first mate

DBS seems to be trolling again.

Oh, that is awful. So much work went into that little area.

So let those who can give up their cars do so right now and lead by example. Then others, who currently genuinely have to use a car, won?t end up totally hamstrung by the inference that certain streets, where those making the suggestion probably do not live, should be forced to give up parking to facilitate social distancing for shoppers. With the amount of people currently paying little or any heed to SD, very few wearing masks, I also query the real value of imposing these changes at the moment. If we go back into lockdown road traffic will be much reduced anyway and SD become easier. Finally, a genuine need is not a ?gripe?.

An unfair and snide response Rahrahrah. If you cannot block off even more of the high street to accommodate social distancing then surely the only other option is to start to ?reclaim? parking on side streets? It isn?t ?all about me and my car? it is about finding a reasonable balance. For some the car is a necessary ?evil?; unfortunately I fall into that category. I?d love to be in a position where that was not the case and it must be wonderful for those (like you?) that can choose to be car-less.

But why let the facts get in the way of a low level but slightly hysterical attempt to smear the ?opposition?. LucyFM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Quick fact check: They have condemned the > vandalism: > > https://twitter.com/realonedulwich/status/12871415 > 43476965377?s=21 > > > thebestnameshavegone Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Well, they would surely condemn the continued > > vandalism of the planters, and associated > criminal > > vandalism such as this if it was really > absolutely > > nothing to do with them. > > > > Yet they're strangely silent, despite having a > > well-oiled comms strategy and army of winged > > monkeys and digital astroturfers parroting the > > official lines. So yes, they are directly > > responsible. > > > > hopskip Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I wonder what your evidence is for saying > this. > > > > > Or just your biased attempt to discredit? I > > have > > > been following One Dulwich and can see that > > they > > > have been pushing our Councillors to explain > > what > > > the monitoring plans are - ie advocating car > > (and > > > cycle) counting tubes, air pollution > monitoring > > > etc. > > >

And for those of us that absolutely do need a car for vital journeys where neither walking, cycling or public transport is a viable or remotely realistic option, where do residents park their cars, as you now seem to be suggesting space on side streets also needs to be given up for queuing shoppers?

Oh dear.

So will it be that central bit with a small bell tower above and the two square towers either end?

Really, what is your evidence for that suggestion? How do you distinguish between deliberate disablement and vandalism? Could it be an attempt by others to frame and discredit One dulwich, or does that seem a bit far-feteched?

Is it possible to keep two cockerels in close proximity. Won?t they fight?

Yes, agree with this, so long as not keeping people awake and clear up any rubbish afterwards seems fair enough. Lemming Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have observed these gathering also, but have > instead attempted to use some empathy and common > sense. > > Let's say, you're 23. You live in shared > accommodation with limited space, and perhaps with > no outside space. All the places you used to go to > socialise (if you could even afford it back then, > from time to time) - bars, pubs, clubs - are shut, > or make less sense than a trip to the park in > terms of safety. And let's face it - socialising > when you're younger is basically 'it'. You're > general future is looking pretty bleak. the > weather is however, for once, looking great. > > You and your friends have the organisation and > enthusiasm to carry food, a table, drinks and a > little boom box deep into a relatively unpopulated > park, where you can avoid going stir crazy but for > a few hours - by doing something relatively normal > without impinging upon anyone else's life to any > great degree - and only mildly impinging upon a > series of convoluted, senseless and ever-changing > rules unenforced by a shambolic government who > doesn't seem to know their arse from their elbow. > > > Fine by me.

Is there really a pressing need for this at the moment? roywj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi James, > > Has a date been set for introduction for the East > Dulwich CPZ or has the project been abandoned? > There doesn?t seem to be any work taken since > lockdown to complete the road markings or signage.

James Barber, the driving force behind change of use of hospital to school, always said the Chateau front would be saved. I agree, it would be a real shame if it was bulldozed. In terms of the much smaller, modern health centre site ( half of which is now a GP practice) does anyone know when the hospital/community health element of this will actually be operational? One would have thought that in the middle of a pandemic this service would be rather important. It seems a number of promised services are not yet up and working.

Sounds like you have got in the way of a big landowner agenda in some way. More power to you.

RedstarGreen, Perhaps Pugwash could give a steer? RedstarGreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was passing through Dawson Hill on my bike and > noticed some large sofas and various chairs that > are positioned on the grass area, no doubt this > contributed to the noisy crowds hanging around > late last night. > > Does anyone know of a number/contact at the > Council or Parks team to arrange their collection, > as this dumping of furniture is only going to > encourage people to camp out all night, adding to > an already horrible situation for local residents. > > > As a Neighbourhood watch, be really useful to > keep an eye if we see any persons brining unwanted > furniture to the park and report it straight away.

Get your local councillor involved; they should be very interested and want to help.

One wonders how fair the issue of meeting criteria is? Certainly those companies contracted to assess for PIP on behalf of DWP are seriously dodgy and deliberately skew or even lie at assessment in order to fail people. It is known that having gone through the horrendous process of PIP assessment and then being failed, a proportion of applicants will be too ?beaten? and scared to appeal. The hope is that the council is not going the same route. Sally Eva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blue badges are cancelled automatically if a > person loses entitlement to Personal Independence > Payment. The test for PIP is the ability to walk > 20m safely, reliably, repeatedly and in a > reasonable time. A reasonable time in this context > means not taking more than twice as long as a > non-disabled person. > > If your wife has lost PIP but should be entitled > to it under these rules, she should appeal or (if > she is out of time to appeal) should re-apply and > appeal any refusal. These decisions are overturned > more often than not and 70% are overturned with > assistance such as that provided by the CAB. > > Southwark will give a blue badge even if PIP is > refused, if she fulfills certain criteria. If you > feel that she fulfills the criteria but has been > wrongly refused, then you can appeal Southwark's > decision. You will need to provide evidence but > your wife's GP should be able to provide this.

Time to get a catapult!

The flatness of NL compared to UK is a major consideration and really makes comparison almost pointless. Also think people who are talking about 200km rides are showing how invested they are in cycling as a lifestyle and hobby they have chosen because they love it. This is very different from forcing people into something that feels not only alien and difficult but may also present real physical obstacles. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please please please stop using the Netherlands as > a great example. It is a great example of how > cycling can be integrated with other forms of road > use but it is also very, very different to the UK. > Fundamentally different. > > For a start Amsterdam, the biggest city has only > 800,000 people living in it and is very very > small.It is not a mega city, like London. > > The Netherlands is very very flat. So flat that > they were able to develop significant canal > networks that came with tow paths - you may have > noticed Amsterdam is famous for it's canals! Tow > paths lend themselves very nicely to cycle lanes. > > Much of the Netherlands was reclaimed in the 1920s > so is relatively new and don't rely on Victorian > infrastructure. > > Due to the flat nature of the country and tow > paths cycling has always been a big part of the > culture there. > > So please, show me a mega city that developed > significantly during Victorian times and built > along railways lines and tube lines and then I > might pay attention. But please, don't cite The > Netherlands as a comparable model to what could > happen here. It won't.

KK I agree, I am all for cycling if people are able to, but weary of the ?holier than thou? tone adopted by some dispensing their advice and wisdom on the subject. And you are absolutely right about the perceived suggestion that any car user is some kind of wilful, low level criminal, only continuing to drive a car because they are lazy and ill informed.

Pugwash, the cyclists should have dismounted and walked. Pedestrians and disabled must have priority at all times.

Actually I do think this is a useful service for those who want to cycle but are not confident.

Get a folding bike.