Earl Aelfheah

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's presumptious. Okay, perhaps many should be > less reliant on cars but on the other hand some > are extremely reliant. I wonder how these > activists decide who should be on the receiving > end of their actions or is it just completely > random? For those who are disabled or who have > very ill relatives and might need to get to a > hospital in the early hours, this is beyond > inconsiderate and, as you say, potentially > dangerous. They target SUVs as I understand it. It's pretty difficult to argue that people need to drive massive SUVs in London.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Weed them out? He'd better hire a JCB then. > > Nothing like a good old-fashioned Stalinist purge > to sort out a problem, that'll show 'em!... I thought he'd already had several purges of ministers who didn't agree with him. Unfortunately, he keeps making new enemies.

Hello

Very sad. The forum has been a real asset to the community.

I do have an issue with publicly funded schools which then have discriminatory admissions policies, based on a parent's religion. jazzer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You may yourself be against religious schools, but > they allow parents to have their children brought > up and taught with faith, nothing wrong with that > and it instils value's and morals which are sadly > lacking from today's society. It may not be > everyone's choice, but choice there is and it does > no harm whatever your believe is or is not. > > Nigello Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I am against religious schools though it?s > never > > good when an established school has to go.

oldermum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am not sure but I think that it isa proposal for > building on the green space on the existing > estate. I think that it isn't the actual Brenchley > gardens. This is correct. Southwark building on a lot of 'infill' sites, removing green space in and around Estates. Pretty shoddy when seen in the context of their mass sell off (at a loss) or huge swathes of land and social housing in the South of the Borough.

Thanks for the recommendations.

I do think we'll likely see 'reformulated' menus as a result of the labelling changes. Probably a positive move.

It's easy to criticise other people's eating habits, but in the 70s and 80s, one person in a couple would often be at home, at least some of the time. Hours were generally shorter, and the pace of life was much slower. 'Cognitive load' was significantly lighter for many, pre 'attention technologies', and the plethora of relatively cheap, fast eating options were fewer. So it's not entirely surprising to me that people may not cook 'proper' meals so regularly, if that is indeed the reality.

Don't know whether this has already been flagged somewhere on this thread. But this looks like a good local campaign, aimed at reducing the number of people driving to schools: https://sustainableschoolr.wixsite.com/sustainableschoolrun

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am hoping someone will open a takeaway noodle > bar. A good noodle place would be great

It's definitely not as bad as pre-pandemic, but after nearly 2 years of relative quiet it can feel worse

Leon's has gone massively down hill imo - no longer including the salad bits that used to make it feel a bit healthier. Haven't been to Megans, but the one in the Village seems to be doing a roaring trade, so someone must like it.

It's really sad that Brick was forced out - all a bit shoddy as it was a really successful business. In terms of the new places mentioned, they all offer something more than just coffee. Meghan's isn't primarily a coffee shop and Joe & The Juice, does a lot of smoothies and stuff, which is a bit different. Pret is primarily sandwiches etc. In terms of that, I actually think we could do with a couple more, decent sandwich shops (I exclude Pret from this), with more people working from home. An independent selling decent, hand made sandwiches, salads and stews would be welcome on the lane imo. The other thing is that two of these places are replacing betting shops and before the short lived 'Saucy', the Joe site was another bog standard indian (which we also have a lot of). So all in all, I think the new places are welcome.

It?s a real shame. It?s a great local resource.

Thanks for sharing this.

@hammerman - do you know what the changes are? Or are you just sure they?ll make things worse without knowing?

?Sheeple? 🤣😂

My thought in the above btw Rockets is that the latest data shows traffic down at every monitored site except On the section of EDG between Melbourne grove and LL (EDG East). This is the result of cars no longer being able to turn off EDG early onto Melbourne Grove North, passing the entrance of ED Charter. Cars now have to stay on and turn a little later at LL. We could ?solve? this ?problem? by having them drive past the school gates. So that?s a legitimate debate to have. But we?re talking about roughly a 250m stretch of road and there is a clear rationale for why you might want traffic to avoid the school entrance. Otherwise, traffic is down at every other monitored site. You seem to be arguing that we should have more traffic everywhere, equally distributed across all streets. This is frankly bizarre to my mind. But sure, fill your boots arguing for more traffic everwhere on grounds of ?fairness?

As far as that analogy works (which it doesn?t really). It would go more like this: The council?s campaign to reduce dog poo has been successful in changing people?s behaviour to a degree. The amount of poo has gone down everywhere. But I can?t help noticing that some streets still have more poo than others. We could think about targeted interventions to further address the issue on those streets, but I?d rather just encourage more poo everywhere. No, no, it?s fairer. No, it?s nothing to do with my not being keen on picking up after my dog.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But if I had driven I would have been forced to > drive down non-closed streets thus "pooing" my > pollution on those streets....do you get the joke > now? > > Anyway any response to my suggestion that your > touted 21,000 journey reduction has nothing (or > very little) to do with the LTNs or are you just > going to continue trying to ignore it....it won't > go away you know....? So you do accept that traffic is down by 21,100 vehicles a day since the LTNs came in now? You?re just claiming that it?s not related to the LTNs? Because previously you?ve claimed that traffic has massively increased?

Ok, so how many of those 25,000 steps could you have chosen to have driven if you?d wanted to? There?s the massive, obvious hole in your poo analogy.

I mean even you must occasionally leave your SUV at home Rockets, deciding to walk, cycle, or take the bus instead? That?s why your analogy is so obviously dumb. There is a degree of choice. Unlike having a poo.

Yes, I know you don?t believe any of the research, the experience of car reduction schemes around the world, or the traffic counts in Dulwich. But presumably you do understand that not all car journeys are essential.

That is literally one of the dumbest analogies I?ve ever heard. It assumes every trip in a car is 100% unavoidable. We know that a third of all car journeys in London are under 2k, (less than 20 mins walk, or around 5 minutes on a bike). If you make it more pleasant / safer to walk and cycle, and less convenient to drive, people will change their behaviour. There is so much research which shows this to be true. The data on the Dulwich LTN specifically, shows it?s happened here too, with 21,100 fewer cars on our roads every day (across all monitored sites). If you removed the LTNs that?s how many extra vehicles we?d be putting back on our streets.