opposite of what you are saying could be the path of least resistance. A win/win. The key line is how TFL views this approach in a London high street environment: "This means that applying the simplified streetscape philosophy to the London situation could be successful as long as it is not taken to extremes and does not simply involve removing everything ? streetscape simplification and shared space schemes have moved on from such a simplistic approach. Urban design is concerned with more than road safety. Many schemes are conceived as a way of improving the appearance and aesthetics of public space, some strive to improve access, amenity and regenerate streets that have become dominated by motorised vehicle so that pedestrians and cyclists avoid them whenever possible." Why not take a look at this instead of adding another challenge (speed up, slow down, bump, unclear junction, speed up, school & give way area, enter 30 zone for 8 yrds, enter 20 zone etc etc ). Go on James, if you really are passionate about making lordship lane a better place, do something unusual and extraordinary that really makes a difference rather than just fidgeting about with pet projects. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi TJ, > I'm sorry for being crass - whether you've voted > for me in the past or not. > I'm overly passionate about this issue but that's > a poor excuse for rudeness. Sorry. > > Hi DJKQ, edhistory, > Thanks DJKQ I've seen that before. I've also seen > evidence that barriers encourage speeding as > drivers know that pedestrians wont be a problem > for them. So a London and Southwark wide programme > to remove them.

You couldn't quite let it go could you James? You had to get one last dig in. 'The likes of you'. Love the sweeping statements. I suppose you must know me very well without my knowledge. Do you say the same sort of thing to the black community, or single mums, or any other part of society? 'The likes of you should...'etc. I bet you don't. I bet you would be swiftly slapped back into place. Motorists are of course, rightly pigeonholed as planet raping despots, and are therefore fair game. You do not have to assume we are all criminals who break the law at every opportunity until you have removed every civil liberty. Just leave us and our poor streets alone. The city is an eyesore. Getting about to anywhere other than the centre and back is a nightmare. Some of us have to travel about all day in this city. It is a struggle. A mobile population is to be encouraged. I voted for you, by the way... James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi TJ, > I apologies for any implied suggestion you speed. > I have wrongly assumed that your strident defence > of the right for people to speed meant you speed. > > The likes of people such as yourself stridently > fighting 20mph limits often do speed though.

James - please can you qualify your comment: "I don't see why East Dulwich residents should pay > more for the likes of you to speed." Please, get off your high horse right now. Did I say I want to speed? No. Did I say I resent the constant intrusion? Yes. Did I say the odd 'nutter' will speed. Yes. Did I indicate at any time I have sped or wish to? No. Have I ever had any kind of ticket, fine or been stopped? No. I think I would you to correct yourself and issue an immediate apology before I consider how far to take this. The apology will be here, not via PM please. TJ James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi TJ, DJKQ > This is the report stating the cost to the country > of crashes: > https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa > ds/attachment_data/file/9275/rrcgb2011-02.pdf > > Thankfully we've not had any deaths. So taking the > number of serious crashes (4) and number of minor > crashes (70) divided by the data period of 6 years > gives us an average annual cost to society of > ?409k or ?78.65 per East Dulwich household per > year. > > Doing nothing is extremely expensive. Making > Lordship 20mph speed limit will cost around ?15k. > But their is also the annual cost of people on > average reducing their speed 1-2 mph. Lets say > 1.5mph. Traffic surveys show average every day of > 24,053 vehicles going north and south along this > part of Lordship Lane - or 8.8m vehicles pa. > The speed reduction will on avarege mean drivers > driving the whole length will lose 2.77seconds. > Lets assume all travel the entire length. This > would equate to 6,771 lost hours per year. The > London mean wage is > http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_286243.pdf > ?650pw or ?17.50ph. So assuming half the hours > lost are working hours annual cost would be ball > park ?60k vs an annual saving of ?409k. > > I don't see why East Dulwich residents should pay > more for the likes of you to speed. I don't get > your right to speed and harm our community. > > Not sure how much we can factor in the Portas > effect. Such traffic safety was one of her > recommendations to help high streets compete with > shopping malls, etc. Assuming her recommendations > are correct then local businesses should expect > some benefit from Lordship Lane being 20mph - some > have privately emailed asking for it to happen > ASAP.

James - that is not what was said or what was suggested. There is no need for more intrusion into our lives. We all get on just fine without the need for more and more nannying. And yes, I do see each new councillor, MP or politician on one paper or another trying to get their names out in the public sphere with a new initiative we all pay for. To be frank. I am sick of paying for politicians pet projects. Please, do us all a favour and take the money being spent on the consultation and the money earmarked for traffic control and please, put in in the bank account named 'national debt'. It will serve a far greater purpose there. If you don't, we will all just have to pay for it. Twice.

James Barber - I would seriously question the cost too. ?.4m to society? The last time I had a crash (Knocked off a motorbike by a soldier driving an Army lorry), it cost ?200 to fix the bike, nothing for the bruises and grazes to heal themselves. The soldier went to afganistan and served a tour there so was unavailable to comment for insurance purposes and it was all cleared up in a matter of months. How on earth does a minor crash cost ?22k?? Please, get us some reasoning before using this in some kind of cost analysis / argument.

i just simply hate the enforced nature of it all. Why can't we just be left to behave ourselves. Why does every facet of our lives have to be controlled by local councillers trying to fill their days and find a new 'initiative' to get their mugs on the southwark rag? When the high st is busy, which is most of the time, it is impossible to go more than 15 miles an hour anyway. The traffic regulates itself. At night / evening, when it is empty, being able to cruise about at 30 is fine. If we really have an issue with the odd nutter doing 90, then get some sodding policemen out on the streets with a mobile camera. That will soon slow people down. Oh yes, thats why. Can't afford it, country is broke. So, lets make life miserable for everyone instead.

look at the air new zealand air beds - it is 3 economy seats, you pay for 2.5, but it has more leg room and a flip up part creating a decent bed. Costs less than a 5th of a first class bed.

Just call the RSPCA - after a few calls they will start to take notice, Posting on here is not going to achieve anything.

Its a residential street. Any late night facility, in my opinion, should be located in a more commercial area of ED or perhaps in the grounds of the Hospital on ED Grove. There are no local transport links, and from what i can see of the application, the intention is to put a nissan hut / portacabin in the garden overlooking Darrel Road. If the Surgery want a Pharmacy, then fine, by why open one round the back in a portacabin and have it open much later than the Surgery is open? For this reason I oppose the pharmacy. To look at the needle exchange issue, I do know the nursery next door (which is a community nursery) do gardening along the boundary. This area is where the youngest children play. I do not expect the vast majority of needle recipients will use any where near the surgery, but it only takes one idiot.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3176292.stm I dont want one child to suffer due to the negligence of one idiot, and for that reason, I will happily state i do not want this exchange there. Finally, far be it for me to think the DMC Heathcare group only think of their bottom line, but I suspect this service is only being provided as it is something they can charge Southwark a great deal of money for. Dr Ravi Gupta would seem to be doing quite well already and i dont think he needs more money. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063458/Family-doctors-firm-raking-1-8m-YEAR--patients-say-surgery-appalling.html

result! see ya later iceland..

I would like to chip in my 2 pence here. I have 2 cars. One is a very low slung 'super' car, which is about as low as cars get. It is fine on the speed bumps mainly due to its relatively short wheelbase. I wouldn't be sure 20mph is possible, but 10 maybe. I also have a social misfit 4x4 which is actually hopeless over the bumps. As the wheel base is so long, you really get thrown about even at very low speeds. If you tried 30mph, your head would have gone straight through the roof. My cousins E class merc (very long distance between wheels) couldn't deal with them at all, although he did manage to get the same car up a mountain in switzerland off road once. Therefore, its all about your car length, clearance and weight distribution. The bumps are fine. They are near a school in a residential area. If your car can't handle bumps, speak to your garage to see if your springs or shocks need replacing or there are any bits hanging loose underneath. Failing that, buy a new car that is built for city life. Finally, I know it is silly season, but please can the politicians bugger off and score points of each other elsewhere.

I still don't understand why there can't be occasional raised sections on Barry road. It seems by adding a small raised section of the side road (where people are already coming to a halt)is not the issue.. Its the cars on barry road that also need to be visible. Either by slowing them or clearing line sights. i find it amazing southwark are avoiding an opportunity to put traffic calming masures on a busy road. Its not like they are usually shy of fannying about with anything and everything...

That would involve leaving them in the house all day.... or do ED dogs have no need for walkies?

Having seen the recent burglary post about Dunstans Rd and having spoken to the police detective on her follow up, it would appear there is a team at work who have a very simple but effective routine. Afternoons from 3-5pm. The majority of people are at work or doing the school run. They go in via the front door and pick / force weak locks. They take portable, small high value goods (electrical, jewellery etc). Its quick, clean and discrete. There are 3 really simple ways to protect yourselves & hopefully push them to a new area: 1. Always lock the front door with a chubb style 5 lever lock AND a regular yale. 2. Fit an alarm. At worst, fit an alarm casing to make it appear like you have an alarm. 3. Try to vary your routine as much as possible. TJ

Agreed.

I would agree that using locks and security is no.1 priority. We didn't, we got screwed over. You can't stop a burglar, but you can slow them down. To place basic ground floor window bars (non obtrusive and aesthetically ok) including installation from SDS clapham cost me ?180... According to the insurance company, less than 3% of burglaries are in houses with alarms. Draw your own conclusions.

Would anyone who was on Hillcourt Rd between 3.30 and 5pm on Friday pls PM me if they saw anyone acting suspiciously. There are reports of 2 men working or at least pretending to work on a fence halfway along the street. I would like to find out who they were. Also, anyone who was seen wandering around with a 32" Panasonic TV or loading one into a vehicle would be of interest. TJ

This is superb news! I had no idea there were 24hr offies in the neighbourhood! I feel a late night session and stumble is now on the cards.

what i find odd, is that i checked that crime data base the police just launched and none of the 3 thefts I reported or any of the 20 or so thefts that forumites emailed me about were listed. They clearly do not even register them as crimes or thefts. I think it is simply ignored.

The removal of automatic 'permitted development' approval is no great deal and stops unscrupulous developers. You simply apply for full planning permission so the council take longer and look at the proposals in more detail at a cost of ?75 and hopefully (if your architect did his/her job properly) bang goes the rubber stamp. Probably for the best in the long term.

what a wanker