DuncanW

I'm not sure how you're able to assert that the 2018 Lewisham result was a protest vote. Like so much of this thread, that seems like a flight-of-fancy to me, but if I have missed some underlying data that points to that, please feel free to share. Lewisham has long been a Labour stronghold. They went into the 2018 election holding 53/54 seats and gained one seat to take a clean sweep. They won that seat from the Greens, not Tory or LibDem. Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The closest to a "one party dictatorship" is in > Lewisham where there is no opposition to Labour > because last time round people all voted for them > instead of the Lib Dems or Tories as a protest > vote. > > However there's an election next May where it > could be very different in both Southwark and > Lewisham where controversial LTN schemes have been > railroaded...er introduced where it could change > power in both boroughs. > > It is fair to say however that this current Labour > administration have been the most forceful in > introducing schemes that go against the will of > local residents or taking on board what the > opposition Lib Dems have asked for with regards to > the LTN consultation for Dulwich Village.

You had better have a word with Otis Redding then.

Heartblock - fair enough. The phrase did appear in your post but I must have misunderstood what you meant by it.

Here we go again - Southwark is not, by any definition, either a one-party state or a dictatorship. It's a Labour stronghold because people keep voting for them. That hasn't always been the case - not that long ago it was a Lib Dem/Tory coalition for a short while. And with local elections just around the corner, if the electorate of Southwark arent happy with them, they will vote them out. Let's see what happens in May. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'It's so funny - every time someone brings up a > solution that would cut traffic - people shout > 'dictatorship' yet closing roads to car drivers on > some roads but allowing people from closed roads > to drive one of their many cars on a school road > without consultation of any of the roads impacted > with extra diverted traffic is not a > 'dictatorship'. It seems that if one agrees with a > policy then that policy is 'democratic' and if one > disagrees with a policy it is a 'dictatorship'. > > For example, some anti HTNs like me (I am going > to call closed road policy 'LTN's they are HTNs > from now on as they create High Traffic > Neighbourhoods)and pro HTNs do not agree with my > solution which is to take Charitable Status away > from private schools with a view to changing them > all to state run schools, increase taxes to the > top 10% of earners to fund state schools and have > children go to schools that are a 30 minute > maximum walk from home. > I would also ban all non-electric cars from cities > and vastly increase public transport. > Changing how education and transport works is just > good policy - banning free speech in a one party > state, with no political opposition is a > dictatorship.

Yes, there currently is high demand. oimissus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there a high demand? The birth rate is dropping > and previously oversubscribed schools are > advertising vacancies.

JAGS and Alleyns don't have no-drive policies. They encourage, but that's within a context of openly attracting pupils from a wide catchment area. They run school buses but clearly there are many that choose to drive. And I agree that the behaviour of some of those is pretty poor in the way you describe. The nursery won't be operating with the same wide catchment as has been discussed before. And as a new enterprise, could take a tougher approach with their new customers; eg they would have the home address and could have agreement on an acceptable travel plan before accepting new joiners. There's nowhere to park near there anyway.

Would be doing well to get up the Lake District and back for the weekend, I'd say

I hear you... but I would take that over the Bookie's everyday of the week Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Small" St Christopher's has now reopened as a > > Meanwhile, booze licence application has gone in > for the old bookie opposite M&S on Lordship Lane > for...Megan's Deli, another casual dining place > (and sister to the one in Dulwich Village). Thank > God for that - if there's one thing that East > Dulwich is calling out for it's another twee > coffee shop.

Who has said anything about banning the use of private vehicles?

I would love a moon-cheese sandwich... :) My point was only ever that it's true on a national level. I didn't make any claims about how that translates locally to back up?? Though given the wide diffrence in car ownership between richer and poorer households, I would be really surprised if that trend was reversed in a city where car ownership is significantly lower than it is nationally.

Spartacus, Luckily, I'm not in the market for writing academic papers. I'm certainly not qualified to do so, but don't believe that disqualifies me from posting on this thread. I did what you said. It doesn't - if only you had posted a link to support that unfounded claim. More saliently, the moon is not made of cheese, the sky is blue (or certainly appears to be today) and car ownership is more prevalent amongst richer households than poorer ones, quite markedly so - much as that goes against the narrative... I did post the evidence to support that.

Spartacus: I would say you don't need to include reference links to wideley accepted and easily proven facts - the sky is blue, the sea is wet etc... but each to their own. Maybe up to the individual contributor, but I wouldn't characterise Redpost as lazy for not doing so. Thank you for taking the time to score my contribution although I feel you were a little harsh. I recognise I was a little sarcy so I probably dropped a point or two for that :) Heartblock: I don't have any issue with Southwark Council, I thought that was your schtick? Heartblock (again, cripes!) You do love to spin a good yarn don't you! Does all that talk of %increases invalidate the absolute realities of car-ownership by income splits? Or are you suggesting ONS have their facts wrong

I thought that was a widely accepted fact - Google is there to assist you in such matters if you're unsure... How and why would anyone be able to produce 'very local stats' to back up such a self-evidently true statement? I Google'd it for you - hope that's helpful: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/784685/future_of_mobility_access.pdf ? Lowest income households have higher levels of non-car ownership, 40% still have no car access ? female heads of house, children, young and older people, BMEs and disabled people are concentrated in this quintile;

Is it always the same people doing it though (I have no idea!)? Could it be that someone has a party and thinks fireworks would be a nice touch, not thinking it inconsiderate as they only have a party every couple of years or so. But there's a volume of people that do that? I can't imagine one household just regularly letting fireworks off just for the sake of it...

Is it always the same people doing it though (I have no idea!)? Could it be that someone has a party and thinks fireworks would be a nice touch, not thinking it inconsiderate as they only have a party every couple of years or so. But there's a volume of people that do that? I can't imagine one household just regularly letting fireworks off just for the sake of it...

Whoop whoop

There are defibs in ED - I'm sure there would be one at the leisure centre. Plus other sports venues probably have them too like ESPN, Dulwich Hamlet - the cinema possibly...

Imagine being so disregarding of the harm that polluting vehicles cause, that you would openly discuss how to avoid paying the charge whilst carrying on driving such a vehicle through the area... the mind boggles!

Jesus College is returning a Benin Bronze to Nigeria. This is the first to go back from the UK, looks like there will be more to come. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/oct/15/cambridge-college-to-be-first-uk-return-looted-benin-bronze

There was an accelerator on fuel tax introduced for that purpose by the Major government, and subsequently increased by Blair. As you will remember, there were large-scale protests and it was scrapped. I wouldn't say it was the 'most fair' solution. As with any of these measures, the discomfort is never evenly spread. It would be effective though.

I wonder what you might be basing those musings on? Please share. JAGS, JAPS and Alleyns all face out onto EDG, Alleyns has a playground that is directly adjacent to it, so they would be feeling any disbenefit in equal (as can be roughly measured) proportion. Proportionately and absolutely, far more children from the local state schools live within realistic 'active travel' distance, so I would think more are enjoying the benefits to a greater extent. There are all sorts arguments both for and against the LTNs in Dulwich, but this particular narrative just seems like grift to me. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just musing on the idea that the active travel > benefits may have disproportionately benefited > children at the independent and more affluent > schools (and the air pollution from displaced > traffic disproportionately affected some of the > less affluent ones). Perhaps one of the many > things that should have gone into the analysis of > compliance with the council?s new socioeconomic > duty (something that seems to have been given very > little consideration in the report accompanying > the decision notice). > > I see on Twitter that the LDs have requested the > decision to be called in before Overview and > Scrutiny (stating concerns about adequacy of > consultation). Let?s see if the council approve > that request. A chance for both sides to air their > concerns about process flaws. If it happens I > wonder if the meeting is a public one.

Pretty sure that's right. It's the section up by Calton that you can't drive through. Although your preferred rout being busy probably wouldn't stand up as an appeal argument if you did get a ticket.

https://www.whirledcinema.com/ Might be a good option for you.

What's wrong with Americano?

Are they tall normally? Ours is just slightly taller than the bikes we have... Admittedly, mine is a Penny Farthing, but still