Nigello

Because optics matter to them and - more likely - any potential critic with a keypad.

Female pheasant in P Rye Park formal garden, with the fountain, several months ago

There are two - I had seen more in the van and assumed all would be planted there. Still, it?s a start and likely are there to make up for the felled street trees nearby. (BTW, growing apple/pear/plum etc. trees from standard apples is easy; there are plenty of online videos on this. It?s likely not all pips will germinate but it?s pretty easy to try.)

Heartblock - workaday people also pollute and waste. To claim it?s a millionaires only problem is nonsense. Hundreds of thousands of car trips under a mile are made daily in this country. Tons of food are wasted. Excess amounts of tat - imported often - is bought by millions of people on electricity hungry, often upgraded mobiles and tablets. Millions of dogs and cats are bred and sold, each needing meat-based food to sustain them.

Several new trees have been planted (with supports) at the flats on Friern near Etherow. 👍🌲

Yes, but most won?t.

That?s maybe so but XR is a movement - political and social - so a precedent has been set and the council may find itself accused of bias or at least naivety. XR ought to pay and enter into an agreement with Southwark to guarantee mess, damage etc.will be accounted for at the very least.

Agreed - I kick them into the gutter if they?re of a certain texture, but there?s nothing you can do other than accept some dog owners are dirty, selfish oafs.

Ditching = ditching the concept of. 🙄

Agreed - lots of people doing lots of tweaks can help but very few think further. Lots of children, a pet or two, all kinds of consumption - this is the excess that lots of folk won?t budge on, even though rejecting them en masse would do more than reusing plastic bags and recycling, etc.

Mabaker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well Rockets, guess you didn't agree with the > suffragettes then. If it wasn't for groups like XR > and all those pressure groups that went before,the > problems of climate change would be well down > Government's "to do" list. ANother way of helping would be to ditch your pet, your car, have only one child, etc. etc. but that is seen as maybe too radical, yet we have folk on here saying how much like the like and support the (very radical, at least in terms of intervention and direct action) XR. So, which one of you will do any of the above to really follow through on your flask-of-hot-tea boosterism?

Legalalien is right. The council ought not to show favouritism or negative bias.

People eating too much (or drinking) and not moving enough is the problem. How to convince us to do less of the first and more of the second is hard so having a reminder via the calorie labelling method could at least light a spark. It?s not perfect but nothing is so I?m broadly for it.

5 or so Portaloos (other brands available) are being installed.

Shows promise but needs work. Perhaps there is an afterschool comedy club that could help...?

Schools are good, beauty is good, neighbourliness is good, kids having positive experiences is good, employment is good, learning new stuff is good (all or most of this has been said by me already but I repeat as a service to those who CBA to read what has come before). What is not good is using state property to advertise selected services or businesses, especially when that is done to the detriment of the locale. Plastic banners with naff designs obliterating generations-old buildings that are publicly, not privately, funded is not good and street clutter in general is ugly. As for 1st world problems - the 2000s rang and want their cliche back. The fact you have access to a computer or smartphone, can communicate effectively in English (using correct punctuation, suggesting a good education) points to privilege.

Hmm - lots of assumptions and Trojan horses. School clubs are great but advertising them on public property isn't, especially when they are naffly designed, placed near each other and left to fall off and flap around and eventually fall off as litter, and detracting from lovely pieces of architecture and when other ways of free and effective advertising are available. As for what I mean by SHOULDN'T - its meaning is really ought not to, not that they are banned by law from doing so. It's my preference, is what I mean, but I have not yet been told definitively by the council whether or not state enterprises, which we all pay for, should be used for advertising. Pretty simple and not something anything or anyone here can dissuade me from.

I am sure, but does it need to advertise on public property? If they do, why shouldn't the local locksmith, wine bar or chippy have the same opportunities? I like private business and the idea of kids doing stuff with their time that is beneficial, just not with a beautiful school being made to look ugly with naff, plastic banners whilst teh teachers and staff can bugger off home and don't have to look at them!

In defence of TfL and the timings, those amber-on-black signs sometimes change from an annoyingly long time to amazingly short in the blink of an eye, probably due to the driver coming on shift, etc. Buses started to get better when they stopped accepting cash so that boarding was quicker. Oyster and contactless and the apps and countdowns have made them even better, though the "new" design was hit and miss.

In practice, Renata, does this happen often? Plenty of householders/tenants don't tend to their trees or bushes and nothing is done, it seems. (I think the council is too slack on people who leave their walls covered in scrawl or have overgrown trees, collapsing garden walls, etc. and think offering to help would be a good way of encouraging good neihgbourliness.)

It could be that because we can now use an infinite number of buses within 59 minutes of buying our first trip, the bosses thought people can hop on and off and make their way to wherever via two or more buses. Eg. get on at The Gardens and travel to Elephant and change to 453 to get to Oxford Circus. This is not good for those who want to go a shorter distance where there are no other options, though.

No, not trolling at all, just pointing out some discrepancies some (not you, but maybe because you seem somewhat invested) and underlining the fact that state bodies (in this case, a school) shouldn't be advertising anything on their property, especially when the ads are tacky and ugly and made of stuff that will take decades to decompose. That's all.

Advertise away, but do it in a 2022 way and not by cluttering up a perfectly attractive environment with polyurethane tat. I thought good parents had STRONG OPINIONS on advertising corrupting their children's minds? Maybe only when it suits.

Oimissus - thanks for your input. I shall ignore it. The school is the one that is putting up the banners, not my MP. I don't think they are needed. As I said, state property ought to be neutral and not used to advertise anything. The schools can have successful outcomes without blighting property with (often amateurish), plastic banners. Use emails, social media, text messages and WhatsApp, etc. Covering up the beauty of the gardens, etc. (paid for by public purse) in the attempt to scrabble a few more quid (because I cannot believe the advertising this way actually garners many new club members) seems counter intuitive and, well, a bit stupid. And as for summer fairs, yes - remove them also once the event is over.

The schools can get cash from the firms that use the premises - after school club/dance club/language club/church group.