first mate

Still cannot believe you continue to own and use a car Malambu.

That is awful, how can they get away with it? Mind you, a neighbour has a blinding security light that fires up randomly and they don't seem to care who it affects either.

Not right they are doing cycle movement counts in summer months if that is the only counting that'll be done. It would seriously skew results.

MG is a street where nearly all the houses have large gardens, why would it be necessary for children to play in the street? As you say, most will be inside doing something. claresy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I haven't seen a single child playing on closed > off Melbourne Grove despite the tasteful bits of > bunting and tubs of chalk. They're probably inside > on their Play Stations! What I have seen is it's > now impossible to get a bus from East Dulwich to > Denmark Hill station in under half an hour, so was > obliged to drive to work the other day! How is > that good for the environment? I won't even > mention the impact on local shops and emergency > vehicles.

Dulvilleres, Don't be surprised. It is the frustration of those who are not as fortunate as you seem to be in terms of the impact of LTNs on their lives, who feel they are not being listened to and have little or no voice in the processes that have led to the implementation of LTNs.

We cannot afford to be losing health professionals. I am certain you are not alone in feeling like this. Concerned2021 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I work for the NHS and have to drive to carry > bulky equipment. I will certainly be looking to > leave London as soon as my children finish school. > Driving and managing the impacts of this is > becoming increasingly stressful.

Unless virtually all amenities and necessities necessary for modern living become localised, including schools, I really do not see how this can change in any significant way. Additionally, Southwark seem to support electric cars. Are these really much less dangerous? I do recall a cycling campaigner inferring that unless you worked locally and could cycle everywhere you should move. This is the level of attachment to belief systems around societal and transport remodelling. Concerned2021 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was quite happy letting my primary school > children walk to school alone from year 5. Sadly > my road is taking more traffic due to closed roads > and has become dangerous. The council have done > nothing to enforce speed limits and I now worry > for their safety and often walk them across > despite now being at secondary school. We often > have to wait 5 minutes for a safe gap to cross. > This should be the priority for councils. > Incidentally this is a road with a school road off > it and multiple primary schools so kids crossing > both ways.

Assuming it is mainly young children being dropped off, how many parents would let young children cycle alone to and from school? If the idea is parents accompany the children to a fro, then how many are prepared or even able to do that? On a balmy summer's day this may work but when it is dark, cold and rainy I doubt it. Fine if you are very local to the school but I understand these serve the whole borough and beyond? Also, Charter ED is right next to a large medical centre. That centre states it serves not only the borough but wider London and the UK. Patients and staff may be unable to cycle, walk or use public transport. I'd have thought the medical centre would require vehicle access at any time? LTNs make sense if everything is local, that is work, schooling, shopping, building services etc, if not I fail to see how these can ever really work.

LA, Reading information posted elsewhere on the forum it sounds like the Council's aim is to minimise consultation and simply drive CPZ through, if they can get away with it?

What age group is being vaccinated in area at the moment? Are any under 65's without health issues bing seen and if so, where?

You and many others, I suspect. Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m against Low Traffic Neighbourhoods because > they cause me inconvenience. > > They cause me inconvenience because it takes much > longer to cross the road on Lordship Lane and wait > for the bus into town which is delayed, and makes > me late, and the pollution the LTNs cause where I > live is annoying and inconvenient. > > They encourage people to drive down my side > street because it?s quicker than waiting in the > now endless queues on Lordship Lane and East > Dulwich Grove.

Catapult time.

Not necessarily good news. At the height of summer, when many people may be unable to go away on holiday, significant parts of the park will be closed off to locals.

Have you offered to British Library or Lawn Tennis Association? Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've been trying to give away the 3 volumed > 'History of Irish Tennis' on this forum for the > last 5 years, without success. I can't chuck them > though as they amounted to many years work by > someone I know, and they are an exceptional piece > of work on that topic. They're too big to post to > anyone, or at least it would be too costly. Any > takers? > > I found an old 1998 rugby international programme, > which I was able to use to generate questions for > a section in a nearly weekly tri nations pandemic > Whatsapp quiz. > > I'm not very good at decluttering, I think.

Next it'll be the Commonplace hoax or Commonplace fake news.

Agree with legal. Repeated attempts by a handful of posters to frame any objector to current LTNs as an uneducated, unthinking, physically lazy and rabid petrol-head is now wearing thin. It is not constructive and does not add to the debate. It looks like an attempt to derail or distract. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahrah that?s because you are trying to imagine an > objector to the schemes that I don?t think exists > - one who is fighting for car dominance on some > sort of principled basis. I haven?t seen people on > here expressing that view although I think several > have been told by others that that?s what they > think. Pretty much everyone I?ve come across > objects to the elements of this particular LTN on > the basis is is poorly designed - they don?t > object to LTNs in principle. Which is why this > debate goes nowhere - if supporters respond to > specific concerns about design with > generalisations about the desirability of active > travel, or nationwide statistics, that doesn?t > address the specific arguments being made, so > doesn?t convince. > > Have been bombarded with ?Neom? promotions on Sky > this morning - looks like they are building a new > urban planning utopia in Saudi... > https://whatistheline-newsroom.neom.com/the-line-l > aunch-media-kit-361021. Interesting. > > More mundanely, latest Southwark News update at > https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/surgeries-say > -road-closures-are-hampering-vaccine-rollout-as-ne > w-coalition-calls-for-camera-controlled-permit-sch > eme-to-replace-low-emission-neighbourhoods/

In fairness, it was stated by the meeting chair that supplementary questions would not be taken. Clive asked if he could make one, and that was the chair's response. I had thought that much later in the meeting the reason for the response was further qualified as Clive's question was submitted late in day and not as expected, or something like that.

Rockets said- "Why was Clive Rates shut down so quickly by Cllr Williams?" Yes, I'd queried this too. I got the impression that a question had been put in later and in a different way from what S'wark expected? But yes, it definitely looked like he was shut down in a very abrupt way. Catherine Rose certainly has a way of using many words to say very little. The sudden downgrading of the Commonplace tool was rather telling, I felt.

https://rabbitwelfare.co.uk/rabbit-care-advice/ownership/ This is a great resource and clear about why rabbits may not be the best pet for children.

Otherwise known as the flag hoax.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's also views that most dogs now are just > overgrown puppies, as this was the traits that we > wanted for pets. Their predecessors did not > routinely bark, apart from their puppies when they > wanted attention or were anxious. From 20 years > of reading New Scientist in my younger days. Compared to wolves dogs are more juvenile in terms of behaviour.... this is well known and is not new. Routine barking at certain noises is an innate watchdog function in many breeds and a trait selected for over hundreds of years.

KK, I do agree, the simple solution is that until your dog is sufficiently trained have them on a lead or a long line. This is a matter of educating dog and puppy owners. Brightfield1975, dog ownership can be a very positive thing, even when the dog is only a pet. Some are of the view that there is no place for dogs in the modern world. I do not agree. What we can agree on is that where dog owners are sharing valued space with non-dog owners there needs to be greater consideration given to those who may dislike or fear dogs. Young dogs do need some free running so would-be owners need to consider if they can achieve this without imposing on those who do not own dogs. As for the point about 'forced' breeding; not sure what you mean? Are you against all forms of artificial selection and therefore all domestic species? KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why complicate things with all this encyclopaedia > brittanica nonsense. > It?s simple. > If your dog won?t heel when you tell it to and has > a tendency to approach people, keep it on a lead.

brightfield1975 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Taper-some would say that dog ownership is cruel > and unnecessary > > "A ban on dogs off leads would be cruel and > unnecessary" I dare say that owners of support dogs, rescue dogs, security dogs and so on might beg to differ. Of all animal species domestic dogs have evolved to be owned by a human.

Okay, you may well be right. My intention was not to try to beat up the council, I am genuinely concerned as to how mass vaccination will happen in terms of logistics. I thought there might be a multi disciplinary approach. It occurred to me, perhaps incorrectly, that many pharmacies and GP Practices will not be set up to store the Pfizer Vaccination and so wondered if there was a sense of those that are equipped. We cannot have the masses turning up to Kings etc.., so I had wondered if Council owned premises, like the various fitness centres, might be an option? Though storage is still an issue to be resolved. Also wonder where, when and if the army gets involved? For something so big and so vital there seems very little info.