Earl Aelfheah

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We're back in ''That's not my Brexit'' land > again... Yep - it would have been great, they just implemented it wrong.

I second that on Au Ciel - they're good.

Thanks Bonaome, that's a helpful clarification. I had assumed the two were linked.

Because they weren't?

.

The exchange between him and David Gauke (who I don't agree with on much, but is at least calm and thoughtful), is really revealing. It's amazing that Cummings managed to get into such a position of power.

Cummings latest Twitter pontifications on the NI protocol are pretty breathtaking. Apparently it would all have been alright had we just refused to any customs checks. The EU wouldn't have forced a border on the Island of Island and Macron (?) would have insisted on checks between the RI and the EU, effectively pushing them out of the single market?! So that was the masterplan that would have made everything fine? Honestly, he's deranged.

It's going to become less exceptional as time goes on. The paving over front gardens doesn't help.

At one point they ran 6 an hour. Then it went to 4. Now 2. Pretty rubbish.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > One of the early pre-pandemic suggestions from > a > > cycling lobby rep was that unless you worked > > locally/ could cycle, walk or use PT to get to > > work, you should really consider moving out of > the > > area! > > Cool story Just not sure what your point is. Apparently someone said something stupid a long time ago. They support LTNs. So?? Are you inviting us to make a general attribution error?

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But rahrahrah - isn't that a problem with the > Landlord who was willing to negotiate and kick out > their long standing tenant? > > Gails commercial team will have specs for suitable > sites, but it would have been 'unusual' that the > team were just speculatively contacting the > landlords of existing successful businesses and > just happened to contact Parkhill (I think but > might be wrong on that) just at the point of the > lease extension? > > I too would much rather have Brick House than > Gails btw but my judgement here is 100% with the > landlord of the property. Chains can always > afford to pay more and weather the storm. Lots of > independents still to support though so you know > what to do people! I suspect though that Gail's > will be very successful on that site - hopefully > there is room for all. The landlord is certainly at fault. But my issue was that Gails forced a profitable independent out and then left the space empty for? how long is it now? Maybe I?m being unfair, but it felt shoddy to me. The fact that the owner is also a bit of a knob just makes me feel less than warm towards them. I?m not calling for a boycott or anything. Just not a fan myself so won?t be using them.

No LTNs they ?create more traffic on lordship Lane?. More parking on Lordship Lane, we want people to drive there! I wonder whether at some point we?ll make the link between cars and traffic?

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One of the early pre-pandemic suggestions from a > cycling lobby rep was that unless you worked > locally/ could cycle, walk or use PT to get to > work, you should really consider moving out of the > area! Cool story

All the research on LTNs suggest they lead to fewer cars, increases in active travel and reduction in road injuries. It?s crazy how it is all biased. The lack of any counter evidence is startling. It just shows how far the conspiracy goes. Surely there must be at least one brave academic who isn?t willing to falsify research or manipulate data to hide the truth... Which is *checks notes* that encouraging cars onto more roads reduces car use and encourages active travel.

dougiefreeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Newsflash > > ?Closed road has less road related injuries? > > Perhaps now they could run the same study on the > roads taking all the strain - > LL, EDG etc. They did. There was a decrease in road related injuries within the LTNS and no change on exterior roads. Injuries went down overall.

Fewer cars, increases in active travel and reduction in road injuries. I know, all the data / research is biased. The lack of any counter evidence just shows how far the conspiracy goes.

Low traffic Neighbourhoods halve number of road injuries study finds: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/23/low-traffic-schemes-halve-number-of-road-injuries-study-shows

COVID-19 hasn?t gone away and we need to continue to make more space on our pavements for social distancing, to help keep everyone safe.? Southwark Council?s statement re. Rye Lane, made this week.

?It is also important to remember that COVID-19 hasn?t gone away and we need to continue to make more space on our pavements for social distancing, to help keep everyone safe.? ?Except on Lordship Lane.

They can be pretty intrusive. Catapult not a bad idea.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pedestrianising North Cross road is a daft idea Why?

My main problem with Gails is the way they treated Brick House and how they left the site empty for so long. Pretty shoddy imo. Brick were a great, local, independent business. Didn?t know the other stuff about their owner, but makes sense. They generally seem like dcks.

Cars prioritised over pedestrians. Lordship Lane doesn?t need more cars.

At weekends there are large queues there for the Ice Cream Shop, the fishmongers and the cheese shop, as well as queues for the bakery. Where before there would have been 20-30 people, there will now be 4 or 5 cars. It seems like an odd use of space and I don't imagine for a moment that it'll increase business.

So sorry to hear this. Thoughts go out to friends and family.