first mate

RRR, it was a protest, you made a choice to turn up on bicycles with your children. Any danger to your children could have been avoided. You would have been inconvenienced no doubt by having to avoid that route but protests often do cause inconvenience. Your 'danger to children' line is tactical hype and not at all convincing.

But no comment or care for those who are finding closures so difficult they feel compelled go out and protest? As for RRR comments about dangers to cycling children, my goodness, if it was so terribly dangerous why not avoid that route? There is a choice. The 'danger' thing is tactical. I don't think many are buying such an obvious attempt to undermine the point of the protest. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Like I said. Not commenting on the protest, just > the comments saying rah was wrong and that > everyone was on the pavement. > > I?m sure that the organisers would have requested > those attending not to block access, but it?s > factually correct to show some did. The whole > discussion has arisen because multiple pro people > have come on to deny that was the case. Standard > position of only correcting mistruths

Sorry, this looks really tactical. You are so obviously trying to create an impression that undermines the validity of feelings of those at the demonstration. Some cyclists 'may' have been blocked for a few hours (views seem to differ as to whether this was the case) but none of you seem to note or care that elderly and disabled residents feel so negative about the impact of LTNs they assembled to protest. What about their right to get around?

I know of a number of pedestrians badly injured after tripping and falling because of poorly maintained paving around ED. It is a problem. If winter cycling increases sections of road will also present a hazard.

It was a protest, it is generally accepted that protests may cause inconvenience to others. Look at the M25. It is interesting RRR and others get on their high horses about the temporary effects of one protest by the elderly and disabled who are negatively affected by LTN changes. At the same time they are intensely relaxed and 'okay' about increasing traffic on other roads because the ends justifies the means- including perhaps the sacrifice of some children's lungs.

Lovely idea but where do you store something like this? Unless you have a large house with a side entrance to your property and an outhouse or garage, I suspect it is totally impractical for most people. Similarly, electric bikes are touted as a solution for older people who might find the hills around ED a challenge, but they are also heavy and expensive, how do you lug them in and out of your home and where can you leave them that is secure- if you want to go shopping or similar?

Well something does not add up. Demand for social housing is rising, so much so there are plans to infill and build on green land, but demand for school places is dropping? Go figure?

Am I missing something? The recent narrative has been about a desperate need for new schools because of rising population? Hence knocking down an old hospital and building a new school(Charter), a new primary on Lordship Lane (Harris) and so on. How does that square with, presumably, not enough children applying for pre-existing schools?

Would agree with both of you. The driving children to school issue, when a major rationale for LTNs is to 'save children's lungs', is almost paradoxical.

'Living my best life'

Northernmonkey said: "If the September figure was chosen as a baseline and compared with Sept post measures, from memory it would produce something in the region of a 35% increase in cycling". Weasel words NM. Phrases like "from memory" or "something in the region of" are not useful or convincing.

🤣 Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've now got a vision of you two standing near > each other taking photos and nodding to each other > without actually knowing who each of you is ... > > Go ahead say hello and see what happens 😃

The first photo is not accessible at all ( sorry, cannot open it) but the second shows quite a queue. Why quibble about exact times? You have evidenced significant traffic buildup, right next to a school and health centre. What we need is videos or photo evidence taken over a number of months at various times.

Slarti b has done a great job of casting doubt on Southwark's statistical 'argument' in favour of LTNs, and you do not seem to have a response based on very much that is concrete, instead seeking to challenge the integrity of those holding different views to your own. On the note of peddling lies and half-truths- where has Slarti said 'Southwark are evil'? No doubt Heartblock can also produce photos and video evidence to support his/her case. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not sure 200% plus is the right figure - but > your approach of 'southwark are evil because they > have deliberately tried to mislead people' is > laughable in the face of your support for One > Dulwich. > > The 8% they raise in this 'paper' is also > undoubtedly massively understated - but obviously > chosen for effect and the hope that people will > read the headline and move on. > > One Dulwich lie and use half truths to perpetuate > a narrative of fear to stoke up support. > > > > slarti b2 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > northernmonkey Wrote: > > So - I cracked and read this 'report'. > > > > Following my earlier response to you I have now > > read through that OneDulwich Report in more > > detail. Well researched and balanced though I > > think it pulls it punches a bit. The main > issue > > that strikes me is, not the fact that > Southwark's > > claims of a 231% increase are desparately over > > inflated, but that Southwark council officers > seem > > to be manipulating and deliberately suppressing > > data to support Councillor's political agenda > and > > mislead residents. > > > > The fact that Soutwark published these > misleading > > statistics just before the end of the Dulwich > > Streetspace consultation period (presumably to > > avoid scrutiny?) then encouraged respondents to > > revise previous responses in the light of the > so > > called success of the road closures is > absolutely > > outrageous. > > > > This confirms a pattern of deceit by > Southwark's > > Highways department which is surely not fit for > > purpose. Equally at fault are the councillors > who > > willingly promulgate these false statistics. > > > > Sadly we appear to live in a one party state > with > > no effective scrutiny or opposition to our > local > > (Labour) councillors, the (Labour) cabinet and > our > > (Labour) MP who seems to be a glove puppet for > the > > (Labour) councillors.

It would be interesting to know if long-term there is to be an agreement with the Charter for staff members to use the parking spaces. If there is really no use or anticipated use for them then perhaps they should be opened up for local use?

Aren't females normally the larger? As the RichH says, he'll get eaten soon. FWIW I think I can see two spiders, one slightly larger to the left, the other a but smaller on right and guessing that is the male. They have similar markings but cannot count all the legs.

Thanks so much. I still don't understand how I was unable to access this stuff on a search.

When addressing or responding to vulnerable or disabled- "Ah bless", "my love" "pop" clothing on or off, or "pop yourself" onto a chair or bed.

Can anyone explain how to access basic information about classes and timetables available without having first to submit a load of contact details and also agree to T&C's to the national private company subcontracted to run the place? Perhaps the centre is closed but it does not feel right that details of activities available to residents cannot be accessed without first submitting personal information.

Is pointing out key data that was promised is missing really "straining every sinew"?

I think calling posters that disagree with you a 'mob' is possibly just as rude/insulting as calling another poster 'patronising'. Pots and kettles!

Malambu said: " I don't buy the "I need it just in case I have to rush to A&E) as there will always be a helpful neighbour, taxi, or push comes to shove an ambulance". Absolute rubbish!

The source of the data is on the links provided, clear for all to see.

Rt already said he 'stands corrected'...!