Andrew1011

Duvaller Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Andrew1011 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > Andrew1011, > > The credit goes to everybody in the community who > expressed a negative view of the NRT in whichever > way they chose to do so - from handing out > leaflets tor "Right Turn" iced biscuits. > > All very effective when combined with all > C'lls/Politician's worst fear ie not getting > re-elected! > > That said, until it is all confirmed, we should > keep the pressure up and if not already done so, > e-mail your Labour C'llr reminding her/him of the > ballot box and.... > > Thanks for your clarification of what I had obviously already said and intimated. Also, thanks for the advice to me on what I should now be doing. I've already done what I need to do and in the way that I've chosen to do it. Have you?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pleased to see community action has paid off. > > Labour have climbed down and now asking council > officers to prepare a version of the proposed > scheme keeping the RHT from Townley Road and that > this is the recommended scheme for approval. > > Well done to everyone who has directly applied > pressure to Labour councillors. It has worked. > Still worth keeping the pressure up to ensure they > don't vacilate. > > I will be asking any revised scheme includes red > light camera for thE Townley Road branch as I > think this is crucial for the diagonal crossing > proposed under the new scheme to ensure it is safe > to children to cross unaided. James, Much as you like to present it differently and claim full credit for all kinds of things you (and your Lib Dem colleagues) have had only had a peripheral involvement in, that is how democracy works. You know, consult, listen and act. This could have been handled much better by the council but the people have spoken and apparently influenced political opinion. Not you and not Southwark Liberal Democrats or Dulwich and West Norwood (who's their Parliamentary candidate, remind us?) Liberal Democrats. Now people from all political persuasions, affiliations and none who feel strongly about this issue need to maintain the pressure on the politician decision-makers, as I will be.

An excellent result. Well done to your vigilant husband and MIL for her description.

A similar, although apparently more slickly undertaken, incident happened to a woman at the HSBC branch on Lordship Lane about a year ago. She was distracted while someone who'd been watching took her card, having noted her PIN. The card and PIN were then used a couple of minutes at the Post Office cash machine about 30 metres away almost before she realised what had happened and before the police arrived. It all happened so quickly that the person thought at first the machine had swallowed her card. It's important to always conceal the inputting of your PIN as much as possible and to be vigilant for any people around watching or behaving suspiciously. People also need to keep a look out for any criminally installed card reader gadgets on cash machines they are using and report anything even slightly suspicious looking.

Denying free speech is a bit of a melodramatic claim. I can't really see any justification for debating the possible cause or responsibility for Cannon Richardson's very sad death before the inquest and after its verdict is known. For that reason, I agree with Alice that this thread should be closed by admin.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My point is more that there seems to be an > overwhelming view that what ED needs is a good > secondary school with adequate space. It is felt > that inclusion of another, primary school will > compromise the quality of the secondary. > > The arguments in favour of the Harris Primary seem > to be that they were first out of the traps and > built their case on the basis of need in Nunhead, > not ED, but without access to a suitable site in > the catchment area they used to make their case. > Casting around for a suitable site they alighted > on DCH land and with the apparent support of the > EFA staked their claim. > > Therefore a school may be built on a prime site in > East Dulwich to provide schooling for an alleged > shortfall of primary places in Nunhead while > compromising/jeopardising the future of a > desperately needed secondary school in East > Dulwich itself. This is madness surely? I absolutely agree.

whirly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The 37 bus route/timetable has always been like > this - I remember regularly waiting half an hour > at North Dulwich only for 3 to come along at once > 27+ years ago! Same here but from Herne Hill. It's always been a bad service. I used to travel home from Kentish Town and the problem was always the 37 bus and the ridiculously long waits.

speedbird Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No money for actually fixing the pavements when > some local idiot must have decided to put fading > coloured lights in a semi circle around ED > station. Just cross from there and you almost fall > over the pavements are so uneven. > But no, bright coloured lights that fade in and > out, much better investment by the council and our > hard earned cash. > > Which bright spark did that? Whoever it was it was apparently done approximately 10 years ago.

Hi James, So actually the answer to my question: And, is it currently part of the Judith Kerr Primary Free School and already a playing field?, is clearly no. Consequently, the title of this thread, 'Dulwich Estate to develop housing on school playing fields', is incorrect and therefore gives a misleading impression that you hadn't attempted to correct. For the purposes of transparency, is it the case that you were directly involved in persuading the Judith Kerr Primary (bilingual) Free School to come to the site it now occupies? Either way, as you appear to be advocating on their behalf, could you just clarify for us what the catchment area of the school is; the children on its role and how many of those live in the Dulwich area?

'Re: Consultation on ?improving? the junction of East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road and Green Dale new Posted by James Barber November 18, 08:18PM Council officials have told me they anticipate these proposals will be presented at the 28 January Dulwich Community Council. This is a public meeting where local councillors and residents can ask questions and make comments. When I know the location I'll tell people.' See Cllr James Barber's post above, which I've reproduced from earlier in the thread. I can't see any reason why the decision wouldn't be one for DCC to take, especially as decisions on similar schemes, e.g. Paxton Green roundabout and recent other changes to the East Dulwich Grove layout, have been taken there.

Hi James, You appear to have forgotten to answer my question about whether the land you're referring to is already a playing field.

Jennys Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It would be wonderful if a better design increases > walking and cycling but what if it just makes all > the traffic use other routes instead - just > pushing the problem onto other roads making them > more dangerous for everyone? Well said. While in favour in general, I'm very much against the part of the proposal which is to ban right turning from Townley Road. I suggest people lobby their councillors in the wards of East Dulwich, College and Village, who are the people who will be making the decision on this at Dulwich Community Council. Their contact details are available on www.southwark.gov.uk. I will be doing that and urging the councillors on DCC to consider changing the light phasing and the installation of a filter light in favour of traffic going straight ahead and turning right from Greendale. Whatever view of TfL on this particular junction, even if they have an up to date one, there are examples of such traffic light arrangements in the local area on far busier bus routes than this.

Hi James, And the part of my question which you didn't answer, is the land you're referring to already a playing field?

Contact the Diocese of Southwark's Property Department http://www.southwark.anglican.org/contacts/email.php?id=107 to find out what the issues are, and their long term intention for the vicarage site. They're the ones who will know. Don't forget to report back.

James, could you be more specific about the space you're referring to? And, is it currently part of the Judith Kerr primary free school and already a playing field?

LaineyB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Good evening...has anyone else noticed the new nature attraction in Peckham Rye Park??? This is a really patronising and disgraceful way to describe homeless rough sleepers.

If I were you, especially given her lying response, I'd also report the incident to the police immediately.

As has been said, you need to contact the police. From memory, you must do this within 48 hours of the incident, but don't delay; do it now.

In my view they're not an unnecessary cost but, of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

jonspaker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I too don't understand this Glad I'm not alone. There will always be people who don't have Oyster cards and it's far better to encourage pre-payment and reduce driver transactions in respect of fares, of only for speed and the reduction of driver stress. I also can't see that operating these would be any more expensive than similar parking charge machines and cost also has to be weighed against benefit.

I don't understand this. With any driver only bus its got to be quicker, and less stressful for everyone, if passengers already have a ticket for their journey when they board a bus.

Does anyone else have a problem with bin men not closing the bin lids? My food waste bin was left open on Tuesday and it had been raining.(6)

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No I'm not. What I am trying to say, is that your > terminology is fine, but it doesn't mean that any > other terminology is wrong. If people are aware of the effect of their use of certain, particularly impersonal or dehumanising, terminology then they can consider whether or not to continue using it. Of course not everyone is capable of that reflection or will do it. > > You call yourself a Disabled Person. For me, that > means the disability defines you first and > foremost. I refer to myself as a disabled person (without capitals) in appropriate circumstances and when and where it is appropriate, which is by no means all the time. Where exactly is it appropriate to mention being disabled if not on a thread about disability and an incidence of harassment of someone who's disabled? > Basically Andrew, you seem to actively look for > reasons to be offended, and label people as anti > disabled. There are a hell of a lot of people out > there with disabilities, who have a wide range of > opinions, and some of them would run a mile from > the sort of opinions you're voicing. The problem > is, you put your personal opinion across as if you > are the voice of disability, and frankly, you're > not. I'm only really offended by people who appear to actively seek to minimise harassment and hate crime, possibly due to it being something that's beyond their own direct experience. I am very involved in a disabled community organisation that works with and for disabled people and which tries to represent their views and interests based people's experiences and what's reported to it, including increasing incidences of harassment and hate crime. I don't claim that I or it represent the views of all disabled people. However, I think I can possibly claim to probably have access to the bigger picture, have slightly wider experience than my own and have more primary sources of information than most here do. Anyway, entertaining as this is, this is distracting me from getting on with far more important things. I'm not particularly radical or militant in my views on disability but I have to confess that I now find it easier to understand how and why many disabled people are. It's clear that we're not going to agree on this so I think I'm now going to do what snowy intended to do once he'd provided the information and made his point.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just don't like the idea of painting our society as > generally anti disabled. Which absolutely no one did or has done. In response to your other point, regardless of whether it was a typo, terminology and language are things that have impact. I'm perfectly free as a disabled person to make my own view on that clear. Or perhaps you'd prefer it if I stayed silent and was quietly thankful for the condescension and kindness of strangers?* Otta you remind me of someone. You're not a retired Lambeth social work manager by any chance, are you? *It's not compulsory to answer that by the way.

helena handbasket Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He's not being petty, just trying to keep some > perspective. He's on your side, give him a break! Thanks for your input. However, as a disabled person who also very actively volunteers with "the disabled" (call me PC if you like), I feel perfectly able to give an opinion when I sense detraction from the issue raised in the OP and the wider issue of and increase in hate crime, and to decide, in the context of what's said on a forum, who's "on my side". Absolutely no one is or was saying that the majority of people are not kind and considerate towards disabled people but it does smack of minimising the negative effect of those who aren't, and particularly in the context of appearing to query that hate crime is in the increase in order to unnecessarily try to "keep some some perspective", which also suggests that perspective had been lost. If the subject of this thread was burglary in ED no one would be popping up saying that the majority of people's experience is good because they're not burgled, we'd probably be all acknowledging the experience of the victim or victims and empathising due to thinking that: 'I could be next'.