Andrew1011

Who, them or us?

No point posting here you should be contacting the Southwark Council about this. And they won't the reading the forum, it'll be too early as they'll all still be in bed with hangovers. ONLY JOKING, but I thought I'd be the first here to say it. /curmudgeon mode ;-) From that playlist it sounds as though they'd be of 'a certain age' and should know better. I'm having a similar local problem but it's more of a persistent up to 3am "Livin' la Vida Loca" issue. I'll be reporting them too next time.

There's been a traffic light camera at that crossing for years; on the EDG side facing Village Way. Is it a replacement of that or a completely new camera at another point?

Some people need to vent their feelings (they may already have separately notified the council) and, in doing so, also alert local people that something antisocial has happened or is happening. Social media isn't always meant to be a precise form of communication and different people choose to use their own different conversational, but still often very useful, styles, for example: "To the @#$%& in the beige trousers and blue t-shirt at 2.20 this afternoon...", etc. Vive la difference!

The Minkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The one area Southwark seems to neglect is > collection of small recyclable items like kettles, > phones etc. Yes, it is strange they don't collect those things but there is a receptacle for smallish electrical items at the Sainsbury's recycling centre.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it was the word 'inflict' which may not > have gone down well though I would have to agree > that that's what someone would be doing playing > music in the park. I've just realised what Dulwich Park is missing, and what it could really do with - a band stand!

mockingbird Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This seems to be in limited email circulation. > However - it provides an opportunity to comment on > the effectiveness and procedures of the Dulwich > Community Council generally and on any specifics > of conduct. So a chance to reflect on this > particular funding allocation perhaps? > Note deadline of Weds 15th July for responses. > > Dear resident > This is a gentle reminder to ask you to give us > your views about your experience of Community > Councils to help us improve them- if you have not > already done so. > We would therefore appreciate it if you could > please take a few minutes to give us your views by > answering the questions on the online > questionnaire by going on this link (Just press > the control button and click on the link) > > http://tinyurl.com/nqtsbct > > All responses are anonymous and the deadline for > answering the questions is Wednesday 15th July > 2015. > We are writing to you because your name is on our > list as having attended one of our community > council meetings and/or activities and regularly > receive information about community council > activities from us. > We look forward to hearing from you soon. > Thank you for your cooperation. > All the responses are anonymous. The last section > of the questions asks people to provide > information about their age, gender etc. This is > because Southwark Council holds equality as > central to the day-to-day delivery of its services > and engagement with our diverse communities, and > this information helps us measure and analyse how > well we are engaging with all those who live and > work in the borough. This also forms part of our > legal responsibilities under the Public Sector > Equality Duty of the Equality Act (2010). So, for > example knowing that people from a certain age > group are not attending the meetings, can help us > adapt our meetings accordingly. Please also > remember that this information is very useful for > our work but you are not obliged to answer or > complete any or all of it. > Please be assured that London Borough of Southwark > holds and manages data in strict accordance with > the Data Protection Act 1998. Southwark Council is > the data controller for the purposes of the Data > Protection Act. No personal information you have > given us will be passed on to third parties for > commercial purpose. > > Correspondence Address: > Grace Semakula > Community Council Development Officer for Dulwich > I Southwark Council > Housing & Community Services Dept, I Community > Engagement Division I P.O.Box 64529 I London SE1P > 5LX > TEL: 020 7525 4928 > Mobile: 07852 334 065 > Email: [email protected] > You can now be involved in community council > discussions online, please go to > https://forums.southwark.gov.uk or visit In My > Area web page for Dulwich > Be involved in consultations: > http://www.southwark.gov.uk/consultations > Follow us on facebook. > http://www.southwark.gov.uk/residentinvolvement > The date of the next meeting Dulwich Community > Council is Wednesday 9 September 2015, 7pm. Venue > tbc Very good idea. And perhaps including something about how initiatives local to one road, coming from nowhere and which have implications for the wider community, can be slipped in under the radar if a 'deputation' is quickly organised, possibly with insider assistance. There needs at least to be a cooling off period to allow for proper and wider consultation before a costly, limited in scope and non-strategic 'feasibility study' is agreed and embarked upon.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm signing of from this topic until we have > further developments on it. Now there'll the chance to discuss people's thoughts this proposal without being diverted by James, and perhaps even organise opposition to it.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Jenny1, > The noise issues from bumps is mostly from raised > treatment - where the whole cross roads is raised > e.g. junction of Melbourne Grove with East Dulwich > Grove, Barry Road with Goodrich Road. But full > bumps do sometimes cause problem especially if not > precisely installed. James, you appear to have misunderstood what people are actually saying and the breadth of the concerns they are expressing.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it just me or is anyone else confused how it's > possible for James to check the signatures on the > shredded petition but not the subject matter ? Yes, I was a but puzzled by that too.

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But residents are still stopping me in the street > and emailing me, asking me for my advice on how > their voices can be heard, so hopefully an > alternative campaign will emerge. I'd certainly be party to that campaign. rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And I'm still going to consistently try to correct > disinformation... > > For instance, in above posts in this thread, it's > now being stated that 55% of Melbourne Grove > residents have signed the petition in favour of > the barrier... but in the deputation it was stated > that a majority of REGISTERED VOTERS on Melbourne > Grove signed the petition, which would exclude any > residents under the age of 18... which in turn > casts a question of what percentage of RESIDENTS > actually signed the petition. In theory, anyone > of any age can sign a petition but then we need to > determine how many residents live on the road, as > opposed to how many registered voters, in order to > confirm what the majority opinion is. > > And we STILL don't know how many > residents/registered voters signed the speed hump > petition and how many signed the barrier petition. Exactly.

Use Southwark Council's complaints procedure to formally register any dissatisfaction in respect of the contractor's failure to perform. I seem to recall that the leisure centres' contract is shortly up for renewal, so feedback at this stage could possibly affect the eventual outcome of that process. https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp

Heartblock, just for clarity, there are three councillors covering village ward (electoral area covering the part of EDG in question) and Cllr Michael Mitchell is just one of them. The others are Cllr Anne Kirby ([email protected]) and Cllr Jane Lyons ([email protected]) and you should probably email them too to try to get maximum support. I'm glad you've emailed Helen Hayes MP.

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be fair to James, this section of EDG isn't in > his ward... That's never stopped him before rch and, depending in which side of the southern side of Melbourne Grove the person who's instigated the madcap campaign for the barrier there, they may not be in his ward either.

I think this fiasco clearly demonstrates that people need to keep a close eye on Dulwich Community Council agendas to ensure that something such as this doesn't slip under the radar without an opposing view being allowed to be aired. Attendance at them is even more effective and I'm only sorry I wasn't able to get to that one.

dresswaves Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Try Robson on Highshore Road. Nothing fancy in the > surgery but she's a very experienced vet. She has > looked after my cats for over 15 years. There's > certainly no sales pitch! I can recommend Robson too. Excellent care there for my last cat and current one too.

If the northern side of Melbourne Grove is closed to traffic you can look forward to more traffic, even that heading to roads like Playfield Crescent, using EDG and so increasing these effects further. Ask your MP to raise this issue on your behalf. Helen Hayes MP has surgeries on: 1st - today for July (East Duwich Community Centre), 2nd (West Norwood Leisure Centre), 3rd (Brixton Advice Centre) and 4th (Kingswood House) Friday mornings of most months of the year. August is the parliamentary recess so no surgeries then but they resume in September. You can also write or phone: http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/helen-hayes/4510 You could also get together with other EDG residents and make a deputation on this to the next Dulwich Community Council, of course.

richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As an aside why does he still promote > parliamentary Lib Dem candidate on his thread. > It's over dead and died. I seem to recall there's something in electoral law which doesn't allow reference to being a parliamentary candidate outside of the official general election campaign period. Presumably if he's again selected by his party for the 2020 elections he may have to declare his campaigning expenses, due this ongoing reference, right back to 8th May 2015 and include that in the total. Let's hope so, anyway. ;-)

ED_moots Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Front page of the local paper. 10/10 for effort > there, quite the PR machine is in motion. A local > man murdered on the beach in Tunisia gets bumped > to page 4. Have word with yourselves Southwark > News. That is appalling, as is the relegation of the local person murdered in Tunisia story to page 4. Yet more hyperbole to justify this non-strategic meddling. I wonder who's at the root of this making front page news?

> El Presidente Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > this pub is in a terrible location and will > always > > fail It's probably in one of the best locations in the area Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was our favourite place for weekend lunches in > the very brief period when it had a great chef, > good managers and a well kept selection of ales. Agreed. And, if it's run correctly with its customers in mind - and with motivated and contented staff- it has massive potential.

I wonder why blow hyphen ins was censored as though I'd written an obscenity?

Make sure you appeal, it can often be worth the effort.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Andrew1011, > you can have a full raised junction that doesn't > cover the whole junction. This whole junction is a > crash hot spot and we'll see over the next few > years if it is now much after. Hopefully far fewer > crashes, lots of money also saved on top f the > avoided human suffering. Lots of hyperbole there James, presumably in a desperate bid to justify non-strategic meddling without evidence. 2018 awaits.

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The turning point on the ongoing 37 diversion > campaign was the fact that the 37 route had to be > temporarily rerouted away from Melbourne, down EDG > into Lordship, during roadworks. Once the > temporary bus rerouting settled in, it was much > easier to get the council to persuade TfL not to > go back to the Melbourne route, especially as the > bus drivers themselves preferred staying on the > main road route instead of squishing through the > narrow end of Melbourne. This is quite right, but don't forget that the impetus for the 1998 campaign to change the 37 route was also due to the road being closed for several months while huge pipes for flood relief were installed under the road. In 1998 we were told by London Buses that the bus stops on Lordship Lane couldn't cope with the extra load arising from a permanent re-routing. We knew this was rubbish but we were then threatened by them with a London Buses application for double yellow lines down one whole side of Melbourne Grove (north). There was also the red herring 'policy' of the need for the 37 to stop at every station - Peckham Rye, East Dulwich, North Dulwich - so basically shadowing the railway. rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, it's really important for residents to stick > together on all of this and look at the bigger > picture. This is why I'm concerned that blocking > off one section of the road can cause a knock-on > effect that can't be determined at this point in > time... I absolutely agree.

Thanks yeknomyeknom.