first mate

I didn't read the complaint as 'moaning about' and being 'against other people enjoying themselves', it is about the negative impact noise has had on the other poster...and has been clearly qualified as keeping young children awake and interfering with the other poster's ability to work. These are reasonable concerns. Sorry if you really cannot see that. Anyway, it has been reported by a number of people and perhaps something can be sorted for next year. Perhaps the festival or council could fund noise cancelling headphones for those who request them. Earplugs alone are not that effective. Roachy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > And that is the selfish response that typifies > the > > average festival goer it seems. Not against the > > event for the last time, but think the location > is > > too close to people's houses, which it > definitely > > Selfish? Says the person who?s moaning that 10,000 > people are out enjoying their lives? when it?s you > who can?t handle any slight inconvenience. > > You typify the word miserable. If loud music for > 30 hours that finished at 10:30 every night has > triggered you so much I genuinely feel sorry for > you

What happened to consideration goes both ways? johnhcollins Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > yeknomyeknom Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Men peeing in all the bushes on the outskirts > of > > the park, constantly, even though there are > > plentiful toilets nearby with no visible > queues, > > is worse than the noise. Disgusting, flagrant > > selfishness. We?ve complained to Gala but not > a > > lot they can do other than provide plentiful > > toilets. > > you really need a hobby or something to occupy > your time

Rockets, James McAsh came on here and explained that re CPZ each road would 'decide' if it was to have CPZ or not. Of course, they had to do it that way or they would never have got the CPZ ball properly rolling, when they introduced CPZ round the station. Had they done it as a whole area thing, they'd never have managed the CPZ onslaught. Southwark saw no contradiction in actively encouraging car ownership for those living closest to the train station. Of course, however, when it suited them Southwark reneged on their own terms and decided to chop Melbourne Grove up and count it as two separate roads. Had they counted it as one road they could not have put in CPZ as the majority of residents were against CPZ. The Councillors also made a big deal about how vital it was to listen to minority voices, not just the majority view. So now I guess their plan is to invite people and children from all over the borough to have their say?

It is crazy. Artemis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > geh Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > trains to London Bridge halved > > trains to Crystal Palace, stopped entirely > > what is going on, I have seen nothing from > either > > councillors or MP on these cuts. > > guess we are just supposed to suck it up > > Agreed. How are any attempts to encourage people > to move away from driving going to work if the > councils/government/TFL do not work together? > Reducing public transport options at the same time > as shutting roads is extraordinary. Is NO > consideration being taken for those who aren?t > able to cycle or walk to where they need to go?

Ah well, that's ok then.

I think I see what is happening here, it is to keep attacking people on a personal level but accuse them of doing the same in the hope others believe this is what is actually happening. Tiresome. Anyway, agree with Alice's point.

Hilarious response. It doesn't actually bother me...at all. I like loud music. However, I am able to step outside the limits of my own experience and empathise with the plight of those who feel differently from me. I can understand that for residents close by who do not share my tolerance for very loud music and who have other priorities and responsibilities beyond 'having fun' enduring this event for three days solid could be quite testing. johnhcollins Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > nah fully you need to learn to have more fun and > let things bother you less. this isn?t as much of > an inconvenience as you think it is

Well, many well informed posters, with a seemingly good handle on the data, beg to differ.

Thinking laterally, would it not be possible for the live event to be amplified through headphones the festival goer wears, that way saving resident's ears?

How do you know it is just the elderly? How can you relax if sound levels are beyond your tolerance, when you are trying to work or get the kids to sleep? Perhaps the festival either needs to turn the volume down or find a venue that is not so close to residential areas.

He repeatedly said he isn't. I am interested to know which ward he lives in.

Hedgehog which ward are you in?

Manatee says, "don't know which one Charlie Smith is" That's a bit odd. He is a very well known Labour Councillor. Perhaps you do not live locally at all?

What is bu*****t? Saying it is too loud when you live next door to it? Saying it is keeping your kids awake? Blah Blah has a totally valid perspective. Not everyone loves really loud music and earplugs do not necessarily work, not once music reaches certain volumes. Agree, Alfa Mist is wonderful when I choose to listen but not if I am trying to work or wanting to sleep. If the music can be heard all the way in Honor Oak, it is clearly very, very loud.

Why does festival music have to be played at deafening volumes? I'd have thought it's more for the festival goers to move to a location where they won't bother anyone rather than expecting everyone else to bear it without protest, just because it's London, man. I'm all for festivals but agree for those living next door to it, who have no choice in the matter, especially with young children, it must be hellish.

And yet Rah, you still drive a car? rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Closing a handful of side streets to through > traffic has led to people losing their sht. They > claim that they want to spread pollution to every > street as a way of ensuring 'clean air for all' > (rather than the reality of that move - clean air > for no one). > > Ask people what they want and they'll say 'fewer > cars, less pollution, more active travel'. On the > climate, they'll say 'reduce emissions, improve > energy efficiency'. But implement anything that > causes inconveniences, or requires a change in > behaviour ("perhaps stop driving an SUV around the > local area, flying abroad for your holidays and > cut out meat, for example)... Well we've seen what > happens - "Put it all back how it was"! > > I have been left feeling it's totally pointless. > Perhaps our only way out is to invest more > research into geoengineering and technological > solutions.

In fact, now fottos has reminded us of the central position China has as the world's prime polluter, is it not fairly important to find out to what extent Southwark and its pet contractors use China to source materials? first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wasn't Southwark Council buying a lot of its > paving from China? > > fottos Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Sure, we can all do our bit to reduce carbon > > emissions. So let's start by reducing imports > of > > Chinese made goods. China is by far the biggest > > producer of CO2 and they are doing nothing > about > > reducing CO2 levels. They build one massive > new > > coal powered power station every 10 days. > China's > > strategy has resulted in destruction of swathes > of > > production capacity here in the UK - partially > due > > to their use of cheap polluting power > generation. > > The UK cannot compete because of the high cost > of > > electricity here and other restrictions related > to > > CO2 reduction. > > > > The world's biggest CO2 producers... > > China (28%) > > Rest of the World (21%) > > United States (15%) > > India (7%) > > Russia (5%) > > Japan (3%) > > Germany (2%) > > Iran (2%) > > South Korea (2%) > > Saudi Arabia (2%) > > Indonesia (2%) > > Canada (2%) > > Mexico (1%) > > South Africa (1%) > > Brazil (1%) > > Turkey (1%) > > Australia (1%) > > United Kingdom (1%) > > Poland (1%) > > Italy (1%) > > France (1%) > > > > Here in the UK we our meagre 1% output and > being > > made to meet all manner targets by means of > many > > ill-thought out plans - such as heat pumps > which > > grossly inefficient and impractical in a city > > environment.

Wasn't Southwark Council buying a lot of its paving from China? fottos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sure, we can all do our bit to reduce carbon > emissions. So let's start by reducing imports of > Chinese made goods. China is by far the biggest > producer of CO2 and they are doing nothing about > reducing CO2 levels. They build one massive new > coal powered power station every 10 days. China's > strategy has resulted in destruction of swathes of > production capacity here in the UK - partially due > to their use of cheap polluting power generation. > The UK cannot compete because of the high cost of > electricity here and other restrictions related to > CO2 reduction. > > The world's biggest CO2 producers... > China (28%) > Rest of the World (21%) > United States (15%) > India (7%) > Russia (5%) > Japan (3%) > Germany (2%) > Iran (2%) > South Korea (2%) > Saudi Arabia (2%) > Indonesia (2%) > Canada (2%) > Mexico (1%) > South Africa (1%) > Brazil (1%) > Turkey (1%) > Australia (1%) > United Kingdom (1%) > Poland (1%) > Italy (1%) > France (1%) > > Here in the UK we our meagre 1% output and being > made to meet all manner targets by means of many > ill-thought out plans - such as heat pumps which > grossly inefficient and impractical in a city > environment.

I think that is the point some of us were making, let's not narrow the focus exclusively to car usage. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nigello Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Maybe the person who criss-crossed the globe on > > aeroplanes has no or only one child, is > vegetarian > > or vegan, doesn't have a car, cycles most > places, > > gives to charity and meticulously recycles or > > reuses stuff? It isn't a good idea to demonise > one > > single thing when, in fact, air travel isn't > > anywhere near as big as a bad-boy as others > are, > > and is making headway in lighter aircraft, > greener > > fuels, more efficient use of aircrat, etc. > > Agreed. It probably is wise for us to pursue > policies that generally reduce air travel, cut car > usage etc though.

Indeed and one of the early and highly vociferous cycle campaigners seemed to have travelled the world several times over...Wonder how many plane flights that adds up to?!

Not really clear how preserving wildlife and a festival of this size go together? On a completely different note, the entrance to PR has loads of broken glass stuck into soil. Rubbish also left strewn around in the Japanese summer house. What is it with people?

I think it is shocking and I am pretty certain everyone else who has read it does too. However, yes, it feels disrespectful to comment on something so horrendous but with no information at all about what happened. I guess there may also be concerns about respecting privacy of relatives and potential legal issues.

But talking about use of rhetorical devices and generalisations, your post is wall to wall, extremely loose and arguably misleading paraphrasing in an apparent attempt to create an impression and affect perceptions about an individual poster. You are not Rendel Harris returned are you? ohthehugemanateeLTN Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > It was very myopic - the usual blinkered > pro-LTN > > narrative > > Yes I understand that taking you at your word and > reading what your wrote is "blinkered". Possibly > being against holocaust trivialisation is > blinkered too. Hard to tell when you won't be > clear. But that's kind of your way: you slip > around between points latching hard on to one, > dropping it quietly when it becomes untenable and > latching hard on to another. Always trying to keep > whoever you're arguing with on the move. > > It's not a bad rhetorical trick to be fair to you. > So if all you're interested in is winning some > debate in the eyes of whoever you believe is > watching then go ahead. Everyone's got to have a > hobby. I do hope though that you understand that > reality isn't affected by rhetorical techniques, > so if you're aiming to actually find a working > solution then such tricks hinder rather than > help. > > I strongly suspect you do not care. > > > that many of us have been dissecting and > > depositioning for a very long time on here. > > No: you've been voicing your strongly held > opinions. It's overly generous to call your > arguments a "dissection". > > > By all means feel free to join the debate but > > you claim you have been lurking for a while so > you > > will be well aware that many on the anti- side > of > > the debate have provided their own suggestions > for > > solutions > > I've read the "solutions". They all fall into the > categories I listed. Most of them are "do nothing > and hope", with a side order of "do something > known to not work and hope", with a sprinkling of > "data is wrong, academics are bad and science > doesn't work", just to add flavour. > > > and gone to great lengths to answer many > > of the questions you have posed. Maybe check > back > > in the thread. > > I have and still reached this conclusion. You are > not nearly as rational or convincing as you > believe you are. Ultimately you're leaning on the > righteousness of your cause and so there are > basically two choices for you: > 1. People agree > 2. People disagree and are therefore blinkered > > > > Out of interest, and in the interests of > balance, > > is there anything from the pro-LTN that you > think > > is absurd? > > Are you talking actions or arguments? I haven't > seen any particularly absurd arguments. > > I suspect you're trying to take my post about > arguments, subtly reframe it to be about something > else, then complain that I haven't addressed > whatever is in your head, for you to then be able > to declare how just awful all these pro LTN people > are.

Agree with all this.

In fairness, I think a number of us are guilty as charged 😀