Siduhe

You may want to post in the Family Room discussion section. Lots of threads on school selection there and lots of people who've been through the same process as you in previous years.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I have every right, as do you and anyone else. We have free speech, remember. Thank you for your input, Mr Mussolini. PS I?m not telling, just asking politely. There?s a difference. Just FYI - /forum/read.php?20,2154894,2155544#msg-2155544

This is one of the recommendations in response to the air quality report - we knew it was probably coming but looks like it?s here. I?m still trying to get my head round how CPZs drive down car ownership and driving when it seems to have the opposite effect of making it easier for people in those areas to park and therefore increase incentives. Introduce a borough-wide CPZ renamed a Community Kerbside Zone. A controlled parking zone is a name defined by National government and is therefore set in the legislation that the council uses to control parking. The council would need to take legal advice on whether the use of a different term such as a Community Kerbside Zone might cause any issues with parking enforcement, it certainly would not be able to be used in any of the legal documents that create the borough wide parking controls.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it half term? Perhaps more kids pretending to be grownups posting? It?s a rainy day after all. Sounds from Admin's comment on the other thread that it is a repeat offender. Or at least someone known to Admin.

With the possible extension of the Congestion Charge to the South Circular back in the news this morning (confirmed to be a UK Government condition of any longer term bailout of TfL) I thought I would check how much of ED would be in the resident's discount zone. What I didn't appreciate, and which hasn't been publicised at all, is that the resident's discount has also been suspended to any new entrants as part of the earlier package of measures - so if this extension did go ahead, it would involve all of us paying full price congestion charge to drive in and out (south) of ED. What I can't work out is whether journeys within the zone would be chargeable too or whether it is only driving in and out of the zone. Any one know? Someone said on one of the other threads that this looked like a really smart long game by the Government to put Labour voting areas under strain and drive down support for other parties. If this is seriously the plan, I'm starting to think that might actually be true. It's a pattern, for sure. For balance, it would also do more to drive down car journeys in our area than any LTN, but as usual it would be the less well off people in our area who would suffer the most.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Serra I think she said schools AND the Dulwich > Estate.. am still watching the call to see what > happens on the clean air agenda item so can?t > check... That's what I heard too.

It was a positive overall message, but incredibly light on detail. I was hoping for a clearer step plan of what the council is going to do next, but I do welcome the commitment to implement widespread monitoring of the impacts of the scheme with a focus on social fairness and particularly the rights of children.

I think they are really useful at night when I'm cycling home - there are a couple of points where I cycle across parks and it's great to be able to see where the dogs are so you can slow down.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Silly. Oh no, don't be silly...

James, appreciate the post - I would also be grateful for a bit more detail as to how this broader focus will be implemented in practice, as it still seems to be very geographically limited to the streets directly next to the existing closures. I've posted elsewhere about this but streets like Crystal Palace Road, Underhill, Overhill, Melford and Wood Vale are now experiencing significant traffic at peak times as people try to avoid the Court Lane closure. I rarely drive and I commute by cycle but my route home (down what used to be comparatively quiet side streets) now feels significantly less safe than it did (and is significantly more polluted). Like EDG, these are bus routes so can't be made into LTNs. I'm hoping that it will settle over time but what it feels like, is that the Council has made my life and the life of some of my neighbours worse to benefit the residents of leafy Court Lane - who already have massive gardens but can now extol the virtues of playing out in the street while the rest of us breathe in displaced traffic fumes. I appreciate it's a lot more complicated than that but it has the same sort of adverse social impacts that you mention, and there's no plan at all from the Council (I understand from our councillors) to even monitor in our area. The irony that it's most adversely affecting the people who have already made the changes you are trying to encourage across our area isn't lost on me either.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Steven, I think you are going to fit in very well > around here. > > Big loss for Surbitonians, I suspect. ;-) Although the tone of the OP is so similar to some other posters who've passed through here, that I'm sure he'll fit right in.

In the small claims court I would hope your mum will get a fair hearing if she explains the background to the situation and the fact that she only charged a day rather than the whole of the next month. Sounds like the lodger is being quite difficult.

Have you tried posting on a forum which is focused on Japan? More likely to find a Japanese speaker who can help. Here's one that seems quite active. https://jref.com/forums/all-things-japanese.26/

This, this, a thousand times this. As someone who very rarely drives and cycles/walks very regularly including commuting into central London, it?s incredibly frustrating that my cycle journey feels considerably less safe than it did around Underhill/Melford as a result of displaced traffic from Court Lane. As I said on the other thread, I?m open to the idea it might settle down over time but our local councillors have been told there are no current plans to monitor the knock on effects on streets like ours as part of the decision process whether to make these changes permanent. And as both roads are bus routes, no prospect of LTN measures. I?d love to know what ideas and measures there are to help people like us who are exactly the people trying to make the changes everyone is asking for, but being hit hard by measures to help other areas.

KatyKoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Clearly we will have to agree to disagree. > But in answer to your questions those roads have > had severe congestion on them for years, closing > the junction will cause some displacement > initially - nobody disputes that. From what I see > daily the congestion on DV, EDG and LLane is > levelling off to more or less what it was before > the junction closure. The data will tell. > I would like to see traffic reduced on those roads > too even if it does settle to the same levels as > before the closures. > Townley road is at times worse - but more > restrictions coming soon to sort that out. > > If you believe in data and evidence - we'll just > have to wait and see what the traffic counts say. The traffic counts will only tell you about the places that are being monitored, not the roads like Underhill and Melford which historically have been quiet and safe cycle routes and are now heavily backed up with traffic avoiding the Court Lane/DV closure - and which aren't even being looked at by Southwark Council. I'm hoping, like you, this will calm down over time but on the evidence of the last two weeks it's been getting worse not better and it's making walking and cycling much harder, not easier. As those are both bus routes they can't be closed off or turned into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, so the overall effect (at least so far) has been to make the lives of those on Court Lane much better at the expense of other, nearby, generally less affluent Southwark residents. I'd love to hear any solutions that pro-closure groups have for residents like us.

.

undergran Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Underhill Road is now effectively a ?main? road > with much heavier traffic trying to avoid Lordship > Lane so rejoining the south Circular at the south > end to get to Forest Hill or Sydenham and using > Melford Road to rejoin close to the Grove junction > to Dulwich Common. Traffic monitoring on Lordship > Lane is close to Court Lane so does not count this > traffic. Fully agree with this. We are Underhill/Melford which is now bumper to bumper at peak times (which it has never been before in the 15 years I've lived here) and has made my cycle home feel much less safe on what used to be a fairly quiet route - most of that traffic is trying to get onto the South Circular to turn right down towards Dulwich Village. I hope it will settle down but the knock on effects of the Court Lane closure are certainly extending as far up as here.

JohnL Wrote: -------------------------------------------------------> > Being an IT guy I say that this would have been > reported to the managers and kicked up the chain > of management. They can't blame the guy who was > uploading the data and got an error unless he told > no-one or got told what to do and didn't. There > must have been some kind of asterix on the data > about this. The suggestion being widely reported is that it was a lack of understanding about the limitations of Excel when running an automated process. If true, that's pretty f**king unbelievable. I'm in no way a tech person but I do deal with large data sets from time to time and I know that Excel has several limitations, not least on overall data size but also cell and column limits (as well as being pretty much the worst choice I can think of for transferring large amounts of sensitive personal data). https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/covid-testing-technical-issue-excel-spreadsheet-a4563616.html

The bit about the Emergency Services not agreeing with any further closures (and the council's response that they think it's fine if services have key access) is interesting. About three weeks ago I was cycling home just coming up to Rye Lane (heading towards ED) - there was a strong smell of smoke in the air and 30 seconds later two fire engines came up Hanover Park looking to turn left into Rye Lane. Fireman jumps out with key to remove the post blocking access. Key doesn't turn. It's the wrong key. They get on the radio and after about a minute (I'd stopped to watch by this point) some kind of message comes back that the lock/key has been changed recently and they don't have the right key. So they get out some kind of fancy angle grinder and just saw the lock off. But the swearing and cursing (most of it aimed at Southwark Council and Conway for some reason) was spectacular. I'm not surprised off the back of that experience that they are anti-further restrictions.

I also wrote to Helen Hayes and got a slew of things that I'd been missing about a week later. Three important financial documents (actually the same document, sent three times as the earlier ones didn't arrive - the earliest one posted on 11 August, all delivered within two days of each other) and a cheque sent from the US almost three months ago. Feels like there is definitely someone working on the backlog, at least in our street

I'm with Blah Blah - I cycle the Surrey Canal Path to and from work and take a view on how many people are around - whether it's early morning in the light or later at night in the dark. Trust your instincts and if you don't feel comfortable, stick to the roads.

TE44, I don't understand how but I think we must be looking at different documents - I've linked to a 2016 statement by all the leading therapy groups in the UK condemning the sort of treatment being offered by the Core Issues Trust. There are two mentions of trans people in passing, but that isn't the focus of the statement. And Mike Davidson who runs the therapy sessions at Core Issues Trust is neither a qualified doctor, nor a registered therapist.

Really? You can't see the whole section in the consensus statement about the difference between going to see a licenced therapist in the UK who can help people struggling with their same-sex attraction, and going to an unlicenced group whose aim is to help those same people supress or eliminate that same-sex attraction? I'll give you a clue - it's in the section marked "Getting Help". I'll check the link but I wonder if we're even looking at the same document. I would love not to be posting on this thread again - I did the last time because of the horrible insinuations being made that non-heterosexual people are some kind of greater threat to children and the safety of children than heterosexual people. That's out and out bigotry of the worst kind and I called it out for what it was.

I was really hoping that this thread would die a deserved death, notwithstanding niledynodely popping back in to stir it up again with her faux "I'm not against homosexuality but won't someone think of the children" shtick. But no, it seems it's back trotting out the same old tropes... For anyone who wants to understand some of the terms being thrown around in this latest discussion, please see a joint statement issued some years ago by all the key organisations in the UK that deal with psychology and psychoanalysis. It explains that conversion therapy is the umbrella term for a type of talking therapy or activity which attempts to change sexual orientation or reduce attraction to others of the same sex. Exactly what the charity being discussed seems to do. https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ukcp-conversion-therapy.pdf It goes on to say: Licenced professionals in the UK consider this sort of treatment to be unethical and the leaflet goes on to explain why that is. That's why it only lives on, in the UK at least, by way of charities acting in largely unqualified capacities.

The Facebook group of the same name isn?t connected to the forum. Just surfs off the back of it. /forum/read.php?12,2146776