Siduhe

Good for you for posting. Hope you find her! But if you do end up donating it, there's a community fridge/food sharing group in the Albrighton Centre, East Dulwich. Unlike a lot of the foodbanks they don't require council authorised "proof" of need and are doing an amazing job of helping our community. No connection (other than my better half is a volunteer driver for them) - they sometimes post on here under username "Albrighton" if you need details.

The Facebook group of the same name has nothing to do with this forum, just someone copying the format initially to promote their business - Admin has mentioned that before (see below). There may be people on here who are members of both that can help though but you need someone from the Facebook admin team to help you. /forum/read.php?12,1906669,1977440#msg-1977440

I've got to say my experience is similar to Abe's. I wouldn't say other cyclists are the "biggest" danger (metal box hitting me at speed is plainly a bigger danger than a lycra'd up person on two wheels) but they are certainly the most "frequent" cause of me having to change direction, slam on brakes and/or receive abuse as a cyclist. I'm a driver, pedestrian and commuting cyclist, so I don't really have any skin in the cyclists v cars debate. I use the car rarely these days (for big shopping loads only) and am generally in favour of measures to get those of us that can, out of cars and walking or cycling. TBF, I'm also comparatively slow cyclist on a not very smart bike who stops at every red light, so I recognise that other cyclists are going to want to go around me and I'm fine with that. But generally I find most car drivers are fine so long as you regularly look behind you (so they know you know they are there) before you move out into the road or turn right. And if you don't go shooting down their inside but wait behind or go around on the outside in stationary traffic, again most drivers (including vans, trucks and buses) are fine giving you space in my experience as long as they can see you showing some basic awareness they are there. I think it's great there's been a massive uptick in cycling but some of the behaviour I see really scares me - and it's not just the lycra'd up brigade (although they are the most likely to give you abuse when you stop at a red light they would rather have gone straight through and vaguely inconvenienced them into changing direction). The majority of people don't look behind them before they move out into traffic, there is a lot of swapping lanes without looking and shooting up inside traffic and very little attempt to signal before turning and, my god, the number of people wearing headphones and cycling in traffic is genuinely astonishing. And to be clear, there are loads of sensible, aware cyclists too, but I think the standard of behaviour has generally deteriorated since more people started cycling and it drives the overall cyclist behaviour down. As soon as one person jumps a light, others follow and it normalises it etc. I see that every day on my commute into work (a lot of which is on segregated cycle lanes and/or have "bike first" traffic lights where there's no excuse for any cyclist running the red light). A few people will pull up on red but as soon as one person goes shooting through (whether it's a pedestrian phase or a cars coming the other way phase) everyone else follows. One of the things it's made me think about is that those sort of behaviours aren't too risky when you're on a cycle path or quietway but get really dangerous when you're cycling in proper traffic. I'm coming to the view that no-one should cycle in full London traffic without having some kind of training - it was the best thing I did when I started cycling. Edit to add to rahrahrah's point - yes - an idiot is an idiot whether they are driving a car or cycling (and even may be the same people I would guess) but generally, my experience is that standard of driver behaviour towards cyclists in our area is better than the behaviour of a lot of those cyclists.

damzel - pretty sure it is still as originally proposed - see page 4 here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s84105/Report%20-%20East%20Dulwich%20and%20Peckham%20West%20CPZ.pdf

Closer to Underhill/South Circular I think. Very close to us. No idea why though!

It's also odd in the context of the very quick action that the Council has taken on Rye Lane to manage the adverse impact on the businesses there. Having closed the Lane to all motorised traffic, it is now open early morning and in the evening to allow for deliveries (but not to buses, which is still having a massive knock on impact on those businesses). This change was implemented within two weeks of the closure being announced and yes it makes it much less pleasant to use as a pedestrian and cyclist at those times, but it's a reasonable balance of use for those businesses.

Well I?m going to go against the tide and say I bloody loved it. Not Kenneth Branagh?s atrocious accent or Elizabeth Debicki?s mournful looks (such a waste of a great actress) but the rest was fabulous. Bonkers and in no way scientifically accurate (!) but beautifully shot and nicely wrapped up at the end. Long though.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that children will share details of sexual abuse in a sex education class - what people are saying, supported by evidence, is that teaching children about sex education in a modern, but age appropriate way, may help children who are being abused to realise that what is happening to them is wrong and speak up to a trusted adult. And I don't think you disagree with that from anything you've said TE44. What you appear to object to is the education on same sex relationships and particularly sex in a same sex relationship, where you and NN have made a series of increasingly wild accusations that that sort of education either encourages child sex abuse or may be triggering for those who are or have suffered from child sex abuse, rather than helping them reach out for the help that they need. The whole premise of your argument (i.e that it encourages child sex abuse) is offensive and wrong, based on prejudice and scaremongering, plain and simple.

TE44, I just don't understand where you are coming from - you've publicly supported (and, indeed, doubled down on) a post that suggests that sex education in schools increases the risk of children suffering sexual abuse. I've explained why that is totally wrong, and pointed you towards two sets of materials that have been put together, based on empirical evidence, which explain it further if you read them [have you read them or even looked at them?]. You've pointed me towards a spokesperson for a pressure group who is against any of this material being taught in schools (forgive me if I prefer evidenced materials) and said that it's better in your view not to teach any of this stuff in case children are being abused at home and it makes things worse. How does not teaching children about consent in relationships and how important it is help those children who are being abused? How does ignoring it, not treating abuse as if it exists and is wrong, help those children understand that it's not their fault and needs to be stopped? As I've said elsewhere on this thread, I'm respectful of people who want their children to be taught about sex and relationships in an age appropriate way - debate away about that point - but this horrible implication that teaching young people about sex, particularly in same sex relationships increases the risk of predatory behaviour and child sex abuse or somehow makes it worse for the child is so obviously wrong and offensive that I'm going to keep calling it out whenever I see it. It's based on prejudice and scaremongering, plain and simple.

TE44, when you say "I believe people do not want to look at sexual abuse" - are you saying that you think teaching children about sex at school, which may include showing pictures or diagrams (as it did when I was at school, many, many years ago btw) is itself sexual abuse? I don't want to misunderstand you, but this seems to be what you are saying. On your request on support for the suggestion that sex education may be helpful for children suffering sexual abuse, of course. Here is the top link from a fairly basic google search, there are plenty of others: https://www.coe.int/t/dg3/children/1in5/Source/PublicationSexualViolence/Gordon.pdf - this is part of the final publication of recommendations from a landmark campaign on protecting children from sexual violence which ran across Europe between 2010 to 2015; This CoE report draws on the work which has been done by UNESCO in this area - the recently updated "International technical Guidance on Sexuality Education - An evidence-informed approach" is a bit more of a challenging read but very much worth it. This crosses over into an area I'm more involved which which is stamping out gender-based violence against women and girls (and yes, education and sex education is a big part of that too). Edited to add, and I can't see anything in that link you posted from the NSPCC to suggest that educating children appropriately about sex and consent is child sex abuse. But it does rather tend to confirm that you believe showing children pictures and diagrams in the context of education is itself abusive. If so, I will only say that we had plenty of pictures and diagrams in the sex education I had at school in the 80s. Of course there were no same sex couples and zero education about that then, so is it that change which particularly concerns you?

@niledynodely - nice redirect there, suggesting your concern was about triggering victims of child sex abuse, but that isn't what you originally said, now is it? You said very clearly, and with absolutely no basis or support, that educating children about sex, including sex in a same sex relationship, was likely to make them "interested" in copying what they see and therefore contribute towards child on child sex abuse. There's also a pretty nasty implication in your posts that it's the LGBTQ+ aspects that particularly lead to this risk. I called that out as alarmist, not backed up with any kind of evidence and frankly a gross misconception and misstatement of what is actually being taught, based on the information you yourself have provided. I also invited you to think about those young people who may be struggling with their sexuality and who needs the help and support that these sort of lessons provide, but I see you also ducked that - presumably because young LGBT people don't register in your world. I'll say it again to both of you - there is exactly zero evidence (anecdotal or empirical) to suggest that child sex education contributes to child sex abuse. If anything, it provides an opportunity for educators to reinforce messages about consent and give victims of child sex abuse the opportunity to speak up. Rather than brushing it under the carpet and not talking about it as you seem to prefer, leaving any young people who are actually victims to deal with that guilt and horror all alone. I respect those parents who may have views about what they want their children to learn at school but this sort of out and out misinformation in support of a ideological campaign that seems rooted in homophobia has no place in that debate.

And zero attempt to address your post suggesting that educating children about sex, including same sex relationships (and sex in a same sex relationship) increases rates of child sex abuse.

Wow. Just wow. You really went there. It's incredibly disappointing to see this sort of suggestion made in the context of school education. The idea that educational materials contribute to child sex abuse is alarmist, not backed up with any kind of evidence and frankly a gross misconception and misstatement of what is actually being taught. I think there's a very genuine discussion to have about how best to educate young people about the world they are growing up in and to help them learn and develop without leaving them unprotected, but this an out and out smear. I fully respect people's concerns about what their children are taught in schools, although I personally believe those concerns are best dealt with by actually getting in touch with the school and engaging on how the topic is taught rather than trying to whip a storm on an internet forum. My personal view is that education about different kinds of families and how being different from "normal"(whether that's gay, bi, trans or something else) is ok is incredibly important for children who may be struggling with those issues from a comparatively early age and utterly miserable about it, if they don't know and aren't taught that there are other people like them out there. And yes, any education needs to be age appropriate, and just that "education". But conflating that kind of education with child sex abuse isn't the way to have a sensible debate about it.

I'm in the office 2/3 days a week at the moment. We all have the option to work from home but are encouraged to go in when it's necessary for existing work or helpful to developing business. I would say about 20%-30% of my colleagues are doing the same over July/August and that number will probably go up to 70-80% when the schools go back. But I can't see many people going back 5 days a week every week for a while yet, although some of our youngest staff are pretty much there (those in shared accommodation, but who tend to live centrally, so it's actually easier for them to work in the office).

The Dulwich Estate has been clear that its preference is to redevelop the site for housing. I understand from our local councillors that Tesco wanted to put a Tesco Metro there, and MacDonalds wanted it for a drive through site (this was a while back) both of which approaches were rebuffed. The debate appears to be around whether it gets redeveloped as high-end housing (the Estate's preference) or whether it is more of a mixed-use development with social housing and/or community amenities and/or a senior living facility (Southwark's preference). There's a good bit of background here: https://www.dulwichsociety.com/2020-spring/1872-the-grove-tavern-saga-by-mike-foster

There was certainly a team out last week from this charity - with good identification and operating on a socially distanced basis. Looked genuine to me.

It started off as 9/10 but the final para brought it back to a middling 6/10 effort in my view. Room for improvement.

I'm not sure I now really understand the purpose of the Rye Lane closure with the changes that have been put in place from last week - not sure if this is formal or informal but every morning, someone from Conway removes the barrier at the top end of the Lane to allow delivery trucks and vans down for a few hours during peak times, and every evening (after about 7.30/8pm) one of the barriers is removed again allowing car and small vans access. I can see why this is needed for shop deliveries, but the only vehicles that aren't allowed down at some point are buses, which definitely is stopping people from travelling to the area to shop just based on the numbers you see on the street. Generally it's working well as a shared space for pedestrians and cyclists but both groups need to be prepared to jump out the way when a van comes barrelling towards you at speed on a supposedly vehicle-free space. I was cycling home about 9pm last night when a delivery van clipped a young guy on one of those electric scooters - the van didn't see him and the scooter wasn't expecting a van to be in the road. Luckily both were fine and no damage done but it's going to happen if the space isn't really vehicle free as intended.

I would leave a nice note for your binmen on Monday explaining - and that you will appreciate anything that they can do to get rid of everything. Ours have always been as helpful as they can on stuff like that. (Maybe with a box of Celebrations or similar if it?s not too hot!) Otherwise you might need to go via [email protected] but they are running really behind of enquiries due to Covid so it won?t be a quick fix.

Am I alone in thinking this is all getting a little weird - allegations of slashed traffic monitoring and planter destruction, people on stilts being paid to promote "shop local", a junction that is supposed to now be for pedestrians and cycles being closed to pedestrians and cycles by an (allegedly) unlicensed and (allegedly) non-social distancing event? I'm being mostly tongue in cheek but as someone who's desperately trying to hang on to her job, keep the people I am working for happy, work efficiently but still mostly from home and desperately trying not melt in this heat, I can't help but feel as if people have way too much time on their hands to be ratcheting up the pressure and counter-pressure to this level!

As far as I know the LL Estate is Council managed, so who ever they have contracted to do it. I would ask Southwark Environmental or someone at the Lordship Lane Estate TRA maybe?

Slow hand clap for that one, dontbesilly. Another 2/10 effort.

The Dulwich Wood Councillors are really good about replying to emails and recently invited a number of people from my street to a Zoom meeting to discuss a particular issue that was affecting some houses, which was really useful. I've met them in person pre-Covid (not because they came round door to door but because they responded to specific issues in the area and offered to meet up with those affected).

I?ve had a detailed and helpful reply from Andy and Catherine - they are aware of this campaign and the key bit of their email about the skaters says: So it sounds as if there is a solution here with the Estate, given the acknowledgement there haven?t been any issues or complaints about the skaters - although who knows about the pub chain.

The site is in the Dulwich Wood area - Andy Simmons and Catherine Rose are the councillors to email. I have pointed them to this thread and the petition but, as ever, the more people who contact them - the higher up the agenda it gets.