Earl Aelfheah

Does anyone else find that the hangers are a bit too small? I find it really hard to get my bike in and out.

ED_moots Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We found a nest of honey bees in one of our > chimneys last week. They have been coming in our > house via the fireplace in big numbers but are > very docile and almost dead from exhaustion when > they come out. We received lots of advice on how > to get rid of them. Here's what we learned: > Honey bees are not protected and can be killed in > situ if you use a pesticide approved for use on > bees (although the UK doesn't have such a > pesticide) > If you kill them you must seal the chimney as > other bees will come for the poisoned honey and > take it back to their nest. > You should alert local beekeepers if you're going > to use pesticide. > If you want to remove the nest and transfer it > somewhere else it might mean dismantling your > chimney - very expensive. > > The solution provdide by Tevja at Bromley pest > control is humane and very clever. > > He installed a bait hive on the adjacent pot. The > bees can exit the original pot but cannot return. > The bait hive has larvae in it and the bees with > will start to look after them. Sadly it's unlikely > the Queen will leave her nest and will starve as > she is nit being fed anymore. But the bees in the > bait nest can be easily removed in a couple of > weeks and a new queen introduced. Interesting (and love the picture!)

Just seen this thread- Was it just wandering around on it's own? Any more sightings of this mysterious beast?

My advice would be not to venture on to Twitter. Despite the forum getting generally angrier, it's still a bastion of civility in comparison.

Perhaps we don't need to do either?

@Penguin68, that's true - newer cars are generally more efficient, but so are smaller cars. Newer, smaller cars probably the most efficient of all.

This select committee performance is telling: https://twitter.com/woodstoday/status/974661965346934784?s=20

Chick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe send them to a gulag in Siberia. Too good for them ;-)

It's a shame that they're not coming to SE London (again).

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Cars account for 18% of emissions so there is a > whopping 82% of emission sources that often get > overlooked. Is that right? I thought vehicles accounted for more like 50% of the particulate / NO2 pollution?

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Get smaller cars if they can?t > > The size of the car is irrelevant as regards > pollution - it is the cleanness of the engine > which is. An all electric SUV produces less > pollution than a petrol bubble car. > > Car size is about envy and a socialist belief that > nobody should either have money or be allowed to > spend it. Southwark council's intention to drive > private cars out of Southwark is about 'private' > not 'car'. Hence they are prepared to wage war > against car ownership regardless of the fact that > they are diverting 'pollution' to areas of > multiple occupancy and state schools - they care > more about private car ownership and how to stop > it than about public health - for them the fact > that they can cloak their actions under a banner > of public health just adds amusement to the > exercise. The impact of behavioural changes > arising from Covid (including working from home) > and the impact of the ULEZ extension in autumn > might have been a marker to see what the new > normal is regarding local pollution (and its > sources) before implementing divisive road > closures. But that it only relevant if it is > pollution, and not private car ownership, which is > the target. Which it isn't. Generally, small cars are more efficient, because there is less energy involved in just moving the car (rather than the person sitting in it). If you think people driving around London in oversized SUVs are somehow marginalised / victimised... well I think that's a questionable position.

@heartblock I?ve quoted the consultation question above. It?s not binary. You might disagree with the way the consultation is constructed, but the only people making the choice binary (between ?approve of the scheme as is? or ?return to how things were before?), are One Dulwich.

It?s great that ?One Dulwich? want less pollution and more active travel - everyone does. What do they propose to achieve this? I read the FAQs and they talk about more analysis, getting a scheme everyone will support, more carrots not just sticks etc. But no specifics. Maybe I?m wrong, but it sounds a lot like kicking action into the long grass. I honestly thought ?One Dulwich? would have developed a clear, actionable, alternative proposal that perhaps I could have got behind.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because Rahrahrah Southwark has given a binary > choice in the consultation. Southwark has all > along never listened or considered any alternative > voices ?Overall, what would your preference be for the future of this measure? a. Return it to the original state b. Retain it as it is c. Install a different kind of measure d. Retain the measure, but modify/ enhance it with other features If you answered c or d above, please explain briefly what you would like to see:? This is not a binary choice. ?One Dulwich? could have published some alternative proposals and asked their supporters to tick option ?c? and link to it, or simply refer to it in the comments. They have chosen instead to steer people towards no change / option ?a?. One Dulwich are making it a binary choice. Either support the measures in their entirely or reject them in their entirety; Where is the alternative proposal they say they have made but Southwark are blocking?

Good thread. ULEZ will help, but ultimately people need to get rid of their cars if they can. Get smaller cars if they can?t. Walk, cycle and bus / train more. Stop burning wood. All the things you say. Ultimately it will need tougher regulations and people to change their behaviour.

mr whyte Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah isn't interested in faqs or facts - > he/she is waging a one-person war against the > dulwich alliance, using the standard LCC tactics How so?

I?m not accusing everyone who has issues with the current LTN as wanting to maintain the status quo. But One Dulwich as an organisation are literally campaigning to ?return things to how they were?. This is what is so disappointing

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I completely understand why OneDulwich would take > this approach to try and bring the Council to the > table. It's an approach that forces the Council > to recognise the consolidated opposition to the > current scheme, rather than enabling it to > fragment that opposition into support for various > different measures Is it possible that there isn?t a consensus for measures that support active travel and discourage car use amongst ?One Dulwich? supporters? It?s easy to get support for ?keep things as they are?. Much harder to actually rally people around an alternative. That isn?t likely to change once the current schemes are removed. It?s a manifesto of inaction.

Saw this on Instagram (nothing to do with me but thought it was really nice? so sharing): https://www.instagram.com/p/CPpm1rgnNyy/?utm_medium=copy_link

What are they doing to ?encourage active travel? by opposing any changes and offering no alternative proposals? That is one of the things they say they?re strongly in favour of.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I completely understand why OneDulwich would take > this approach to try and bring the Council to the > table. It's an approach that forces the Council > to recognise the consolidated opposition to the > current scheme, rather than enabling it to > fragment that opposition into support for various > different measures, leaving the existing scheme as > the most popular. (I've mentioned before the 1999 > Australian republic referendum). > > A discussion to try and reach a satisfactory > solution is best reached when the current, flawed > scheme is definitively off the table. > > This will at least show whether people preferred > the pre-scheme situation to the current situation, > but doesn't attempt to pre-determine the final > solution. I don?t understand this. If they have an alternative proposal, why not lay it out. Why not encourage their supporters to all take part in the consultation and say ?I support the alternative proposal put forward by ?One Dulwich?.

So explain the ?slur??

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahx3 - yes you can leave comments for suggestions > but that has no impact on the results. The council > has, by their design of the review document, left > people with no option other than to register their > disapproval of the measure by selecting return > them to their original state. No one wants to have > to do this but they are being shoehorned into > doing so by the badly (probably deliberately so) > designed review documents. > > We have been here before and the council basically > pays lip service to the comments and suggestions > left and focuses the results on how people > registered their thoughts by the options > presented. > > I don't want the measures removed completely but > that is the only way many can effect any change > thanks to the council and their attempt to > manipulate the review. There are four options: ?Overall, what would your preference be for the future of this measure? a. Return it to the original state b. Retain it as it is c. Install a different kind of measure d. Retain the measure, but modify/ enhance it with other features If you answered c or d above, please explain briefly what you would like to see:? ?One Dulwich? could have published some alternative proposals and asked their supporters to tick option ?c? and link to it, or simply refer to it in the comments. It?s that simple. They have chosen instead to steer people towards no change / option ?a?

? The Dulwich Alliance strongly supports reducing pollution and encouraging active travel? Great, how exactly? ?By not making any changes? Oh

I?m genuinely disappointed. Despite what you might think, I could have been persuaded to support a serious, well thought out alternative to the current scheme if it encouraged active travel and a reduction in car use. The ?no change? option appears really cynical when measured against their own rhetoric.