KidKruger

I mean, why wasn?t this issue arising last week ?

This is interesting.. Something must have changed to render platform 1 as unusable for 8-coach trains, because they?ve been running them for decades through ED stn. Implication is either platform has to change (won?t happen overnight) or trains/train lengths need to change (unlikely to be resolved overnight). Or they need to fessup what?s really the problem 🤣 ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Disruption at East Dulwich expected until the end > of the day. > > Can you tell me more about the incident? > > A problem has been identified with the procedure > for stopping trains formed of 8 coaches at East > Dulwich, affecting Platform 1. This platform is > used by trains towards London Bridge. In some > cases, train doors would not be in the correct > location alongside equipment on the platforms. > > Southern services which call at this station are > generally formed of 8 coaches, and therefore we > are unable to call at this station in this > direction. > > A plan to reopen the platform is being formulated. > Until we can confirm that the correct procedure is > in place, we will only be able to use Platform 2. > https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/service_disruptions > /295465.aspx

Yep, PR stn working so you can get trains to LB.

I always collect (and turn up early) for our virtually annual takeaway 🤣 Need the food hot with no excuses.

Basically it's legal, so not much can be done about it - regardless how concerned one is ! I am also wary about the tougher breeds (especially since a nasty incident on Goose Green in Feb), but am finding that avoidance, where possible, is the only remedy.

/forum/read.php?20,2261423,page=1

I?ve seen a bike get stolen there before, last summer. Four guys on two mopeds, grinder, two attempts and they were off with the bike. Whole thing took 10mins max.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting question. > If it was a case of landlords exercising their > right to close due to either previous incidents or > fear of damage and trouble and or the police > asking them to close, then what are forumites > proposing should happen ? > > Or are we all metaphorically muttering into our > pints by discussing it on here ? > > Ultimately it shouldn't really happen but for > reasons we as non publicans or police may not > understand or agree with, it does. Well, quite.

Still doesn?t resolve my query tho ! Chick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As I said earlier I was told by a pub manager it > was because of "gypsy funeral". > > > KidKruger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Other pubs being open though doesn?t > > prove/disprove the driving reason for the > > landlords who closed that day. > > Some people are speculating racism, but I?d be > > surprised if someone would willingly turn away > > huge custom on that basis and I wonder whether > > other considerations were at play.

Other pubs being open though doesn?t prove/disprove the driving reason for the landlords who closed that day. Some people are speculating racism, but I?d be surprised if someone would willingly turn away huge custom on that basis and I wonder whether other considerations were at play.

If you?re happy to eat food made in factories you?re automatically dependent on the outcome of games these manufacturers play with legislation / licensing / whatever. It?s processed food. That in itself should be the warning - it?s not real, it?s concocted food.

Was this socially acceptable racism or landlords? fear of trouble and cost of damage ? Reason this seems an obvious question is if you?re a landlord after a harsh pandemic, with running costs rising weekly, would you seriously turn down the chance of selling 100?s of additional drinks just cos you?re not a fan of a particular demographic ? Sounds like bad business husbandry if that?s your sole reason, and time to find another trade !

Naah, just eat vegetables if you?re gonna get into petri-dish meat.

Get a landline ?

In which case dogs should be banned from this area, at least for this period when young birds are emerging. We have an example of serious injury to a bird where the owner not only didn?t help, but ran off. That should be enough to demonstrate that wildlife there is subject to Russian Roulette as far as dogs go (or, as far as dog owners go).

I think it was just the Easterly section (East of CP Rd) the police closed.

Sema (Lux Thai, now ?) is pretty weak for a Thai offering, menu has changed minimally in 25yrs. Should be quite straightforward delivering a robust and varied Thai menu.

Thursday, same day as OP. Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KidKruger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ?and some Nunhead pubs, citing same reason > > (several hundred travellers expected, > apparently). > > Really? What day was that?

Homz83 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CPR Dave we should just have you banned, easier > and better choice What?s wrong with what CPRDave said ? It was all factual and dog owners should regard access to public spaces as a privilege, no ?

Funnily enough last night on LL I bumped into one of the older guys who works at KnW (mgr?) and I asked him if they were closed for good. He said they are probably opening in a few months, but I wasn?t sure if that was some kind of holding reply ! I?ve had some late ones in KnW !

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is good on the absolute piece of garbage > > https://philipstephens.substack.com/p/the-last-day > s-of-boris-johnson?utm_source=twitter Wow good article. No conjecture !

?and some Nunhead pubs, citing same reason (several hundred travellers expected, apparently).

So, no description of dog and owner to share here ?

Is the dog and owner identified ? This would be useful. Any info ? (Sorry if I missed above)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KidKruger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yep, I don?t need ?data? to recognise traffic > > increase in my road due to LTN spillage. Now a > > more dangerous road with frantic drivers and > > speeders noticeably worse than before. Don?t > need > > to look at no binomial distribution. > > And this is the problem. There isn't any data > which would convince those who are opposed to LTNs > on principle. It's become an article of faith for > some. > > Interseting that there is both more congestion and > higher speeds btw. How's that work? Who said anything works ? More traffic isn?t always jammed is it ? You get a build-up, a frantic release, tempers fraying, horns blaring, etc. I don?t need to explain this really do I, it?s obvious to anyone. But top marks for trying to find some kind of semantic deficiency, to prove your view !