Spartacus

I wonder if there are mixed messages being presented by some businesses in their advertising. For example the new Tesco advert where the lady zooms around zapping prices with her club card, not a single person in the supermarket is wearing a mask which could normalise non compliance in some people's eyes. Whilst we hope not to need them soon, over the past year why haven't advertisers modified adverts to help reinforce the mask indoors rules ?

Bic The following link may help as there are plans afoot to add lifts for disabled people so the ability for them to actually get to the station is important https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/kent/kent-and-south-east-london-railway-upgrade-plan/peckham-rye-station-redevelopment/ The comments about delivery lorries blocking the lane can easily be solved by moving the bus gate from Dulwich village to Rye Lane thus restricting when deliveries can happen but allowing buses access

Wow Legal Your counter argument has actually been useful in highlighting the solution It's not street closures or LTNs It's simply to relocate schools away from the area thus dumping traffic on other boroughs and driving away the parents who moved here to be within the catchment area further reducing car usage and congestion Of course it's all tongue in cheek but an interesting alternative to LTNs

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cycling is in the reach of most people (especially > with electric bikes). But it's scary cycling on > busy roads. If you're a 'normal' (non-lycra) > person, it's not appealing It's the Lycra cyclists that make it scary for normal cyclists 😱😂

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets no comment on Spartacus comparing > Southwark Council to the Nazis though Your words not mine, as pointed out they are using children to try and drive their agenda, which history shows us has happened before. Not once did I actually compare them to or use the word you posted above so it's your perception here and trying to put words in my post. What I brought up is that it's a technique that's been used before, not always for good! Or are you actually supporting a one sided influence on our young to get them to complete a survey without bring given both sides of the argument ? I hope not as that makes you complicit of this sedition of young minds by turning a blind eye or condemning those who speak out about it.

Yes I did and I make no apologies for it. The council went beyond a point by ignoring views of locals, trying to push their agenda on young minds to influence a consultation that they know isn't going in their favour and pushing pollution and issues out onto other roads all whilst raking it in with ANPR cameras. Did I compare it to an ideology that's condemned, no I didn't all I did was pick out that one of the tactics being used by the council has been used in the past and based on influencing young minds to a cause or idea. In my mind the council using the young to get a decision they want is far worse then questioning if they are doing it. Engaging children needs to be done with a non biased agenda, has anyone been invited to talk to schools about the disadvantages of the current schemes? If not then it does smack of biased influencing and coercion to an ideal of the council. Take that how you will but the council started by underhand playing and if you are offended by it being called out but not do anything to make sure the consultation isn't unduly influenced or biased then we will obviously never see eye to eye.

That's worrying as it smacks of influencing young minds to be the councils voice. Last time I heard of this sort of behaviour was pre 1939 in Germany where school children were used to report non conformation to the party line ... Can't wait till the leader of the council publishes his book "My Fight"

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So who knew the Council had designed a special > consultation survey for schoolchildren? Please elaborate further

Just done the online survey As others have said, it's a bit like the council are leading a bull by a ring through its nose as it all seems very biased towards "rate how successful the scheme is" and if you disagree with any of the aims then it's off to the Fray Bentos pie factory for you (other brands of tinned meat pies are of course also available !) I can see why people are saying "return to the original state" I especially love the question about has the scheme "created a good trading environment for local businesses ?" 😱

Everything else aside, back to the original question raised When ?

Bet your bottom dollar that they are related to to high street recovery fund https://www.southwark.gov.uk/business/support-for-high-streets?chapter=2 Which if they are, means some bright spark has spent some of the money destined to help high streets improve , on banners ! Hopefully the funding will be used for something good and not more street art / wacky painting schemes.

Keep digging that hole Nigello \ / \ / \/ China's down this way

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, I agree tehre are few things to consider but > it is all about the greater good, don't you think? > I think preventing build up of traffic and an > increase in noxious fumes at a narrowed section of > the road trumps the occasional inconvenience to a > much smaller number of people. It's a truism, but > you really can't have it all. Also, is your > statement about elderly or disabled people based > on your own experience or that of a person you are > close to, or are you conjecturing how every such > person would think? I know a few disabled people > and they have a variety of views on many different > things and don't like to be seen as a unit. The > wheelchair user is also highly mobile and would > not balk at an extra two minutes' wheeling, so > that is a concrete example of someone who would > not be inconvenienced despite their body's > limitations. Personal experience using a wheelchair! With the closure of Rye Lane stopping me accessing the cinema there as buses no longer go up Rye Lane , and the closure of this bus stop I am no longer able to get to either of my local cinemas. Not wanting it all but I do want the same equal opportunity to see a film like you do and why should I and others be forced to "wheel" a bit further because you don't think it's an inconvenience? Frankly your statement about "the greater good" smacks off disability discrimination on your behalf.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think it is needed, to be honest. It is a > very narrow footpath and the next stop is really > not that far away. Faster journeys help everyone > so a little bit of inconvenience for the few will > help more - you know, community spirit, greater > good, etc. Similarly, the two stops very close > togetehr on Peckham Rye are an oddity. The stop allows disabled and elderly people to easily access the picture house. Whilst the stop outside the post office isn't far for an able bodied person, think how much of a challenge it is for someone in a wheelchair or with mobility issues. It could make the difference between staying home or going out to see a movie and being social for some Walk a few feet in their wheelchair tracks rather than make such a bold statement that it's a bit of inconvenience !!!

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now I feel old.... > > "Renew, Renew" Is this sanctuary Siduhe

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Spartacus wrote: > > > Are you advocating we live in > > "the city of domes" till we're 30 > > and get to go on "Carrousel" ? > > > > Oh lordy hope you're not Jessica 6 > > I don't recognise a single one of those > references. You're obviously not the old man that Logan 5 met and your crystal hasn't turned red otherwise you would have spotted the references to "Logan's Run" (it was released in 1976 so over 30 years ago)

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Spartacus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > To be honest , vehicles are just tools used by > humans and the biggest contribution to poor air > quality is humans. > > > Whilst it's not politically correct, maybe these > discussions should be focusing on reducing the > population which would result in bigger > environmental gains. > > > Reduced number of cars, no flying on holiday, > Growing what we needed eat so less use of bogs > and > > woodlands for food, reduced demands on > diminishing resources and metals (iron... ) and > less carbon > > dioxide pumped out by our lungs.... > > > > No one is going to promote reducing population > for example by birth control) and with China > raising the family limit to 3 children, us > reducing green house gasses is like peeing in the > wind. > > > We've got a relatively low birth rate, but as with > France we are an aging population without the > young to look after us. So we get people from > countries with higher birth rates and lower > average age to do this for us (care homes, NHS as > the like) - although Brexit has made this a bit > more difficult (Eastern Europeans). The > alternative is to have isolated older people > looked after by robots (the way Japan is going). > Sorry incredibly off thread. > > > Sorry I am a bit of an anorak. Are you advocating we live in "the city of domes" till we're 30 and get to go on "Carrousel" ? Oh lordy hope you're not Jessica 6

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are more cars on the roads because people > still aren't using public transport. > > If increased public transport is, as is often > stated here, a preferred alternative to LTNs, then > it follows that the current *reduction* of public > transport usage is having a negative impact and > the actual results of experimental low-traffic > measures can't be properly assessed until public > transport is running at pre-pandemic levels. I believe buses and trains are currently running to pre pandemic schedules and levels and the 30 passenger limit on buses has now been removed. The possibility that people are avoiding using public transport as it is a risk infection wise may be something to consider But saying that the current reduction in public transport is a factor is incorrect. But I stand to be corrected.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here?s some more info on causes of London?s air > pollution. Again, suggests vehicles are a major > contributor > https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/download/file/fi > d/21944 To be honest , vehicles are just tools used by humans and the biggest contribution to poor air quality is humans. Whilst it's not politically correct, maybe these discussions should be focusing on reducing the population which would result in bigger environmental gains. Reduced number of cars, no flying on holiday, Growing what we needed eat so less use of bogs and woodlands for food, reduced demands on diminishing resources and metals (iron... ) and less carbon dioxide pumped out by our lungs.... No one is going to promote reducing population (for example by birth control) and with China raising the family limit to 3 children, us reducing green house gasses is like peeing in the wind.

And ?

If you haven't been told to isolate then you should be fine But the test will put your mind to rest

Are you asking if you should ignore the alert ? Did it tell you to self isolate? If so you need to read this https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/self-isolation-and-treatment/if-youre-told-to-self-isolate-by-nhs-test-and-trace-or-the-covid-19-app/ Only you can decide if you follow the advice or not, however if you have been exposed and are asymptomatic then how will you feel if you infect others? Ultimately your choice but as you downloaded the app then you are already demonstrating your responsibility and I suspect you will do the right thing if asked.

I thought this was a thread about a new vinyl pressing title by Miss Spears. So confused and disappointed now !

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think your predicament is as bad as you > think. 1161 posts over a 13 year period works out > as 1.72 posts a week on average. Are you sure > something else isn't to blame for this condition? What are you trying to suggest 🤔

I am a decades-long forumite, antagonist and now of course, angry LTN poster . My posture is increasingly knackered from leaning over my phone and my fingers are red raw from angry stabbing at the keyboard. After looking up a few articles I'm looking for someone to diagnose and assist in fighting back. Are other posters in a similar position and are we all in danger of ending up with twisted postures and fat fingers on one hand from typing on small devices? Do we need to set up EDF anonymous so we can (virtually) talk about our addiction and get community support?