Earl Aelfheah

I walk and run regularly. I cover. A lot of miles on foot each week. Not once have I had a cyclist nearly hit me on the pavement or swear at me. Yet some people claim it’s an almost daily occurrence. It somewhat stretches the boundaries of probability tbh.

Fair enough @Rockets, my bad. I read it as sarcasm. I can't imagine why I'd assume anything you post in relation to the square is having a go. 😉

Nice before and after shots courtesy of ‘clean air Dulwich’.

Wow, this does happen to you a lot! It's like you're constantly dodging rogue cyclists / being sworn at. How has this never happened to me once? Weird How can you tell it runs through the junction if there is no separation? Pretty sure it's on a different level, stepped down from the pedestrian area no?

What’s the issue with SUDS now? You’d prefer that would rather there was less planting and less drainage? How is there no clear definition? They’re at different levels with a kerb?

100%. The same section of road at the junction of heber road and lordship lane is falling again. Thames Water have dug it up maybe half a dozen times and will clearly be doing so again soon. I don’t get why they can’t fix these things once.

No idea who 'our active travel leaders' are. But yes, that's a terrible design. I suspect you'll find most people travelling by bike are not particularly keen on that layout either, but of course, you have to to make it 'us versus them'.... on that, do you have to keep reposting divisive anti 'cyclist' stuff from Twitter on here? If people want to follow you down a Twitter rabbit hole, they can do it on.. err, Twitter? That platform is toxic and you're going a long way to making this section of the forum just as bad.

This is a bit silly. You can hardly blame anyone else for immigration levels in 2023.

So there is a new place next to morons that accepts cats? Have I got that right?

Agree. Very nice place

If you're in to running, there are some good local run clubs / meetups - runhead and peckham pacers.

The lights were out at the junction of Lordship Lane and the S Circular at the weekend. When i say 'out', I mean they'd been destroyed. Probably someone rode into them on a push bike. An incredibly big, heavy and fast moving push bike perhaps.

It's not Thames Water's responsibility to keep Peckham Rye free of water, no. But the recent works designed to to hold water in the park: “capturing about 6 Olympic-sized swimming pools worth of surface water and releasing it very slowly”, were undertaken to stop houses from flooding. The increased risk of houses flooding is the result of a drainage and sewage system which are in dire need of upgrading / modernising, and unable to cope. And this, Thames Water are responsible for. We are paying for their under investment (over many, many years) in the drainage and sewage system; In cash terms - funding the works to modify the park to hold more water in it, and through the loss of amenity that follows from the park being waterlogged more frequently.

Large parts of the drainage and sewage system are in dire need of upgrading and modernising, and are unable to cope. The privatised companies are not going to invest what is necessary in this work. So we pay to have our parks converted into surface water storage areas.

They're not. But the work to build bunds which hold significant amounts of water in Dulwich and more recently Peckham Rye parks, was undertaken to mitigate the impacts of poor drainage and sewerage infrastructure (which was under invested in for years) causing flooding to properties. The latter is (as I understand it) the responsibility of the water companies. I believe taxpayers have paid for the underinvestment in infrastructure by the water companies in two ways; firstly, by paying to have the changes made to the parks (I never got a clear answer from Renata on this forum when I asked, but think this is the case); and secondly through the loss of amenity those schemes inevitably create when those parks are waterlogged through the winter months. As I said, privatised profits, socialised costs.

The water companies don't do their job. The council (i.e. us) pay to remedy their underinvestment in drainage and sewerage infrastructure and we give up our open spaces for the purpose of mitigating the impact. Privatised profits, socialised costs.

Yeh, I heard Badenoch banging on about how 'nothing works' at PMQs, as if this was a charge that could reasonably be laid at the feet of a recently elected Labour government. She's right that things are in a terrible state, but it was her government which left the country so. Labour have a huge uphill struggle to try and halt the decline of public services and restore our finances. People need to wake up to the legacy that the Tories have left us.

Labour won a landslide victory less than 5 months ago. Those demanding ‘another go’, need to grow up. Labour are in for the next 5 years or so, you’ll get your chance then. The petition is embarrassing.

When you start quoting the magna carta you’re in trouble imo. Maybe step back from Twitter. We just had a general election. Labour won a landslide. Demanding another election straight away because you didn’t like the outcome and because a bot farm demands it, isn’t how our system works. 🤖

Yeh, this isn't how it works. You OK?

Doing what exactly?

So when you were out on your doorstep clapping for the NHS, what you really felt was that they deserved to watch their pay shrink in order to protect people being gifted multimillion pound estates from paying any tax on it? BTW, the 22% over 2 years, only brings their pay back to just below the level it was in 2009 in real terms.

How is that meant to be me saying: ? Read it again. I honestly can’t work out if you’re actually a parody account. You sound more and more like ‘Colin from Portsmouth’ every day Are you going to answer the question about who you would like to place a greater tax burden on, before those poor individuals inheriting multimillion pound estates?

And of course not anything I’ve said or suggested anywhere.

It's an estate that they have been gifted. They may choose to earn a living from it, or to sell all, or part of it. In many cases, the land will only have been purchased as a way to avoid tax (as is the case for people like Clarkson, Dyson and other individuals with significant land holdings) and has little to do with farming at all. The idea that if I give you land worth £3m + tomorrow Rocks, it's not an massive windfall, but simply a necessary tool that you need to earn a living is silly. It's no different from someone inheriting any other estate where they would usually be required to pay 40% tax and settle up immediately. If you're opposed to any tax on those inheriting multi-million pound estates - I would be interested in who you would like to place a greater tax burden upon? Or do you simply think we should watch public services collapse even further.