jrussel

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And just exactly what ?kind of Aussies/Kiwis tend > to come to London? and what are these "activities > they engage in? or ?their impact on London? for > that matter? I think everyone knows perfectly well what I mean. I am not talking about all of them, but a very significant portion, perhaps 80 to 90 percent. The activities and impacts are similar in some ways to that of the Brits in the south of Spain. Although there are also significant differences, admittedly. I wish people would read my opening post properly before piling in with their kneejerk/"humourous" responses by the way. I stated quite clearly that I was not talking about the obvious differences in accent for example. The question is how their nationality is relevant when one is discussing their engagement (or lack of) with the community they are living within; ie. London. I challenge anyone to explain to me in what way one can make a generalisation about any difference in the way the two nationalities behave whilst in London.

This morning a "Kiwi" got all offended when I referred to him as Australian and when I was then quite indifferent about my "mistake". I understand that they come from different countries, obviously, and that they speak with slightly different accents, but for London purposes, does it really matter? We all know what kind of Aussies/Kiwis tend to come to London and the way they behave, so making a distinction between the two seems quite academic. It would be a bit like complaining about calling someone a "hoodie" when in fact they weren't technically wearing a hooded top but perhaps had a large collar and a large hat on instead but still with the intention of disguising their identity. Obviously the context in which you refer to someone as "Australian" or "Kiwi" has some bearing on whether the distinction is relevant but if the context is discussing their impact on London, or the activities they engage in, then I really don't see the problem.

Mojave1979 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What a stupid idiot. I've been watching this > thread develop over the last few days/weeks and > can't get my head around how pointless this whole > "debate" is. Writing a letter to a mayor when you > can't even be bothered spelling his name > correctly, treating each right-minded response by > saying people are "missing your point" and going > on about how expensive leaves are to sweep up, are > just three examples of how dumb this argument is. > > Trees are beautiful, end of story, end of debate. > I would much rather be able to sit in my living > room and look at an ever-changing skyline as the > seasons change, then stare at row upon row of > generic housing. South London is more leafy and > green than North, it's one of the things that > attracted me to move to the area last year, and it > makes me wonder how you manage to maintain a > normal life when you can't even see how idiotic > your point is. > > Have you had a response from "Mr. Johnston" yet? > The same, standard reply most people have when > they write to somebody in office. Are you planning > on vigilante action against these natural wonders? > Chainsaw, possibly. Have you taken your medication > recently? > > By the way, the trees were here first. To say > anything else proves that nothing you say holds > any water. The last paragraph of this post suggests the author would do well to take some lessons in the principles of logical deduction.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > tis a joke. If you're logged in to facebook you'll > see a picture of yourself. > > Well done ;) You spoil everyone's fun by giving the game away.

-- moved topic --

I believe they may have some connection with the East Dulwich area: http://www.facebook.com/badge.php?&items%5B%5D=badge_profile_pic&items%5B%5D=badge_mobile_status&layout=vert&format=png

Andyng Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What a stupid post I know lets tell boris to > concrete all of east dulwich > just for your sake > > How ave you ever been injured by leaves? This is a very silly response, and it indicates that you have not read what I have written. I am not suggesting anyone should "concrete all of east dulwich". And what I am suggesting is not any more in my interest than most other people on this planet. As for leaves, I have already mentioned how they can clog up drainpipes and the like. They are also expensive for the council to sweep up. You may also know that they can cause major issues on the railways although this is something of an unrelated point to the discussion we are having here.

Shaolin Wolf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JR you don`t half chat some rubbish! Of course > trees were there first...just tell us your real > issue rather than chatting rubbish about > trees..surely you can blame the woman with a > sprained ankle for wearing high heels by using > same thread of thought...did you report it special > branch?? It really depends how old the trees are. Most trees in Victorian streets would have been planted after the street was built. Maybe a few in back gardens pre-exist the houses. Anyway, as I say it's irrelevant. I hope you wouldn't use the "we were here first so we take priority" line against immigrants from other countries or other parts of the UK, for example.

jaybee82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry, I don't know if anyones actually > realised...the trees were here first, were they > not? Not necessarily and even if they were - so what? How is this relevant?

Really, this post illustrates the selfishness of your stance. You want to maintain Southwark at an inappropriately low density and thus force others to live in undesirable locations such as Luton but you would not do so yourself. Also: how many trees are there in Docklands? Do you think your other half would have a job if we had planted trees in the docklands instead of building skyscrapers? Shaolin Wolf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tsk tsk Bob...i was agreeing all the way with you > right up to the point of Luton!! I myself am a > newlywed to be and no way is Luton a favourable > place for anyone...especially if you work in > docklands area like my other half does!Bring on > the housing price spiral and a favourable > mortgage advisor i say!! How about we use same > ethos and pack all oldies, and ne`r do wells who > take up properties that could be used for a better > purpose to Luton instead!!Pah and double pah!!

Here as promised is the text of the letter I have just sent to the mayor's office: ============================================ Dear Mr. Boris Johnston, Mayor of London, Firstly may I congratulate you on your recent election to the office of Mayor of London. I would like you to apply your mayoral attention to an issue most important to London and the planet as a whole but which is currently overlooked. We must stop being so precious about trees in this city. There seems to be an attitude, mainly held by suburban-minded individuals who will defend their own personal convenience at the expense of amenity to the general population, that trees must be defended at all costs and also planted in virtually every last square foot of empty space. One person may enjoy a view of a tree from their window, another person may enjoy having a small home on the piece of land occupied by the tree rather than festering in a homeless hostel surrounded by people who will sell them drugs and ruin their life forever. Or perhaps a childrens' hospital, is this less important than the housewife who likes to glance at a distant tree in between chores when she could just plant a new bush in the back garden or perhaps invest in a window box? Not only this but I have recently witnessed a lady walking on my street late at night whose shoe became wedged between paving slabs lifted by the roots of a tree, who subsequently sprained her ankle and had to receive medical attention. I dread to think what the result may have been had this lady been an elderly person with osteoporosis in which case there would have been broken bones. This tree is very inappropriately planted in the middle of the pavement. One of its branches overhangs my house and the leaves from it have repeatedly blocked my drains forcing me to often climb a ladder which is a safety risk in itself. Mr Johnston you may think these are trivial issues but the fact is they are just pieces in the jigsaw of a larger picture and that picture is that we have become blind to our obsession with trees in this city and we value them more than our fellow humans, it seems. Now I am aware that your sympathies may lie with the suburban mentality of the outer boroughs who I understand elected you to your position. But it is your duty to recognise the needs of genuine urban dwellers and also our planet which is gradually becoming consumed by sprawl. Some of your recent policy decisions leave me with little faith that you have any genuine interest in environmental concerns but I do hope that you will take a few minutes of your time to consider the points I am making and perhaps you will have the foresight and vision to recognise their significance. I would very much appreciate if you could outline for me your policies on the planting of new trees, maintenance of existing trees, and preservation of trees balanced against the need for new development in this capital city of one of Europe's most crowded nations. I have copied this letter to certain other politicians who I am sure will be as keen to hear your response as I am. Thank you for your attention Yours sincerely, [real name omitted ]

EDOldie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh god here we go again, not seeing the wood for > the trees. I think he/she has a point, the problem > in Southwark (particularly) is that trees have > been planted inappropriately. Large trees should > be planted where they can grow fully (i.e. parks > open spaces etc) and smaller trees along the > byways and highways. I would call that planning. I > also think the pollarding of trees is cruel and > disfiguring. If said tree had been planted in the > right place it would not be necessary. And here?s > the controversial bit, I'd be all for the removal > of large trees which are clearly in the wrong > place, if they were replaced with smaller trees. > No doubt I'll be hanging from one of the larger > ones after the next forum drinks. Altogether now, > ?I?m a lumberjack, and I?m ok? Thank you EDoldie; I am glad that someone has some sympathy with my feelings on this matter. You are quite right that parks and open spaces are the correct locations for trees. As I tried to make clear in my original post, it is not trees themselves that I have an issue with; it is their inappropriate placement within the urban environment.

Moos Wrote: -------------------- > > On topic, still not agreeing with jrusssel at all > and awaiting his draft letter with interest. > However, am enjoying the freshness of an > unabashedly different point of view - absolutely > agree this is what the forum is for! I am currently working on my letter. I will post a copy of it here once I have finished and will also report back on any response to it.

infidelity

I am sure that some people will realise that this thread has been prompted by a certain proposed development in the ED area which was recently refused permission due to the interference of certain local residents more interested in their own selfish agendas than the benefits the development could have offered. Unfortunately for all sorts of reasons I am unable to be more specific. But perhaps this will provide some kind of explanation for those puzzled by my comments, who are presumably unaware of the background issue.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I see what you guys are saying but perhaps ease > off a bit. Wouldn't want it to end up all, > > http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?0 > ,file=1327 > > in here. Do not worry, Brendan, I am quite thick skinned and perfectly accustomed to these attempts at satire perpetuated by those who would rather not take my points seriously. This one is not too bad, and has caused me very mild amusement, although I think I could probably have done better myself. My main criticism would be the use of the term "T-wat" which feels a little contrived and clunky; I think with a little more time the author could have come up with something more imaginative.

directors.

lozzyloz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm stumped. No where in the article does it > advocate "It is still possible to create a decent > living environment with very few trees". In fact > there's not even any mention of trees. > > Now leaf us alone. The article was quoted to illustrate the fact the America is slowly waking up to the idea that it needs to make its cities denser. Copenhagen is often mentioned as one of the most desirable cities to live in in Europe, with a very good standard of living. Go and look at central Copenhagen on the satellite view on Google Maps. Now do the same for East Dulwich.

Shaolin Wolf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hmmm Venice..not the most shining of examples...a > city held up by ballasts out at sea and one of the > worst sewage systems this side of a cracked Thames > water main! Again i say cull people..surely thats > the best prevention!! Venice's problems are quite unrelated to its lack of trees, so your comment is a rather silly one.

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jrussel Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > We need to be concentrating on making our cities > denser, not filling up useful space with trees. > > No we don't that's just silly talk. We create a > built environment where we can all live in decent > surroundings and that includes having trees around > make the place look nice. I assume you are not much of an expert on current thinking re. urban planning and development. The Americans have been building their cities at very low density for years and they are now one of the worst-offending greenhouse gas polluters on the planet. Australia too. Only recently are they realising they can't go on like this, mainly because they are being forced to review their ways by increasing energy prices. See here for example: http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/669341.html It is still possible to create a decent living environment with very few trees. Have you ever been to Venice? Instead of planting trees to soak up pollution and noise from road traffic, we should be getting rid of the road traffic. The road traffic generated by the kind of people who live in low density areas and who unfortunately are attracted to some parts of East Dulwich bringing their suburban nimbyism with them. If we got rid of some of the trees perhaps we would be less troubled by these types. Prevention rather than cure, please.

JamesG Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am relatively new to the EDF so am unfamiliar > with the etiquette surrounding responding to > people?s postings. Please therefore excuse me if > I get it wrong. > > Are you a comedian? If not I suggest the > administrators insist on psyche testing all > members. I am not sure if making implications about other posters' mental health is "good etiquette", if that is what you mean by "psyche testing".

Shaolin Wolf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please tell me this isn`t a serious posting....too > many trees???? Can understand maintenance of trees > and their leaves etc causing a problem for > mobility challenged individuals, which is of > course down to council but surely there are too > many people not too many trees...if you cull trees > then cull people who use the bi products of green > things ie oxygen!! What do you mean too many people? Are you seriously suggesting culling people? If you do not cull people then you will have to relocate them, which will result in even more urban sprawl and even more pollution and CO2 emissions. And no countryside left to grow trees in, which is where they should be. We need to be concentrating on making our cities denser, not filling up useful space with trees.

I don't know if anyone else feels this way but I do think there is an excess of trees in East Dulwich and I think this can mainly be attributed to the laziness of the council. This is not the countryside, it is a capital city. Therefore it seems quite unacceptable to allow the trees to get out of control in the way that they do. They lift up pavements with their roots which can cause people with mobility difficulties many problems, and dead branches and leaves can fall off and injure people or damage property. Drains blocked by rotting leaves can cause serious harm to buildings. They also encourage pigeons and other pests. I am not anti-tree per se but I think they should be kept to appropriate areas. I would like to hear other peoples' views on this matter as I am currently drafting a letter to local councillors as well as Boris Johnston.

It does seem a little disproportionate that someone should be fined ?80 for a cigarette butt, but only ?50 for dog faeces. I don't think anyone can argue that a cigarette butt is the easier of the two items to clean up, nor the lesser health and safety hazard. As regards the comments about the free dog waste bags: as a practical solution, I suppose it works, to subsidise dog owners from the public purse in this way, if it will stop them from leaving the mess on the pavements which will be even more costly to clean up. The point is, though, that they should not be leaving the mess in the first place, and the same applies to anyone else whether they are dropping cigarette butts, broken glass, childrens' sweets wrappers or anything else.

kamila Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can get free 100% degradable bags in the > library just opposite the ED train station ;-) I'm not sure that they should be given away for free. Presumably they are paid for out of public funds? It does not seem right that public money should be used to subsidise dog owners who won't clear up after their dogs at their own initiative.