richard tudor

If you are paying ED prices you don't want shabby chic but right on expensive for all to admire.

Ms Blueberry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a derelict site which negatively effects > everything around it and it's not the right thing > to let a property go to rack and ruin. If you close one eye it will appear half as bad.

What ever happened to Errol? Who used to work in Home Ownership and posted on the Forum. He started to reveal the inner works of Southwark Leasehold Management and suddenly disappeared of the face of the earth. Was he getting to close to the truth

Peacocks on Chadwick Road. Ask for Paul. Top man

davidk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > spider69 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > bobbsy Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Please don't force more rat running onto > > Underhill > > > Road. Even with traffic calming measures most > > cars > > > exceed the limit. > > > > > > Potential idea - close Underhill halfway > along > > so > > > its no longer a "through" road, and residents > > can > > > access from the appropriate end? > > > > > > Why? If people have paid their car licence they > > are entitled to use the road. > > > > > What's this "car licence" you speak of? > > The general movement to strategically close roads > in certain places is mainly because people are > sick of selfish, rat running motorists bringing > noise, pollution, death and destruction to > otherwise quiet residential streets. I hope we > see a lot more of it in ED. was this a location film set for Mad Max. Magic. substitute Vikings for motorist and you can see things have not changed that much

If its the new locals that find this horrendous perhaps they might embrace that old and tested method of walking to Bellenden Village, LOL, and the traffic effect will have mo meaning. The amount of traffic that uses this road has not changed during my lifetime of living here. The street has always had parking on both sides.

The problem is not the number of cars its the attitude of drivers who can see another car coming but still keep moving forward. The road has not changed but the people have. Me Me Me

What do you teach your children regarding cyclists?

Surely local Cllrs should have pushed the view that most locals had? And not how many people wrote in. They represent local views or am I wrong?

Perhaps many people were not aware of it apart from the chosen few in the know

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you want a boring predictable safe sterilised > high st try Lordship Lane, how can you have wasted > a whole life shopping in a 'shithole' when what > you were looking for is a mile away ?! lol I thought we were talking about the space around the station? And the improvement Perhaps you have a different perception of area. For your information the only interest for me in LL are the diy shops.

Says it all

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's been this way for decades and seems to > function well. Why assume that having a business > in the area obliges you to keep the white boy's > insecurities covered by changing your surroundings > to suit what he wants ? > Other peoples' perceptions, especially of those > not using the facilities as they stand, are what > seem to be the 'requirement' to sterilise the > area. If it ain't their style they should go > elsewhere, London's big enough innit. > Peckham ain't no city. If you want a 'city' > square, try Trafalgar. If you want a 'city' > market, try Portobello or Spitalfields. > There's a lot of people happy shopping in the > 'shithole', check it out - it's rammed 7 days !! > > A contended (and proud) 'shithole' shopper. I also use the shithole and have done for most of my life. I would like to see it improve.

The existing independents have not done much to improve the area. It is still a sh.thole. It they depend on rock bottom rates they are not viable. I thought the idea was to open I up the station area into a pleasant space. Most European cities have a market square but I suppose it would be to much to expect the same here.

Common sense so lacking in Southwark thinking and Cllr thinking also

What's happened to the original funny thread posted earlier?

bob Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes there was a restaurant there 80's and a very > good it had it's own bar were you could look at > the menu have pre dinner drink's and they would > come and fetch you when the meal was ready. > Bob S Different residents, appreciated what they had unlike the current crop of residents who complain if a flea farts. Remember downstairs bar in the garden very well as a child.

Why would UKIP stop cycling?

Most of us old local residents know if the save the planet tribe withdrew their heads from their anus they could see there is no need for anything to be done. This junction has worked for years although new imports are scared of heir own shadows, hence we must change something Grow up and use common sense.

They can spend ?75millon from reserves to buy Tooley Street to make them feel important and still tell they have to cut Services. More rubbish on the streets.

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I hear the 20 mph limit was in Labour's manifesto > for the Southwark election. As they got a clear > majority, then it looks like they have a clear > mandate to do this Correct. On page 7 /10 last para in small writing under healthy living views? Most people would not have got past tax tax frozen. Hence put in what you want.

I don't agree with a blanket 20 through the borough. Unfortunately Tooley Street seems to think blanket idea fits all. Should have asked local Housing offices for their local knowledge but many experienced officers have gone in the last reorganisation. Consultants is the thing now. My point is this 20 mph idea was on page 7 out of 10 of the manifesto in a small paragraph which I doubt many people even made it to let alone read to vote on. Real life experience on the ground is what is required not book theory. You have your view I have mine.

People who read and voted for Clegg on fees got shafted and call me Dave on inheritance tax got shafted. What they put in apart from the headline grabbing political policy is what they push through which is what was always intended Hence people cannot be asked now days. 30 mph on busy roads, 20 on residential roads and pedestrians on the pavement. Common sense

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > There where seven objection against the 20mph > blanket, which by the way slows down all traffic > flowing through the borough. All where rejected by > the council in favour of two supporters. > > > It was there in the Labour Party's election > manifesto for anyone to read. They won the > election. Seems democratic enough to me. > > > Bus journeys across the borough are now even > slower so that few cyclists/pedestrians can take > more risks on the road. > > > Every single last one of us is a pedestrian some > of the time. And while *you* may *think* that > "cyclist" is a word for a tribe of weird > death-wish fitness enthusiasts with a rubber > fetish, what it actually means is anybody, any > time they decide to pick up a bicycle and use it > to get from A to B. Which, for quite a lot of > journeys, is actually rather pratical. > > > Vote these imbeciles out > > > It's your right to try and do so. Me personally, > I'll be voting them back in. I would think not to many people read their manifesto in southwark as most people know no matter what party it is the manifesto is fairy story. Many people in Southwark would vote for the party gave them freebies as the turnout is always low it does not represent the true view. Hence a very small number of people can push a party into power. 7 Against 2 for democracy says not passed.

If you look at all the current plans Southwark keeps bringing out for the roads and parking it certainly looks like it. Have we forgotten that we pay officers wages and should have a much greater say in what is required not their pet ideas I suspect most of these plans are just thought up for something to keep themselves busy before they are noticed doing not much at all. A 20mph is not required but it keeps lots of people busy.