bawdy-nan

thanks Slartib - really helpful

thanks Tomdhu, that's really helpful. ZT, I'm sorry, I wasn't intending to be rude I just couldn't really understand whether there remained objections to aspects of the proposals or whether it was just a question of "it's all a waste of money".

Honestly, I'm not sure. I do think the junction needs improving in terms of safety (absence of child deaths notwithstanding) for pedestrians and cyclists and I am very pleased that the no right turn has been abandoned. But I don't feel qualified to weigh up the various options and agitate for my favoured option. I'd probably be ok with whatever's plumped for as long as it encourages large groups of children to use a crossing rather drifting across the road and improves the visibility or safety of the Greendale cyclists. I think it is a good thing that the first phase consultation led to a change but I'm no traffic planner and I think I'm reasonably happy to delegate the detail to the people paid to do it. It won't please everyone but it's good enough for me.

Yes, much clearer, I think. Originally there was dissent because of the no right turn and the impact that might have (increased busyness at other junctions, u-turns in Greendale, impact on side streets etc). Now the focus of opposition has coalesced around a tax-payers alliance ish opposition to the spending of money on safety improvements which the opposers don't deem necessary, Because there haven't yet been collisions or accidents. There's also some opposition to the idea of prioritising cycling. I can't get a sense of how powerfully opposed this remains now that the no right turn objections have been satisfied. there was a very active residents campaign (biscuits etc) are those people still opposed I wonder.

One of the things I found extremely impressive about the head when I visited the school was that she was the only school leader who talked about actively encouraging ALL students to stay on for sixth form. Her attitude to the idea of education was inspiring.

So, are you saying that you oppose any alteration to the junction on principle because you see it as a waste of money? When I attended the public meeting about this I heard lots of explanations from parents and residents (especially of Greendale) about why they felt the junction was dangerous for the large number of children using the junction and the observations from the council officials mapping pedestrian movements across the roads show diagonal crossing and avoiding the penned islands, I think. (I may have misunderstood this, but that is my understanding). My children don't use this particular crossing and I tend not to use the Greendale cycle route but I can absolutely see why it is felt necessary to make improvements. I don't understand why you would want to block this if the objection is just that you don't want to see the changes made. Secondly, isn't the money coming from outside the borough? ie, it isn't a Southwark overspend. I think the mayoral budget for cycling improvements is hugely under-spent in any case, although I don't know if this is the same pot. I am surprised by the vehement opposition to this new proposal. I thought I must have missed something. I wondered if it were being made on party political grounds but the mix of mayoral and southwark impetus and cash here would suggest not. I'm slightly baffled.

Although most recent census data (2011) indicates that more than approx 60% of households in Southwark don't have a car and less than 8% of the 16 - 74 population use a car to get to work, so, richard tudor, perhaps the shift in focus is the right thing if the council is attempting to serve the wider population http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/368563_1.pdf

Trying to read this thread to understand what the objections to the new proposals are but I can't really see what they are. I understood and agreed with objections to the no right turn proposals because it didn't meet the brief of improving safety (and likely made other junctions more dangerous). These revised plans appear to make the crossings much safer for vulnerable road users at peak time (ie school children) with a minor inconvenience at peak time to car users (ie the increase in potential queuing. Is it that that is the main issue: shifting the burden of waiting time from pedestrians to cars at peak times?

My favourite DMC story, admittedly from a few years ago was being told off by a French accented GP for still breastfeeding my baby at 6 months ...

Here's a few links which collate the evidence: http://www.rospa.com/about/currentcampaigns/publichealth/info/rs4-casestudy-20-mph-zones.pdf http://www.dannydorling.org/wp-content/files/dannydorling_publication_id3924.pdf http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/research-summary-no2-20mph-zones.pdf from the tfl report above: Casualties The impact on casualties due to the introduction of 20 mph zones in London can be summarised as follows; ● Allowing for background changes in KSI casualty frequencies, the installation of 20 mph zones has reduced the frequency of road user casualties within the zones by about 45% and reduced the frequency of fatal or serious (KSI) casualties by about 57%. ● There were statistically significant reductions in the KSI casualty frequency for most classes of road user within the 20 mph zones. ● The KSI casualty frequency for children also fell significantly -- by 60%. ● The severity ratio (the ratio of KSI casualties to all casualties) fell from 0.16 to 0.12 following zone installation ? indicating a reduced severity. ● The average annual reduction in fatal and serious (KSI) casualties per 20 mph zone suggests an annual saving of about 66 KSI casualties across all of London?s current 20 mph zones. Using DfT figures this is equivalent to a current annual saving of at least ?8.8 million, at 2001 prices. Here's the 8 page thread where all of this was discussed last month http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1459395,page=1

I dint think they do those services at the mo. brilliant to hear it isn't closing and the extended times.

It's not a rant and I don't think it's intemperate. Of course I think that elected representatives should be held to account but decisions aren't made by referendum. Because you don't agree with a policy being implemented and you haven't been asked directly to agree to it you can't just say it is being "bulldozed". From what I can see there doesn't seem to be huge opposition to this here, or wherever else in the UK it has been put in place. There are bound to be competing interests and in this instance you appear to feel that your interests are losing out. You just don't like the new rules. I prefer the rules that put the lives of pedestrians over the needs of one type of road user. As has been pointed out many times (and often as a point of criticism) there are many groups actively campaigning for the changes they would like to see. I agree that sometimes lobby groups wield disproportionate influence and that shouty campaigning doesn't always mean that everyone's voice gets heard. You too can campaign and lobby to have your interests represented if you really care very passionately about your ability to drive at 30mph. Otherwise why not just obey the rules. Obviously, I don't think I should be able to come and let your tyres down because I would like to see fewer journeys made by car. I agree that, despite my desire, I should respect the rules. I'm interested by the turn of the threads towards the demand to be "properly" consulted and what this might mean. For instance, the citing of the council's refusal to take on board the "7 objections" in a previous consultation seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. Its right, isn't it, that so few voices raised in objection to a policy shouldn't be able to influence that policy.

Who is being "bulldozed" exactly? I don't see much evidence, aside from the handful of people expressing themselves here, of a mass uprising against this new speed limit. Indeed, why would there be. There are all kinds of things of which I don't "approve" and which the council and government don't consult me directly but I participate in the democratic process and accept that "representative" government doesn't mean that things done in my name will always be exactly what I want. People who feel passionately about issues often band together to lobby the policy makers and attempt to wield influence that way (ie the bike and road safety campaigners). That's an option open to you. For those of you who feel very strongly about the parking / promotion of road safety / consultation of your views more broadly you could perhaps form some kind of SE22 tea-party movement.

I too was mysteriously removed from their list despite them contacting me about a repeat prescription. I was furious and spoke to the practice manager who seemed very nice and determined to do something about the situation which he acknowledged was in a poor state. This was a couple of months ago but it doesn't sound as though things are improving at all.

have you calked the shop in camberwell - they don't have them online but when we rang they did have them

or doing what they said they would in their manifesto (said james b I think)- there's the mandate I suppose

Lovely to be in your thoughts. Sorry, I just find it weird that some people feel that the law doesn't apply to them if they don't feel like joining in and they're probably the same people who wouldn't ever consider shop-lifting, tax evasion etc etc.

So are you advocating just disregarding the new limits? I don't fancy this much so if you could just let me know where you're based I can pop round and let your tyres down. I know it's against the law but I'm not convinced the police will stop me, I reckon I can get away with it and anyway I reckon I'm right so I'll just go ahead and do it.

http://www.rukins-keld.co.uk/ Is very nice and you can have fires.

That's very good news - thank you for pursuing this.

well - it certainly looks like a great school with great results and very good expected progress results .. and so near. Would have included it in my list if I'd ever even heard of it!

From St Thomas over subscription criteria: "N.B. Catholic families will be admitted above all others, but the College has a considerable number of practising Christians on its roll." Which seems to hint that you've got be a Catholic for preference but certainly a practising Christian whatever ...not sure your lifestyle and non-church based rituals would pass muster Goodliz ...but who knows...

has magic wok closed? it seemed to be open last night ...

This is another set of statistics analysed and presented by Danny Dorling. He is Professor of Geography, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford. He wrote this for the British Academy who commissioned several experts to look at single actions that could reduce health inequality. In it he addresses many of the concerns raised on this thread and provides evidence based responses. http://www.dannydorling.org/wp-content/files/dannydorling_publication_id3924.pdf

It isn't in the table. It hasn't ever been on my radar. mostly because in order to be admitted you have to be Catholic with a reference from a priest. But if you're keen on comparing other schools you can click through here http://www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/group.pl?qtype=GR&f=3gaZdixDzl&superview=sec&view=