Earl Aelfheah

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).

Presumably a reduction in costs doesn't necessarily lead to reductions to ticket prices - it could just as easily lead to increases in executive pay, profits and dividends? Denmark Hill is an accident waiting to happen.

I tried to get a thameslink train from Denmark hill the other day. Signalling problems meant no trains. There was loads of confusion / little info and so people were hanging around whilst more and more people continued entering the station. It got dangerously overcrowded and became increasing difficult to get off the platform. It's only a matter of time until someone gets hurt due to this kind of terrible mismanagement. Meanwhile our taxes continue to be siphoned off into the pockets of Executives and shareholders.

Jeez, the amount of money wasted in yet another Boris vanity project....

I cannot understand how they're not in breach of contract /terms of the franchise. There seems zero accountability. Meanwhile they stuff their pockets with taxpayers and commuters money. It's criminal.

Mouse

Why don't Southern just stop running trains and allow people to walk and cycle along the tracks?

....ED that is.

mikeb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've completely written off East and North Dulwich > stations, now using Denmark Hill and Forest Hill > plus cycling / running and buses. I think > September will see the real impact of the > timetable Yeah, 1 token train an hour is barely worth the effort. They may as well just close the station until this is sorted.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Admin. I can't start a new thread for some > reason? Help! I can comment on existing threads but cannot create a new one (the page just refreshes but doesn't post).

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm happy with that. I won't be surprised if > Sainsbury's acquire the current Vets in Peckham > Rye. Or, could it just be, could it... *waitrose*

Hi Admin. I can't start a new thread for some reason? Help!

I hope you're right. It's a bit early to tell, but the picture should start to become clearer over the coming months.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because they would rather spend the money making > it easier for people with buggies to walk around > the tress in Melbourne Grove. Unfortunately, the council seem to have a 'he who shouts loudest' approach to prioirtising resources.

It's a really dodgy junction. Weird that so many extra set's of lights were put in along LL, but this junction was not addressed.