Lowlander

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just how long does it take to remove one from a > car? About five minutes from a Toyota / Honda apparently, which is why they are targeted...

The bigger Boots branches sell watch batteries - most are about ?3. Use a sharp kitchen knife to prise the back off, and snap back into place. It only takes one or two minutes to replace.

Philips. Don't go for cheap bulbs, I replaced all the ceiling bulbs in our place with warm 100w equivalents, and other lamps with 50w or so...about ?15 a bulb two years ago, but well worth spending extra. The light is not dissimilar to the old filament bulbs, and my electricity bill as gone down enough to have recovered the cost over two, maybe three years. There're all warm, i don't understand this cold for kitchens and bathrooms, as you say you end up looking like a corpse in the mirror. You can't mimic daylight.

They're made of steel; store them in an old tin of tomatoes/beans. No soft drink or beer cans they're aluminium. Then recycle as usual Trouble is they're often coated with teflon and platinum...but bette than going to landfill..

Caledonian Sleeper is good. The new(ish) ScotRail intercity trains are also good Respective staff have always been patient and helpful - as long as you book in advance.

Praise be a joke and a good one at that. Yes shop owners

I don?t have photo. I happen to know two ship owners quite well, both have posters up but neither has heard of EDIBA but I?m never going to get around asking more in the foreseeable future.

Well this thread was not supposed to be about the CPZ but some people can't help themselves. To reiterate, I don't care about the CPZ and wouldn't vote either way on it. I would like to politely contact EDIBA about something. A one line email. They can either respond, or ignore me. I'm not going to waste my time chasing them. I've contacted Southwark council on many occasion; they humour me and provide me with info. Instead I've been drawn into some weird Little Britain episode here, only without the humour. EDIBA are like a cult; everyone draws around them and denies their existence, yet at the same time promotes them. Anyone who dares to try and ask a simple question is shot down in an amateur hail of crappy insults. It's beyond weird. It's beyond far out. It's nuts.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In answer to your question > > I am happy for the traders to be part of the > overall response to the CPZ > > However I find it sinister that you seem to have a > vendetta and that you are also anonymous > > Who are you, what's your email, how do we contact > you, what's your address > > It's no good saying at the traders are hiding if > you do the same 🤔 PM me, all will be revealed!

You can't blame the 20mph limit as hardly anyone observes it...

Southwark Council...let's be charitable, there is an element of transparency and accountability with them. You may not agree with them (90% of the time I don't), but there you go. And before I'm accused, the only relationship I have with them is as a council tax payer. Now, EDIBA. They're responsible for the posters up and down LL. I've only asked two shop owners, and they had never heard of EDIBA. They just agreed to put posters up for someone. EDIBA are referenced as a respondee to their CPZ consultation. Next - the validity of the facts has now been debated on my other thread to death with no agreement. Who is EDIBA? There's no contact. Not even an anonymous email address or even PO Box. They're more secret than the Masons. Or are ED residents happy for completely anonymous organisations to campaign on their behalf?

It would indeed be fairer to say ?69% of respondents were against the Cpz? I?ve yet to meet a truthful politician; and was hoping whoever is behind the poster was above their tactics.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander your "67%" stat for the poster is more > of a 'lie'. > > You've 'lied' twice now about this poster: once > that it claims 67% of something amd second that it > says people 'voted' > > To me this seems sinister. I didn?t lie about the word ?vote?, I made a mistake. Please do accept my apologies and consider me contrite. In my defence there?s a difference between making a mistake on an Internet forum and another on a public poster. What?s the first lie?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander - we are going round and round in > circles on this one. > > May I suggest you do this: > > - Head down to Lordship Lane and Re-read the > poster - as I pointed out in my post it doesn't > mention "vote" it says "oppose" > - read/Re-read the council's CPZ Recommendations > document - the link to which is posted earlier in > the thread from where the stat comes > - read/Re-read my (and other's) previous posts as > it clearly lays out why the creator of the poster > is perfectly entitled to use the stat they do and > why it is based on fact and is not at all fake > - Contact EDIBA (as I suggested some posts ago) if > you want to determine who created the poster - > it's clear no-one here knows and they will have a > much better idea than any of us....although I am > not sure why you are so obsessed with who is > behind it. Why cant you satisfy yourself that > whomever is behind this poster (and the one that > shopkeepers displayed previously) is someone who > is interested in protecting Lordship Lane from a > CPZ? Just as the Vale Residents Association want > to promote why they think there should be a CPZ > (no one has been demanding their contact > details). > > A lot of people have taken time to try to answer > your questions but you appear not be listening. Rockets, finally we agree. We are indeed going round in circles. I don't give a fig about the cons/pros of the CPZ (that's all on another thread). I didn't complain about the first tranche of posters, and I didn't complain about the petition. If the poster didn't contain the "67% of ED residents rejected..." lie, I probably wouldn't even have started this thread. I'm not asking for the posters to be taken down. I'm asking why it's acceptable to peddle misinformation, and hide behind the guise of anonymity. After two days and two pages, my question about the accuracy of the 67% figure is answered. It's fiction, and that's been comprehensively proven by others here on this thread. You'e just using an age old tactic of glossing over that time and time again. I'm not now expecting an answer to my question on details surrounding the organisation behind the posters. It would be in the public interest (since this affects us all), but I'm not a journalist, and don't have the resource to find out.

Hi Rockets I started this thread to find out: (a) why the poster is posting fake stats and facts (i.e. there was no 'vote' and 67% of ED residents did not vote against a CPZ) (b) who I an contact directly regarding the posters? Someone has enough resource to design, print and persuade businesses to put up this poster, under the guise of anonymity. There are plenty of people in ED who would be willing to go public and represent them if they wish to retain their anonymity. I've tried to be as polite as possible but have been told to "get a grip", that I have a pro-CPZ agenda (I don't), and had the thread populated by anti-CPZ material which belongs on the main thread. For the last time, can anyone tell me why the poster states that "67% of ED residents voted against CPZ"? And a bit of detail on who is behind the campaign? At least if I'd picked on a massage advert I'd have had a happy ending by now...

Jacqui5254 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Talking about 'hyperbolic statements without > evidence to support them", wasn't there a MASSIVE > Southwark Council poster on the railings outside > M+S that claimed.. > > "FACT. People who walk to the high street spend > 40% more than those who drive to the high street"? Err, if you copy and paste that into google, you?ll find the source (and it?s been quoted in the media too). Rather not talk about that on his thread thanks; I?d be interested in a dedicated thread you could start?

Sporthuntor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can?t be very good at reading lowlander - the > 37% was the turnout. The proportion voting against > the CPZ was 69%. Sure you don?t have an agenda? Thanks Sporthunter. You?re absolutely correct, although I wouldn?t call it a vote. My agenda is clear - I?m against anonymous posters using misleading stats. It would be more accurate to say ?8000 ED residents signed our petition against the CPZ?. Still no-one can provide a contact?

Thanks Rockets - I've read your figures, which suggest that 37% of ED residents are against a CPZ. The posters very clearly state that some 67% of residents voted against a CPZ. There was no vote. 67% of ED residents did not tick a box on a ballot paper at a voting station. This campaign is deploying the same tactics used by extreme groups (of all flavours): 1. Using frenzied language 2. Using fake stats 3. Using anonymity As I said I started this thread to talk about the posters. There is a thread about the CPZ itself which I'm not going to spend time on. Tiddles - Out of the 12,000 odd people in Dulwich I'm sure this campaign can find someone willing to put their name to it. At the very least an email address or website...

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander....how are they not truthful....they are > the council?s own stats from the responses to the > consultation document? > > Now you could get pedantic and suggest that ED?s > boundaries are wider than the CPZ area...is that > your point? > > I think a lot of residents and shopkeepers would > encourage the council to be fair and truthful in > regard to the methodology and motivations for > implementing the CPZ.... All I'm asking for is a link to the stats. The cons/pros are debated to infinity on other threads. Can you answer the questions in my first post: Why do the posters not have a contact? And why can none of the shopkeepers give me contact details? If the artist wishes to remain anonymous, surely they can find someone amongst ED's 12,000 odd residents to support them (especially if more than 6,700 are with them)? Where did the '67% of ED residents voted against a CPZ'? figure come from? It might be fairer to say '67% of ED residents are not in favour'...even then, turnout for the last local elections in Goose Green was 47%(a)...so to say 67% of ED residents voted against a CPZ is stretching the truth...

Thanks MarkT. Would you be so kind as to link to this report? For the third time, I'm open to be converted to your cause?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lowlander....I am afraid you are missing > something......67/68% of the people who responded > to the CPZ consultation said they did not want a > CPZ. > > If you are a shopkeeper who relies on footfall to > sustain your business then the CPZ will bring > misery and chaos....and probably put you out of > business. Thanks Rockets. There's plenty of healthy discussion on other threads regarding the cons/pros of a CPZ. I'm specifically concerned by these posters. They state that '67/68% of ED residents voted against a CPZ'. Their words. Not mine. If you're going to fight a campaign, fight it fairly, truthfully and with conviction. If the stated facts can't be backed up, how are you going to win me over?

For the purposes of this thread I'm neutral about the proposed CPZ. I am, however, disturbed about the campaign against which certainly isn't winning me over. I've waded through the various threads and can't find anything about the organisation behind the blue posters in Lordship Lane business windows, which are akin to pro-regime propaganda I've seen in Syria and Iraq. Why do the posters not have a contact? And why can none of the shopkeepers give me contact details? If the artist wishes to remain anonymous, surely they can find someone amongst ED's 12,000 odd residents to support them (especially if more than 6,700 are with them)? Where did the '67% of ED residents voted against a CPZ'? figure come from? It might be fairer to say '67% of ED residents are not in favour'...even then, turnout for the last local elections in Goose Green was 47%(a)...so to say 67% of ED residents voted against a CPZ is stretching the truth... Unless I'm missing something, people did not vote against a CPZ. They were invited to respond to a consultation. Finally, the wording is pure hyperbole. "Misery and Chaos"? Those are strong words. Homeless, hungry, abused people experience misery and chaos. (a) https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/voting-and-elections/2018-borough-council-electio

Duplicate :-(

East Dulwich has six trains an hour to London Bridge during the peak: 08:02 08:08 08:23 08:32 08:38 08:53 Admittedly there are two 15 minute gaps. Reliability is pretty good compared to other London rail lines, but there is a bottleneck with the Overground trains between Peckham Rye and Queen's Road Peckham; often short delays whilst the Southern service waits for an Overground service to clear the route (and I assume the reverse). Six trains an hour all day would be great, but adding more tracks between Peckham Rye and the Overground junction north of Queen's Road Peckham (impossible without substantial demolition and billions of pounds) is a non-starter. Eight trains an hour is fantasy.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is right. Democracy does have the right to > change its mind. > > That is why the UK has a General Election every 5 > years. > > But we had a referendum on whether to leave the > E.U. and leave Won. > > So we cannot have another Referendum before we > have left. > Maybe we could have another in 5 years to see if > wanted to rejoin ??? > > if a second Referendum voted to stay, would we > have a third referendum ? Best of three. I do see your point. The UK has had three UK-wide referendums in its history (i.e. not including the 2014 indyref): 1. 1975 referendum to join the EEC (67% in favour of joining) 2. 2011 referendum on replacing the first past the post system with alternative voting (67% against changing) 2. 2016 EU referendum (52% in favour of leaving) By contrast we've had over 50 elections since 1801. By and large they are nowadays fairly well run and democratic. In other words you know what you're voting for. Referendums one and two above could have been re-run several times to reach the same conclusion. The 2016 referendum was close. In contrast to the other two, there was no consensus. What does leave mean? Hard Brexit, Norway / Canada ++++ ?? What is the plan? The whole point of a referendum is to give a binary option. It makes the 2014 Scottish indyref look like a tea party.