Pierre

macutd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > watch out delivery scooters I noticed a camera on > the junction of Melbourne and Grove Vale Damnit! Can't people break the law in peace without Big Brother snooping on them these days?

I still think it's good that _something_ has been started, even if it's not the perfect solution. It's working for _some_ streets and it's helping encourage people to think twice about driving a journey if they don't need to. And that is a good thing - it's the start of reducing _unnecessary_ car use, which is what we all want. I lived a street away from Catford gyratory a few years back and the air quality was utterly disgusting, round the clock. But nobody in the expensive houses further away was claiming "all streets matter" then, because they could still drive (and queue) down the back streets and feel smug about avoiding the worst of the traffic. A lot of this manufactured outrage feels like hypocrisy because some people have been slightly inconvenienced. I'd bet any money that if the LTNs were abolished, the dirty roads would still be dirty and congested (they always were) and this fake concern for their inhabitants would evaporate as people happily jump back in their cars to dodge the speed bumps and queue for the corner shop.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is also very telling that in the Netherlands, > despite their love of the bike, they own more cars > per capita than we do in the UK. I didn't know this; I wonder what they do with them? They certainly have the sense not to try and drive round cities in them - but that's possibly because their cities' (and towns') infrastructure is so good that walking and cycling are very safe things to do and public transport is "normal" whereas driving is not. Plus, their legal system presumes fault on the part of the less vulnerable road user. If you're a cyclist and you hit a pedestrian, it's your fault. If you're a driver and you hit a cyclist, it's your fault. Our legal system relies on a jury and an old man judge in most cases, so the "well, we've all lost concentration sometimes and really the cyclist shouldn't have been there" argument seems to prevail. Anyway, that's a bit of a diversion away from making streets healthier - let's get back to thinking all cyclists wear lycra...

Giacomelli Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've had so many fines now in Dulwich (I no longer > live in ED), I've decided to not go there any more > for certain shops/cafes - it's too much of a risk. > I'm often looking out for people crossing the > road, or other perils in the road and therefore > haven't noticed the new signs. Where on Southwark > website can I find a map of the restrictions? https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/our-healthy-streets/our-healthy-streets-dulwich

Fair point, the manager's attitude tends to lead the rest of the team. But in that case, the area manager will be the next one up the chain... you could always try from the other side and use the "contact us" online chat or phone line on their centralised website.

Worth getting in touch with the store manager if you can. They're a big chain so the actual owner won't have any knowledge of what's going on in each individual shop but each store manager will be responsible for the feel and feedback of their own shop.

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you lived in a three flat victorian conversion > or even a 2 up 2 down conversion would you really > want this blocking up the entrance hall to 2 > flats. Also if you are the landlord would you want > this type of bike damaging the fabric of the > building when it is stored and moved in and out. > > Like many ideas re bikes they are not thought > through. Also how will it effect health and safety > if Councils can remove pot plants because they > block the exit way. Interesting idea. So let's say two of you share a flat in a Victorian conversion, there are two other flats and an average of two adults in each flat, and each pair of adults owns a car. Is it "thought through" that there should be allocated on-street parking for three (potentially large) cars in front of that Victorian conversion and that they should be allowed to "block up" the road space that could be much more efficiently used to move around people and deliveries by... more or less literally any other means? It's only really the sense of entitlement that most drivers have that causes most of these arguments in the first place. Some even think they still pay "road tax" even though it was abolished in the 1930s and roads are paid for by *everyone's* taxes!

mr.chicken Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is nothing at all which could ever reduce > the amount of traffic. The council should just > accept that. > If this is the case, surely the ones who need to "just accept that" are the people who choose to get stuck in traffic*. If we build bigger roads, we get more and bigger cars. Every time. * or rather, "you are not stuck in traffic. You are traffic."

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Would you appeal a speeding fine based on an > argument that everyone else was speeding too? I?m > sure getting a fine is frustrating but I feel > drivers should take responsibility for their > actions - especially as you say you saw the sign > and understood you needed to turn around. Exactly this. Which other laws are you allowed to break, but get away with if you say "oh, I wasn't looking properly" or "well I don't agree with the law"?!

Like with Roddy, we contacted Billy to come out to do our annual boiler service. He talked to us beforehand about how he could keep his distance and keep himself and us safe. Great communications, prompt, tidy, and a good price. I found his details through this forum and I'll definitely be using him again!

...and another recommendation for Nico. He's a busy guy but, like his voicemail says, he does always call back. And he's _very_ knowledgeable. We'd had a couple of plumbers out to our house over the last four years and Nico's knowledge and instinct was much better - he identified the problem quickly, told us what the anticipated complications could be (old pipes and joints) and solved it quickly and neatly. And for a reasonable price!

DovertheRoad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > fishbiscuits Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Thai Corner isn't though!! > > Hmm. It's straight up Thai food without a hipster > flourish but I disagree. It got very average for > a number of years but I was pleasantly surprised > to find they have raised their game and have had > several recently as a result. Flavours are good > and they deliver super fast via deliveroo. I have to disagree with the delivery part - we waited over two hours from ordering to delivery the other day. Hangry doesn't even begin to cover it. They even hung up on us when we phone to ask how long our order was going to be. They kept the poor deliveroo rider waiting for over an hour. Poor show. I'm looking forward to the revamped Mr. Liu - when I first experienced it (in about 2004) I remember it as "really good, but expensive." Worth it as a treat. My experiences in the last couple of years have been more "soggy, OK, but expensive." I hope it gets good again. I wish them good luck in the refurbishment.

-- moved topic --

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think most people want a new business to > succeed, and don't like to see one which doesn't > seem to be going about it in a sensible way. > > How is what's been posted not helpful? The > comments seem constructive to me. I agree - if I was setting up a new business (or actually running an existing one), this is the sort of feedback I'd welcome. Once I'd poured myself a stiff drink...! ;)

LadyNorwood Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TG - when was Amsterdam the size of london? I > don't like pollution but I also don't like being > spat at and called a @#$%& c*nt by a member of DC > staff when he almost knocked me over on his bike > as he shot down the pavement... I don't think the point is that Amsterdam was the _size_ of London, but that in the 1950s the rate at which cars were replacing bicycles on the road was rapidly changing the infrastructure of both cities. An interesting read, if you've got a couple of minutes: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord As for the latter part of your post, that's just out of order. Whether on a bike, in a car or on foot. Even though I ride a bike (and drive a car, FWIW), I'm can't defend someone who's an arsehole - what's DC? It may be worth complaining to them.

As kilbris says, why does the CMHT need to be moved? If Southwark want to make more profit from the site, will they find an equally convenient new site for the CMHT?

Damn, yes you were. Sorry!

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Imagine your neighbour doesn't like you, you see a > gang of people with baseball bats vandalising his > car - are you going to go out and risk your safety > just to make sure nobody blames you? Amazing, > we've gone from travellers being blamed for being > criminals to now being blamed for not being > policemen! That's a really bizarre way of interpreting it. Imagine if you were only ever planning to be temporarily parked up in one place, but you thought that place was OK so you'd like to stay a while, if they could put up with you. Imagine if you had to live in a perpetually nervous state of always having to be ready to pack up your generator, hitch up your caravan - your home - and get back on the road to somewhere else. Maybe somewhere you'd only heard about through a phone conversation with a trusted friend that you're not literate enough to have written down in a useful way. Imagine if a large group of teenage girls show up at your latest stop, screaming and throwing conkers and food, or a couple of grinning, menacing guys in a tipper truck arrive at your pitch and dump a load of rubble next to you because they know you can't fight them off on your own and you haven't a leg to stand on because the locals will blame you, while they can pick up more rubbish (and take money for it) and dump it half way up Layhams on Tuesday morning and you'll still get the blame? Imagine how transient you'd feel, wherever you stopped to park up, and how resistant you'd have to become to the taunts and the shouts and the prejudice of those who were all too keen to make you feel you're not Part Of Their Community. And imagine how little you'd then care about dropping some litter, or driving across some grass, or leaving a mess, that's not all your own making, in a place that you thought might be good for a short while but has very swiftly taken on all the prejudices and hatred you and your children are so used to facing...? -- Sorry, slightly inebriated rant but it's very easy to try and paint this in terms of black and white, but the fear and protectiveness I saw in the travellers of that group that I spoke to when they were attacked made me remember that they're people, human, parents, not the evil predatory monsters that we're so keen to believe in. And maybe the fly-tipped pallets and building waste wasn't their fault. But may have hastened their departure.

I did wonder that about the pile of fly-tipped rubbish next to the Peckham Rye guys - it looked like a tipper truck had just up-ended and dumped all that stuff, and all the travellers only had Transit-like vans, some with extra seats and child seats in the back. I know fly-tippers are scum, I wonder if they saw the traveller caravans and thought "great, we don't have to go to all the bother of driving to some scenic country lane, we can just leave this load here and everyone will blame the travellers." I feel a bit guilty that I didn't have the balls to ask "so did you dump all that rubbish there?" The site on Peckham Rye is now completely clear - I have to say, Southwark Council's guys did an amazing job of cleaning it all up very very quickly.

It sounds like cecyfly07 wants to get rid of some branches, not to find some! If you can get them into a car or van, the Southwark recycling centre just off the Old Kent Road will take them. Alternatively, see if you can talk to the wardens at your local park (Peckham Rye and Dulwich Park both have park wardens) and ask them if they can take them - most parks have some way of shredding or mulching tree branches.

There was a bit of an incident yesterday (Friday) afternoon. By the looks of it, about 30-40 girls from Harris were throwing conkers and food at the travellers' caravans and there was a lot of shouting and screaming. I don't know who started it, I wasn't there, but I walked past just after several teachers came out from the school and told the kids to go away. I wandered over and spoke to one of the traveller guys just afterwards. They'd locked their children in one of the Transit vans, to keep them safe presumably, and they were pretty shaken up. Regardless of what anyone thinks about them or their lifestyle, they're people and they love their children. I'd be scared of a horde of teenage Peckham girls screaming and throwing stuff! We chatted for a few minutes and I asked "how long do you think you'll stay here?" He answered "dunno, as long as we can, I suppose." I don't think the Rye is a good place for them to stay, but of course I didn't feel like I could tell him that. What has pissed me off since then is the massive pile of builders' waste that's appeared on the edge of the nature reserve meadow area, and seeing their vans driving straight across the middle of that as well as all the other tracks they're leaving across the grass - and it looks like a fourth caravan arrived this afternoon and the boxes and piles of rubbish are mounting up. The court summons sheets have been zip-tied to various lamp posts around the area, it's due on 12th October apparently.

As pleasurable as it has been to see yet another thread degenerate into pages of the usual suspects judging each other for being judgemental, can I go back to the OP? The caravans are still on Peckham Rye Common, regardless of which other sites that others have been moved from (but thanks for the thread hijack). The rubbish bags are piling up, the generators are running all night and there are some track marks appearing across the grass that are only going to get worse as the weather gets wetter. As it's a public open space, Southwark-owned common land I assume, can anything be done? I'd like to point out again I'm not judging them as people, or their lifestyle, especially as I've worked with traveller communities in the past, I just don't think well-used public park land is a good site for them, or much good for the people who live near and use the park.

Seems like fairly slim pickings, mainly because it falls on a Saturday this year: http://www.visitlondon.com/things-to-do/whats-on/special-events/best-bonfire-night-fireworks-displays-london

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pierre Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > > > piles of rubbish bags this morning. :( > > > You'd rather they didn't bag up their rubbish? No, I'd rather they carried their rubbish the less-than-100m to the nearest bin. They'll have problems if they stay for more than a month or so - the area where they're parked turns into a bit of a bog for most of late autumn and winter.

Back to the OP, Peckham Rye is public land, owned by Southwark Council as far as I know - surely there's a different process involved in moving the travellers on? Some nice bike tyre tracks across the grass, and piles of rubbish bags this morning. :(