oimissus

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The LTNs have reduced car usage and increased > active travel. But it's not perfect. So rather > than improve it, we should scrap the whole thing > and negotiate a new (unspecified) deal with the > exact same benefits. > > Oh and this better scheme which will be agreed > with everyone, will reduce car use without make > driving more difficult. I've had a quick look at that link and correct me if I'm wrong but that data is from April 2021. So we were still coming out of the spring lockdown at that point. Can you let me know on what basis you are claiming that this reduction is due to the LTN, rather the lockdown? How is it possible to know?

I can?t imagine doing without our car (which has such low emissions we don?t pay any vehicle tax). Although I didn?t often drive to my mother?s in north west London when she was terminally ill as it?s slower except at the weekends, my car was invaluable when it came to clearing her house and getting it ready to sell which dragged on for months. She was also reliant on someone driving her car, or driving her, to leave the house at all for the final two years - she put me on her car insurance. We also use it for our U.K. holidays in the countryside and for days out - we?ve been to the seaside twice in the last couple of days - for getting out of London to recharge it?s invaluable. We also need it to visit both my in laws, neither of whom live near a station and they don?t visit us as they hate the journey to Peckham now they?re getting on, and as my M-I-L was shielding for quite a while they won?t use public transport. Being without a car is fine if your world is very local and you?re fit enough to manage public transport.

tomskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But if a charity shop can use them why just throw > them? Far too much goes into landfill. Everyone > can make an effort to reduce what they chuck out > even if it seems insignificant in comparison to > what big companies or the poor chronic hoarders > throw away. Re-use is better than recycling! Have > you tried putting them outside your house on a dry > day Foxy? Someone will take some of them. Foxy has rightly pointed out that a charity shop is unlikely to want a Guinness Book of Records from the 70s. Why do you think charity shops wants unsaleable books? What do you think they?ll do with all the crap that?s donated to them? I used to run the book stall at my daughter?s primary school. People seemed to think that is was fine to donate torn, scribbled-in, encrusted-with-food, missing pages books. They all went into the bin. Because no-one would buy them. Would you?

Speaking as someone who has worked in the book industry for 30 years, and is therefore well aware of the thousands of books pulped by publishers each year, I would just bin them. I know some people think that throwing books away makes you tantamount to a Nazi, but they are wrong and daft (and not lining up to take those books off your hands). You are right that some books are simply of no value. Bin them and don?t worry yourself about it for a second longer.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Aye - lived locally to me in Sussex > > his sitcom 15 stories high is an under appreciated > gem And filmed locally(ish), on the Brandon estate in Camberwell (John Ruskin Street). RIP Sean.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The school has had all years on site 7-11 this > past year. Next year will be the first year of the > sixth form. Cant imagine that?s a year that would > suddenly start to be dropped off, so the point > still stands that if Tell Grove and Melbourne > Grove South weren?t an issue re being used for > drop off last academic year, there is no reason > why this coming academic year should be different Surely not. Did Charter East not have to lockdown when all other schools did? Did bubbles not have to isolate if a child or teacher tested positive? Charter has the catchment of a sneeze so I agree that the bulk of children will cycle or walk but it is simply not true that Charter, or indeed any school, especially secondaries, has been running at full capacity for the entirety of the past academic year. I also agree with a pp that surely no-one, parent or otherwise, wants displaced traffic pouring past a school. Road closures and the LTN have created that for Goose Green, Charter East, JAGS and Alleyns.

Can anyone recommend a school blouse for an 11 year old girl that isn't see through? The ones I bought from John Lewis (easy care ones, I think) show her underwear (plain white) pretty clearly which she is understandably not happy about! I'm thinking 100% cotton would be better (in more ways than just this) but it would be great if anyone has a recommendation. thanks x

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NM the start t that problem is to end the > council's ridiculous ban on building car parking. > For instance the new housing that will be built on > Greendale could easily have accommodated > sufficient underground car parking for the whole > estate but the council made it a planning > condition that no car parking whatsoever would be > provided for the 250 homes to be built there. > > End that stupid policy and the problem disappears. Seriously? There?s a new estate being built with no car parking provided? That?s . . . insane.

Any bag? My daughter?s school backpack is currently a fairly garish Smiggle number, she does love it so would be thrilled if she could keep using it.

Doesn't work like what? I don't understand. You've quoted a stat saying that 93% of people don't want to lose their car. Surely ignoring that is burying your head in the sand.

I was wondering this too - I was sure I had seen something about the school bag (maybe it being a single dark colour, not heavily branded or somesuch, but the uniform list just says 'sturdy book bag' - this is for senior, so I'm beginning to think I imagined it!

so surely the response to that is to look at making motorized vehicles as environmentally sound as possible, as economically as possible.

Thank you!

I agree, Sandyman. I believe it?s been shown that at least 60% of those fined in Hackney for driving into an LTN weren?t local. Probably similar here. I certainly had no idea about it for ages until I read about it here and I only live in Peckham!

My daughter was born in the depths of a snowy winter and never had shoes until she could walk (about 14 months).

Can anyone point me in the direction of a definitive map of the LTN in Dulwich, with the times? In fact, is it still running as it?s not term time? My sister and niece are visiting next week and my niece would like to go to Tales on Moon Lane but I can?t work out if, for example, Stradella Rd (where I would usually park) is part of the LTN. They are only here in the afternoon and not for long so I wanted to make the best use of our time. The only maps I have found seem to be from the consultation stage - I think? It?s very muddling! Thanks.

That's shocking, lilo, I hope your son recovers soon and the pothole gets fixed asap.

Great news! Mini Manumua has been granted a wild card entry and will be going to the Olympics! The IWF have granted her a tripartite place. See you in Tokyo, Nini!

I take it, then, EDGuy, that you attack organizations such as Southall Black sisters for not including white people? If not, why not? They're exclusive. I take it you attack Mermaids for not including non-trans youth? Why not? They're exclusive. I take it you attack youth groups for not including toddlers or adults? Pregnancy yoga for not including those who aren't pregnant? Save the Children only care about children - we can't have that. World Wildlife Fund only advocates for animals - wrong! For groups to succeed they need to be focussed. And you're happy for every single other group out there to do that - except women. Women *must* include males to be worthwhile. NO. You won't silence us, you won't stop us meeting and organizing for ourselves. And you hate that. Too bad. Did you look at those pictures I posted? They're YOU. Take a good, long hard look at yourself. Anyone who supports a white middle aged man taking the place of a young women of colour is not the nice, kind, progressive person they think they are. They're just a common-or-garden bully. Well, you won't bully me. I will never shut up, I will never stand aside, I will never stop advocating for women and girls. Get used to it.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I guess @Snowy means in the "Created & Maintained > by" Thanks for the clarification, John. For some reason that is blank on the Desktop site, but I can see it on my phone. The Twitter account is Not sure why snowy couldn't have just supplied that first time around so that everyone can check it out for themselves. I've had a look at it and while I can see he's a Christian (he's American, so no big surprise) on a quick scan of his most recent tweets I can't see anything that gives me pause - I don't expect to agree with everyone all of the time about everything, but he appears to tweet mainly about this issue, focussing on sports and prisons. Calling him a 'Christian right-wing anti-vaxxer' is just another attempt to smear and deflect. However - the actual point is the data he is posting. Unless someone can show the data is false I'm not sure why who is collating it is a problem. Unless you don't want people to focus on the data, that is...

Where on their website? I've looked. Here it is again for anyone else who'd care to look (the data is certainly worth a look - the very fact that snowy here is madly deflecting from it, not ,mentioning it at all, tells you there's something worth seeing there). https://boysvswomen.com/#/ Also, you mentioned 'his Twitter feed'? Who's Twitter feed? Can you name this person, link to a tweet? I've looked on the boysvswomen Twitter feed (here, if anyone's interested ) I can't see anything.

tomskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I hear you oimissus, although I would agree it is > inflammatory and probably unwise of you to refer > to the weight lifter as "he" because then you make > it too easy for people to shout this is proof you > are transphobic. > > For myself, I find it is inflammatory to refer to > women as "cis" or "genetic women". Horribly > offensive. Women and transwomen covers it fine. > > The total dismantling of all women's sports is a > niche subject hmm? who could ever have imagined. I've been involved in supporting women's and girls' rights long enough to know that 99% of accusations of transphobia simply mean: "A woman (usually) has said something I don't like! Shut her up!" "A woman (usually) is drawing attention to something I don't want attention drawn to! Shut her up!" "A woman (usually) is speaking up for women only, and excluding men! Shut her up!" (this one never aimed at any other group who organize for themselves) So it's become meaningless. Ditto "hate". Time for another couple of pictures that say a thousand words. Copyright Tatsuya Ishida.

snowy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > oimissus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > snowy Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > From looking at that boysvswomen site it > > appears > > > it?s run by an America right wing Christian > > anti > > > vaxxer. > > > > Do you have anything to say about the actual > data, > > or are you just trying to deflect attention > from > > that? It's very transparent. Oh, and a source > for > > that claim would be good too. Thanks. > > I?m not deflecting. You quoted it as a good > source, so I went to look who was behind the > source. His twitter feed is illuminating. Please provide a link to the Twitter feed you're referencing. I've looked at the boysvswomen Twitter feed, not sure what in that feed supports your claim? Again - nothing to say on the data? Because, as you know, it's the data I was referring to. Are you saying the data is wrong? That the data doesn't support the idea that women need their own, single sex, competitions to compete fairly (and safely, in some cases)?

snowy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From looking at that boysvswomen site it appears > it?s run by an America right wing Christian anti > vaxxer. Do you have anything to say about the actual data, or are you just trying to deflect attention from that? It's very transparent. Oh, and a source for that claim would be good too. Thanks.

No. You embody those who loathe women who say 'no' to them - you do everything you can to deflect and belittle, while doing precious little to help those you claim to care about. Because it's not about them, is it? It's about us. Women. The women who say NO. You think women can't see that? You think everyone reading this can't see that? You're wrong. Deluding yourself, one might say. I have nothing further to say to you, so I won't be responding to any more of your posts. Bye now.