Spartacus

Remember the good old days when garden waste used to go in the green bin, then the council wisely segregated it out into the brown bin (always seems the wrong way round colour wise) and then when we got used to that, a few years ago they introduce a charge for brown bin collection. How we all spat our tea out over that on the EDF Now we're meekly accepting a 50% rise as "Okay because its cheaper then our neighbouring boroughs" Sigh, wait till the council tax us for all this clean air they are providing 😆

That was well publicised by the council 🙈

Guess the Mayor really is making it easier to give up your car 🫣 BBC News - London buses: 12 million miles cut since 2016, data shows https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64743139

Seems there's a happy bunch on this thread. Its a once in a generation event (hopefully) and what a bunch of killjoys you three are.

Smells fishy to me 🤣

Rockets raises a good point Someone truly independent of both camps needs to conduct an independent study using their own measuring equipment to truly put the argument to bed one way or the other. Having councils, who have a vested interest, supply data is part of the issue and using people who are pro one view to write the study will always result in questions over impartiality.

Heartblock Years ago "scientists" also told us that the earth was flat and we would fall off the edge if we sailed past a certain point but proof was discovered that changed their thinking. Also that the sun and stars rotated around the earth which we now know isn't true. Until bacteria was discovered Medieval doctors believed that illnesses, including the Black Death, were caused by an imbalance in the four humours . These were black bile, yellow bile, phlegm and blood. Only by questioning the experts assumptions and beliefs will the truth be uncovered as they are only acting on their best guess and their interpretation of the available data at the time

I was referring to the media hyping the situation which is possibly making people panic. Smaller shops, unlike supermarkets are happy to pay the new higher wholesale prices and pass it in to the consumer and as a result have stock whereas supermarkets have stricter buying constraints and won't pay the higher price hence why we are seeing empty supermarket shelves.

you brought up an entirely different number of your own recollection, and the sought to debunk it. The excess deaths number you are "discrediting" does not appear in the article. Exactly Billy Mal brought excess deaths into the conversation not I I was discussing how the 4,000 annual deaths a year that the Mayor uses to promote things like the ULEZ expansion. The origions of that number are based on potential reduced life expectancy of an estimated number of people by on average 6 months. Absolutely nothing to do with excess deaths and I'm simply questioning the validity of the Mayors "fact" that air pollution causes 4,000 deaths a year as its an estimate not a fact. As Mal pointed out it could be higher or lower. As an example, I once estimated I could drink 10 pints of Guinness in an hour The fact is I managed 5 and wore most of those on the way home after. Estimations are simply that based on belief and assumptions, facts are based on actual events

Some supermarkets are experiencing veg and salad shortages due to poor growing conditions in Spain and North Africa. BBC News - Asda limits sales of tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64718823 Is this the new panic buying crisis like we had with toilet rolls and tinned tomatoes or has the government's campaign to get children to eat vegetables worked too well (eat them to defeat them) 🤔?

What I'm pointing out mal is that numbers can be manipulated to say what people want and you shouldn't take the headline quoted as gospel. Not once did I go into excess deaths but I did explain what the number is based on. Just as highlighted on the LTN thread you seem to want to try and portray what I was saying to spin me as a person who is a covid denier (I'm not) or a conspiracy nutter. If you also read what I said, I'm not supporting wood burners, just highlighting that the survey that said 67% of londoners want to ban them was based on such a small number of people surveyed.

I love polls The wood burner question was run over two days 15th and 16th Feb this year , online and involved 1259 people Background and data results here https://www.omnisis.co.uk/poll-results/vi-22-results-17-02-2023-environment/ Using algorithms to claim that 67% of Londoners support banning solid wood burners is akin to saying 9 our of 10 cats love ... *based on a survey of 20 cats* Whilst I'm not doubting that a majority of people would like to see them banned, I am saying read the facts and not the headlines. The other misleading one is the Mayors claim on 4000 annual early deaths due to pollution. The data behind it estimates that if we remove all pollutants from the atmosphere then life expectancy will increase on average by 6 months therefore the claim of early deaths is realky based on an estimated average 6 months earlier then they would have lived rather then dying from pollution like they would have in the London smog. Interesting fact that in the past 20 years, so far only one person has had pollution as a cause on their death certificate so there's no real data to confirm if the 4000 estimate is accurate or just based on assumptions. Data is a funny thing, it can be used in so many good ways and on the surface when someone says it shows this, always look at how that conclusion was made. http://allcatsrgrey.org.uk/wp/download/public_health/pollution/COMEAP_mortality_effects_of_long_term_exposure.pdf

I'm not saying anything DuncanW, but if they were it doesn't mean that they represent the views of everyone who was there so saying that all anti LTN supporters are anti everything is a real leap in your conclusion. Its akin to someone saying that because Jezzer didn't act on antisemitism then all Labour supporters must agree with him... which of course the don't.🤔

I always wanted to get into hip hop but was never trendy enough... Joking aside it is sad that the pro lobby feel that they have to resort to "smearing" those who object to LTNs. It's almost as if they have run out of implausible arguments as to why LTNs work and now try to make out those against them are conspiracy nutters.

It's multifactorial The way it was implemented by the Council despite overwhelming objections in a consultation The closing of a major junction that used to allowed traffic to escape when the south circular was closed or restricted The knock on effect of traffic and pollution on roads around the area due to traffic not evaporating as the council theorised The constant deaf ear of councillors to local views including the disabled who have been stopped from driving through the junction The virtual cutting off of the village from East Dulwich to those who need to drive Oh and the simple fact that not everyone can cycle or walk. What is needed is fair and open consultation and not the current blinkered approach by the council.

Southwark are going for the full 4.99% increase this year plus the Mayor has increased his share which is going to add to the cost of living for everyone. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-why-is-council-tax-increasing-in-england-where-will-it-rise-and-how-much-will-you-pay-in-2023-24#:~:text=How%20much%20will%20council%20tax,Network%20(CCN)%20has%20found. Thank the stars we aren't in Croydon who got rewarded with a 15% increase for going bankrupt. Don't give our councillors any ideas 😉

Mal The concept of the ULEZ isn't the issue most are objecting to. Its the timing when prices are on the rise, inflation is high and people are struggling with the choice of heat or eat. TfL should be considering a delay by a year or two to widen the zone rather then impacting people by what Is being seen by many in the outer zones as a tax generator to fix the Mayors mistakes in running TfL. (Although the Mayor tries to spins it as the Government didn't give him enough cash to support his epic failures) Ps AB29 I saw what you wrote 😅

Maybe TfL will start to realise that not everyone is happy with their decisions BBC News - ULEZ: Five councils launch legal challenge https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64662423

Lol Maybe the residents are collecting wood to burn the demonising people who disagree with their point of view (pro or anti) as outlined in the current LTN discussion 🤔 Can't wait till the mob roams around the streets of ED with burning torches crying "kill the monsters" because that's how it's starting to feel on the Forum lately 🙄

I really liked the quote "#GreatReset, referring to the World Economic Forum’s post-pandemic economic recovery plan – widely used in the stranger corners of the internet as a byword for a shadowy global conspiracy intent on robbing us of our freedoms. The anti-vaccine, pro-Brexit, climate-denying, 15-minute-phobe, Great Reset axis is a strong one." Where the author puts anyone who objects to the idea in the same basket as anti voters, Brexiteers and climate deniers" It kind of validates Rockets theory of demonising anyone who disagrees with one sides point of view.

Affordability is set by the mayor of London, not local councils. This link provides more information on what affordable housing is https://www.london.gov.uk/file/11941201 and whilst the latest version is not out yet it gives a good indication of how the scheme works. Ultimately we need more housing and some of it has to be for the people who do the jobs that support our economy including nurses, road sweepers, bin collectors and shop workers. Saying no to a development ultimately hurts everyone in the process. Asking for design considerations to be taken into account is fine but stop people having the same housing opportunities that most people in East Dulwich had or take for granted is not.

Unfortunately with building costs so high , land prices at a premium amd in short supply along the requirement to provide 35% affordable housing then tall buildings are the only way to make big developments of new homes financially viable. Economics are at play and if we want more homes then we need to make compromises. As pointed out earlier councils can't afford to build so development companies are the only real alternative left. As this is a Peckham related topic should it be in the lounge and not in general ED issues ?

Just out of curiosity Dave Is that purely speculation or based on evidence of Berkeley Homes failing to provide the required percentage of affordable homes in other developments" As DKH Billy points out 35% of a development is better then no new homes at all.

Will it follow the style of the new "golden arches" promo and use the music by yello "oh yeah"

As I understand it, the development has to provide 35% of the properties as affordable housing, as per the current guidance by the Mayor. It's basically a supermarket and car park both in much need of serious redevelopment and privately owned so hardly "prime land given away to developers" Peckham Town Centre is in need of renewal as ts currently covered in grafitti and has low level crime, this development is a step in the right direction and there was a recent consultation on the design that closed a week or so ago. It is ironic to see the argument that the gentrified roof top car park bar favoured by people from ourside of the area will lose part of its view due to more gentrification 😅 This is a serious investment in a run down town centre and provides much needed homes and shopping improvements. Hopefully one day it can be restored to its former heyday as a "golden mile" of shopping that it was before the council was paid to put up estates and house single patent families in the 60s and 70s which changed the demographics and offering in the town centre. As with any area, the changes ebb and flow and currently the nighttime economy in Peckham is already making changes to the clientele of the area, even the old "yardie" clubs on the High Street have become trendy drinking establishments for non Peckham residents. 😀