Earl Aelfheah

Their website says: “This store is temporarily closing for refurbishment on the 24th December after closing time. We expect to reopen, bigger and better, in the middle of February 2025.”

You may just as well ask why mention their age, or their sex, or that there were two of them. The OP was giving a general description.

I believe it does - details here Noise and antisocial behaviour - Southwark Council

I believe this is where it goes. But why not email your councillor and ask the question?

It seems to be primarily ostentatious 'status' vehicles that are targeted and are often ill suited to London in a number of ways anyway. Best advice is probably just to get a practical smaller car if you need one.

His latest tirade of tweets, including questioning whether the US 'should liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical government' are all pretty concerning. Also massively disappointed that there hasn't been a more unified response from across the House in pushing back on such interreference in our democracy by a clearly unstable megalomaniac. Whilst David Davis has spoken out, Badenoch and Jenrick seem to siding with space Karen. The attacks on Jess Phillips seem particularly dangerous and misplaced. She's probably done more in terms of supporting women and girls who have been victims of abuse than most in parliament, and certainly more than Musk will ever do.

I wasn't aware of this, thanks

[deleted as it's tedious and people can read the research for themselves if they're actually interested]

[oops, posted on wrong thread].

You did though, didn't you? 🤣

This is such a ridiculously cynical misrepresentation of a piece of research which is positive about the impact on car use by residents inside the Railton LTN. The researchers used postcode plus number plate data from controlled parking zones, matched to annual MOT records, to see what happened to car use of those living inside the Railton LTN. Between 2020 and 2023, the total number of active parking permits increased by 9.0% inside the LTNs and by 10.1% in the control areas. Driving decreased among residents living inside the new LTNs and increased by among residents in control areas. This represented a 6.4% relative decrease in distance driven by those inside the LTN. The findings suggest that growth in car ownership was slower inside the LTN than outside of it, and more significantly, that residents started driving less once their area became an LTN. Their conclusion was: What you have taken from this is that ‘car ownership increased inside LTNs’. Whilst not strictly untrue, it is a such a mischaracterisation of the research and it's findings that I don't know how you're not embarrassed; Another, tedious example of cherry picking.

[deleting because this is just boring]

So if there is zero need to enter the bus lane and there are signs and road markings making it clear that it is a bus lane, where is the 'trap' exactly? I’m assuming all this tedious nonsense about bus lanes is the result of your getting caught in one? If so, and if you believe the circumstances were unfair, perhaps try appealing the fine before creating a whole conspiracy narrative across multiple threads? …thats assuming you weren’t just cutting up the inside of some traffic to turn left of course.

With links included: On Railton Road - Residents started driving less once their area became an LTN: On Southwark Council Guidance - "Recommendation 14: Introduce a borough wide programme of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods" On Tfl and using bus lanes when turning left - "If you want to turn left across a bus lane, an arrow or a dotted white line on the carriageway will indicate if this is permitted." Highway code on bus lanes "you should not drive in a bus lane during its period of operation" ...and your 'evidence' that Southwark use bus lanes as "traps" and "generate funds" for "vanity projects"... the same claim that Tfl allow you to use any bus lane when turning left (they don't, see above).

That would be an expensive broom.

So your evidence that Southwark are laying "traps" to "generate funds" to pay for "vanity projects", is that one bus lane stops slightly shorter than another one, at two entirely different junctions? Underhill is a two way street, with buses turning in and out of it, and which sits at an acute angle from Lordship lane (turning from the left). It is notable that you have not answered the question about whether you believe the turn into Overhill is impossible, or even difficult to make. Because this is the only question which is remotely relevant to your claim. Tfl guidance is not to: TFL will also fine you for entering a bus lane, except where there is a broken line and an arrow indicating that you can move across. Again, I invite anyone who doubts this to try it and see what happens.

Very true, but still made me smile

These have started sprouting around East Dulwich! “…there is no poop fairy” 👏

I’m not sure (so stand to be corrected), but I think it’s an investment pot to fund projects tackling the impacts of climate change over the next decade or two. If you email your councillor I’m sure they could give you more info.

I'm mainly here to stop attempts at spreading misinformation from a monomaniac. Recent examples include: Misrepresentations of research into the Railton Road LTN False claims that Southwark Council's own guidance sates LTNs should only be established in the North of the Borough Irresponsible suggestions that TFL guidance is that individuals may drive in a bus lane when turning left. Unevidenced claims that Southwark Council are breaking the law by introducing controlled parking schemes for the purpose of income generation. etc... I feel it's important that this stuff shouldn't go unchallenged, as I would like this forum to be a place for good faith debate.

Of course not, because it's just deflection. The real issue is that a handful of people are still furious about changes which were made to the road layout in Dulwich village 4 years ago. But ultimately, there is no 'foul play' or conspiracy, just a set of decisions which one is perfectly entitled to agree or disagree with. I have never taken screen shots of things Rockets has said and then posted them as images in another thread so they appear out of context. I don't need

Why not make a complaint to the Ombudsman so that they can investigate your allegations?

You really do seem to forget that my words are published and that anyone can go back and read them in context.... and so are yours. Taking a screenshot of a comment from a different thread and reposting it out of context into a new one you've set up is not very subtle.

To be clear, I was talking about the establishment of the LTN as the suggestion was that CPZs were being used to raise money for 'eye catching projects'. The Dulwich LTN was established through funding from the UK governments Emergency Active Travel fund initially, as I've stated above. I also stated on the same thread more than once, that the use of any surplus raised through road charges can be used for activities specified in Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended); road safety and public realm improvements etc., "including things like filtered streets, bike lanes, expanded pedestrian spaces etc". Unfortunately for you, my words can be read in context for everyone to see. But why are you cross posting from the multiple posts you've set up to moan about the LTN, controlled parking and your getting caught in a bus lane? It's just impossible to keep up and feels like more kicking up dust / deflection. We know you don't like the square, moan on one of the threads you created about the LTN. We know you disapprove of controlled parking - moan on the thread you created for that and try to keep it focussed. We know you don't approve of getting fined for driving in bus lanes - just try not to do that, yeh?

Why don't you appeal the fine from Southwark and see what happens. There is zero reason to enter the bus lane before turning into Overhill - it's a one way street and the turn is not tight.