Siduhe

Thanks @rahrahrah and @Dulwichgirl82 - your posts underline what I thought - for the vast majority of people on this thread, there's far more that we're aligned on than not. I can't help thinking it helps the extremes on either side (and/or Southwark Council) to keep us all sniping at each other as if the only solution was to reverse the closures entirely or keep them entirely. [Not suggesting either of you were sniping btw!] So here's my starter for 10 - we keep the closures in place for six months but with a proper monitoring and assessment process that looks at the overall impact on our area and a firm commitment to consider outcomes for all roads fairly at the end of it. Do you think those strongly in favour of the closures would buy into that? If so, I'd much rather push for that than the immediate reversal of the closures, but the only way to get the Council to commit to that is for the majority of the pro and anti groups to get behind that sort of idea.

@rahrahrah - I appreciate that yours may be a more general reply, and nothing in what you've said that I disagree with - but could you look at my post above and let me know what your answer is to the question about what people living on other side roads who are being negatively impacted by these changes should do? Specifically about these closures and their impact? I don't want the closures reversed, I want a proper, managed assessment that looks at our area as a whole for ideally no more than six months, but apparently we can't have that. So what is the solution for me and my neighbours?

This is where I think the theory parts company with the reality - at least at the moment. I'm not necessarily in favour of reversing the two sets of closures and I agree that shorter car journeys which can easily be done by cycling and walking should be promoted and facilitated. As someone who barely drives any more and mostly cycles (having made the switch these closures are trying to encourage a while back) I'm also in favour of encouraging traffic onto main roads and off side streets. But the current situation isn't about 100% of traffic being moved on the main roads and 0% being allowed on side roads, it's about 0% of traffic on a few, select roads with significantly increased traffic on other sides roads and some main roads. And I do think in some ways it is fairer to have traffic spread around more evenly across main roads and all side roads, giving more options to deal with snarl-ups and road works. But I acknowledge that doesn't achieve the overall reduction in traffic that we all agree we want and it doesn't make it safer to cycle or walk. So what I do want is a fair process, that looks at the overall picture and has a qualitative element of analysis to it. Which is exactly what we are not getting. And I'll be upfront that some of this is personally motivated - I live on a road that is a side road, actually quite similar to Melbourne Grove, but has a bus route running down it, which for the last 15 years I've lived here has had reasonable amounts of traffic on it, but almost never bumper to bumper (unless there was a traffic issue somewhere else), has been relatively safe to cycle on and no better or worse for pollution than our overall area. Now traffic is bumper to bumper most days at peak times, my home air pollution monitor is through the roof at those times (as traffic idles trying to get to and around the South Circular) and my previously safe cycle home feels a lot less safe. When I've asked how the council is going to help me and my neighbours as part of its overall plan, I've been told variously: Give it time to bed in - ok, that's fair - what would be a fair amount of time to review - 6 months maybe? The council won't even commit to reviewing the impact in our area, only the area which is directly impacted by the two closures in 18 months time, so our views don't even get taken into account. There's nothing we can do as you're on a bus route - that's a TFL issue What about bus gates, or timed closures or anything that would help mitigate the effects we are seeing? We have no plans to monitor pollution specifically in your area, but will consider the impact overall in East Dulwich It's easy to ask simple questions that lead to answers like of course it's unfair to expect people on side roads to put up with cut through car traffic, especially when that traffic is for a short journey that could easily be done another way. And anyone who says different is an idiot in my view. And I could definitely put up with the (hopefully short term) pain that I and my neighbours are feeling if I thought it was part of a managed process that would look at everything in the round and come up with something that is fair for our entire area. But this is so far from that, that it is difficult to support right now. I've done my best to answer your question rahrahrah, and I'd really appreciate it if you could answer mine - what is is that you think we should be doing in the context of responding to the current LTNs? Accepting it and hoping it turns out ok? I don't think there's a lot here that most people disagree on whether they are for the closures, against the closures or like me, fine with the closures if it's part of a short term plan to benefit the area with a clear path for assessment and review? It would be so helpful if some of those in favour of the current closures could also lobby the council for a fair and managed assessment of the impacts, and so much harder for the council to do what it is doing, which is ignoring those requests in favour of a "let's just see" approach.

I can only sympathise. We have nice neighbours who had to do some urgent but disruptive building work (luckily only over a few weeks) and I ended up having to get special permission to come into the office in the same way as ed_pete as there was no way I could work with all the noise. Appreciate that isn't an option for you. Definitely agree with his advice and would add 1) up front agreement with the home owners and builders about radios and music not being played at top volume and 2) advance notice of any particularly noisy works so that you can try and plan around them.

Now now Sue, dontbesilly... P.S. your post made me laugh out loud as I had exactly the same reaction.

Same on Melford/Underhill/Wood Vale - it's been like that for several months at least. Luckily O2 also does calling over wifi so I haven't really noticed how bad it is when I'm at home as my mobile works normally so long as it's connnected to my home network.

Have you tried a reusable Tassimo-compatible container? That would solve the recycling issue and allow you to use your preferred coffee.

You might want to post this in the ED General Issues forum rather than the COVID-19 area. Here are a few existing threads to get you going: /forum/read.php?20,2119593,2119593#msg-2119593 /forum/read.php?20,1944109 /forum/read.php?5,1970706,1970722

Thanks northernmonkey - that's what I understood too. It's a little frustrating that each LTN is being discussed in isolation, which is exactly what I thought Southwark had said they wouldn't do. I've asked if there are similar meetings planned for the DV LTN. On their own, there's a lot to like about these proposals and solutions (as well as a lot of things that need to be improved for other nearby residents) but what's missing is any kind of joined up thinking about the overall impact on our area.

Thanks James, is it right that these meetings are only to discuss the ED LTN, not the Court Lane/DV changes?

Also just seen this thread a few lines below: /forum/read.php?20,2164977,2164977,page=1#msg-2164977

Not quite what you describe but the Albrighton is a local food charity that is doing amazing stuff in our area and is available to anyone in need. My husband volunteers for them and it?s pretty humbling. They?re almost there on a fundraising appeal to cover the Christmas period which will include some children?s presents as I understand it. Or https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/albrightoncommunitycentre

Agree that if you leave the cardboard out - dry and folded - with a note explaining you've just moved in, the blue bin teams will likely take it. I had a similar batch recently and left a note and a few Celebrations - no issues.

I don't want to get into the details but the reason I recognised the van and asked for the crime number is that a neighbour reported it to 111 a while back for behaviour that went beyond suspicious. No idea if it is the same people as dan saw but there may be a pattern here.

Wow, Steven - what happened to your urbane, suit-wearing, refugee from Surbiton persona? /forum/read.php?20,2154894,2154894#msg-2154894 I see you're going for a more down & grimey vibe now, or is that just the rejuvenating effect that moving to ED has had for you?

Thanks for this - I've seen this van driving around the area before several times (not today) - is there a crime number that we could use if we do see it again?

The criticism is more about the cack-handed and obvious briefing against Marcus Rashford by this government who would rather blame him for making them look bad and forcing them into a U-turn than their own unwillingness to engage in the issue of meals outside term time when it first came up. Someone mentioned to me that this was coming (the anti-Rashford briefings) last week and I thought "they wouldn't be so stupid, would they?". Turns out they would.

It's a safety thing, entirely separate from inappropriate use - so people don't know where serving police live or spend time, in case it puts them or their families at risk.

Some police force social media policies restrict serving police officers from identifying themselves as such when they are posting on private social media accounts and internet boards as a safety measure. They aren't supposed to identify their employers, places they work, times they work or their home location, places they frequent and regular hobbies if they are identifiable as a serving officer. The Met policy is a bit less restrictive. https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/metropolitan-police/disclosure_2018/december_2018/information-rights-unit---mpss-social-media-policy

All tennis courts have been required to close under the latest lockdown rules, including the open air ones. That was confirmed after Michael Gove initially said they could stay open. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/england-lockdown-rules-gove-tennis-golf-b1553255.html

The Code of Conduct that trainers need to use can be downloaded here - it includes as a key requirement that right of way is given to other park users. Pretty sure that no large items of equipment can be used either. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/leisure-and-sport/park-s-exercise-licence

@diablerouge *bows down*

No40 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It really isn't. Just FYI - /forum/read.php?20,2154894,2155544#msg-2155544

I was about to ask the same - Underhill and Lordship Lane are totally gridlocked down to Forest Hill but not clear why?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Biden won't want it to go to Pennsylvania - > Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin and Michigan might do > it. The "paths to victory" infographic on the NYT is very good on this - about 2/3 of the way down the page: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/forecast-president.html