Earl Aelfheah

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some people seem obsessed by it. It gets tiresome > doesn't it? > > Louisa. ;-)

It's the Godwin's Law of EDF.

The cyclist, if they jumped a light.

It just boring. So much on this forum gets turned into a debate about class. Don't get me wrong, I'm all up for a thread discussing gentrification, inequality, class and politics, but this one was about a loud garden party (and plenty of others are about lot's of other things, but get similarly diverted).

I strongly believe in the power of markets, competition and incentives, but it totally dogmatic to think that it is appropriate in all and every case to bring in the private sector. To say that there is only one way is the definition of dogma.

It is not efficient to take a natural monopoly, pour in public money and allow some of that to then be paid out to shareholders. 2+2 does of course equal 4, but in privatisation, your taking 2+2-1 and trying top get to 4. As we have seen, it deosn't work.

Is she OK? Sounds like she may have some mental health issues

.

FFS - why always a class thing. If you're acting in a way that regularly and significantly impinges on those around you in a negative way, you're being inconsiderate. Whether you live on an estate, or drive an estate.

shelly2106 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Domestic incident Really? How do you know that?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi rahrahrah, > That's how TfL manage London Overground and it > seems to work really well. > GTR management with the help of the RMT union, > supported by the DfT seem to have all forgotten > rail services are meant to be a service for the > convenience of passengers. I'm kind of surprised by that. I think it's quite unusual for Train franchises, but obviously not unique.

cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually, though it's annoying late at night we > have had a spate of daytime parties in our road > during the lovely weather. Which is fine but with > all the shrieking, singing loudly to even louder > music, breaking glasses etc etc it means most of > us can't use our own gardens in the sunshine or > invite our own guests as they'll all be driven > indoors. It's very antisocial and a bit depressing > that they don't seem to care about their neighbors > feelings. It does feel a bit like they need to > make a huge noise to show they are having a great > time - unlike the rest of us. Yeah, I don't mind general noise during the day, but I do get aggrieved by the loud 'gangster rap' that we occasionally have to endure on sunny afternoons. Call me an old git, but I don't particularly want to listen to screams of M*therf*ck'n' this and N*gger that, blaring over my garden fence whilst the kids are playing. Whilst I'm sure the daily travails of South Central LA 'gangbangers' is of direct relevance to those living in Dulwich, I like to keep the pimpin' and hoein' to a minimum on a Sunday afternoon.

The Department for Transport gives GTR ?8.9 billion over 7 years and in return receives all revenue. In other words, there is virtually no incentive for GTR to run a decent service as they get to empty taxpayers pockets regardless of whether anyone actually uses their trains.

@JamesBarber - is the council doing anything to bring pressure to bear on Network Rail over the closed rail bridge on Windsor Walk and the partially closed one on Camberwell Grove? Is Denmark Hill next?

It annoys me that there isn't more solidarity / community action on things like this. One or two people can keep a whole neighbourhood awake, why? If all those effected got together, went round and told the offenders to keep it down, they would. I'm not talking pitch forks and burning torches, but a calm and reasonable neighbourhood delegation standing shoulder to shoulder with one another.

The Top Gear effect. Hope you're not too shaken.

It's happened a number of times and there have been various threads on it, including this one: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1666994,1666994#msg-1666994 The point I made before (and which I'll make again) is that the ability to act with impunity and to stick your fingers up to the police is dangerous in and of itself. The gathering at Tower Bridge, was so similar to the prelude for the London Riots in terms of atmosphere it was scary. I saw this article the other day also: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/05/conditions-that-caused-english-riots-even-worse-now-says-leading-expert?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other The police need to get a grip on it.

Surely 'black live matter' is an incontrovertible truism. In the wake of some high profile shootings of unarmed black men, it seems to me like a completely appropriate slogan around which to campaign. I don't get the objections.

Swapping stickers on the records in WH Smith, in order to ensure 'value for money'. I did take a boat once with some friends whilst very drunk. We returned it to (roughly) the same spot we'd found it at the end of the night though and (by no small miracle), in undamaged condition. I wouldn't say we were law abiding, but we generally didn't nick stuff.

So I had to drop my daughters off at a summer club in SE5. I couldn't park anywhere. Not because of a lack of spaces, but because of a completely overzealous and irrational approach to parking restrictions. You cannot park, even briefly, anywhere within the area between Lomond Grove, Southampton Way and Elmington Road. You would be hard pressed to find more than a few parked cars anywhere within this area - there is no shortage of supply, or obvious, significant demand from residents. A lot of the area was cleared many years ago by Southwark Council and has only recently started being redeveloped (total incompetence, but another story), so there are fairly large, empty and 'plots'. What housing there is often has it's own parking (the low rise council blocks), so this might explain the low level of obvious demand from residents. I know this area well having lived there for the best part of a decade and I cannot understand why there is a blanket ban on cars stopping? Their policy has the hallmarks of a solution looking for a problem. I cannot understand why Southwark would want to create large areas where people 'pass through', but do not stop. Think about it, what kind of area is it that lot's of people drive through, but no one stops to actually spend any time in?

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe, > > That's the one. So 8 flats at ?670 with the > penthouses on top at, presumably, much more. The > developers have pretty much got everything they > want and more, will wait to see combined impact of > the whole. You mean a commercial property company has run rings around Southwark planning authorities? I don't believe it!?!?

...'word is, poison's been laid'. Whose word, when, how do they know? I'm really sorry for anyone whose dog has fallen ill, but there is little on this thread to suggest dogs are being deliberately poisoned in Peckham Rye Park.

Wow, just noticed how long this thread has been running... nearly 6 years!

.

BTW - The 'redevelopment' of Denmark Hill was originally a ?4.18 million project to make Denmark Hill accessible. The works overran by more than a year and cost an additional 2 million pounds. It was a disgraceful example of mismanagement of public finances and a total lack of accountability. It's only a matter of time until there is a serious incident there imo (I hope I'm wrong).