Charles Martel

In 2019 the council proposed two CPZ areas at the same time, East Dulwich and Peckham West. Peckham West was successfully imposed, East Dulwich only partially. One key factor in the success of the resistance in East Dulwich was the grass roots campaign by the shop keepers along Lordship Lane. They had posters in their windows and collected signatures for a petition against the CPZ extending beyond the area around East Dulwich station. As the proposed CPZ area was very much larger than needed to deter commuters parking near the station the argument against it was easy to make and could be understood by most residents. Thanks to the shop keepers campaign the public meetings about the CPZ were well attended and the arguments against the CPZ were well made by articulate people. There is an obvious argument for a CPZ in areas where there are problems caused by people coming from outside the area wanting to park, however this was obviously not the case in most of East Dulwich. Is it likely that people will think it is in Nunhead? As residents will just buy permits the CPZ will do nothing to reduce resident parking. Despite the fact that 70% of Southwark is supposedly covered by CPZs already that 70% has not become the car free utopia that some seem ideologically fixated on creating. It is therefore important not to fall into the trap of car owners vs. the rest of society that the council wants to lay. All of my neighbours who cycle to work also own cars, as do most of the ones who use public transport or walk. Whereas the stated rationale given by the council for the Nunhead CPZ is to “prioritize parking for residents and their visitors” elsewhere the council publicly states that “The parking fees and charges have been set to encourage a reduction in overall vehicle numbers and a reduction in polluting vehicles.” This is despite the obvious fact that most vehicles in Southwark are through traffic which the council has no control over. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12027415/Labour-council-wages-war-drivers-increasing-cost-permits-368.html A Southwark News journo is looking to speak to Nunhead residents about the Controlled Parking Zone proposals. https://twitter.com/isabelreporter/status/1658412129790177282

Michael Palaeologus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have to agree with Foxy. It is ridiculous Sadiq > Khan demanding compulsory face masks for the > public when such masks are generally not available > to the public. > > Any such regulation would put extra pressure on > suppliers and allow opportunists to push prices up > even more. If there was a clear policy that encouraged the wearing of homemade cotton face masks it would have the opposite effect. Since most people have the materials at hand to make a perfectly adequate face mask the need for them to purchase masks would be eliminated. Obviously this would require that the information, which has been freely available online for weeks, be actually accepted and acted on by our lazy, incompetent government and their oh so clever scientific advisers. Unfortunately they seem to have used up all their brain power on thinking up excuses for the laziness and incompetence of their political masters. The rationale for using home made masks: https://masks4all.co/ Disposable: Sewn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpNmJGClKKI Effect of various materials as filters: https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/best-materials-make-diy-face-mask-virus/

Sadiq Khan says wearing face masks in London should be ?compulsory? https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/16/sadiq-khan-calls-compulsory-face-mask-12568515/

seenbeen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The death toll has jumped again- it's the builders > using public transport travelling in from poorer > areas- a lot of them are probably paid cash in > hand and will have nothing as they are not on any > system to receive aid.... This is not how COVID-19 works. It generally takes 2 - 14 days for symptoms to develop from the time you are infected. Then 7 - 10 days where you have the symptoms while your immune system fights the virus. Then you either stabilise or get worse with the development of viral pneumonia. This is the point that people are admitted to hospital where they are treated with oxygen, then if they get worse, are put onto a ventilator or ECMO machine. Therefore the period from COVID-19 infection to death can be 3 - 4 weeks. Any jump in deaths today will be reflecting a jump in infections 3 - 4 weeks ago. Today's death toll has nothing to do with anything that has happened in the last two weeks with the "lockdown" or social distancing. Today's death toll reflects the period where the government was just telling us to wash our hands. COVID-19 is a highly contagious respiratory virus spread via droplets coming from the mouth and nose of infected people. You can wash your hands as much as you like, cut your hands off even, it will not help you to avoid breathing in these droplets from your fellow passengers on the plane, bus, train or tube. You may recall Sidiq Khan telling us the tube was safe: ?No risk? of catching coronavirus on the Tube, says Sadiq Khan 3rd March 2020 https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/03/coronavirus-london-tube-sadiq-khan-12339239/ This is just one of many examples of the false information that was being put out 3 - 4 weeks ago while the people who are dying now were being infected. Nothing about our knowledge of COVID-19 has changed in this period. You were as likely to catch the virus from someone within 2m 3 - 4 weeks ago as you are now. Despite knowing that COVID-19 is a disease that causes mass death, the government, in its paternalistic wisdom, chose not to take effective measures to control either the spread of the virus into the country or to stop the spread once it had arrived. The simple maths of exponential growth showed that we needed to restrict movement weeks ago when cases were lower to have the most effect on the peak numbers. It is keeping the exponent of the exponential growth of the infected as low as possible that is the key to controlling the epidemic. https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca The UK government choose not to aggressively test, contact trace and quarantine like Korea, Hong Kong etc., so have lost control. Now our "peak" will be where Italy is now, if we are lucky. Thousands more are going to die in the next few weeks.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I need to send an important document to China and > want to make sure it gets to its intended > recipient. Anyone know what courier company I > could trust to do this? I can't remember who I > used previously but the documents in that instance > were lost. I use FedEx, booked via Interparcel.com, when shipping to China. Their service has always been reliable.

natty01295 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Make your Own Mask; > On YOUTUBE Disposable: Sewn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpNmJGClKKI Effect of various materials as filters: https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/best-materials-make-diy-face-mask-virus/

Apollo astronaut Al Worden has died at the age of 88. Worden served as command module pilot for Apollo 15 with Dave Scott and Jim Irwin. During the mission Worden became the first human to carry out a deep space walk. He logged 38 minutes in extravehicular activity outside the command module, "Endeavour."

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think as a general rule anything that raises > climate change awareness has to be a positive, > whether it's "anarchists and old farts", or rather > precocious teenagers. The gravity of the issue > outweighs any personal dislike. Extinction Rebellion is not about raising awareness. Their stated aim is to seize control of the British state and then to use state power to enforce their hysterical agenda on the rest of us. For our own good of course. Fortunately there are far more intelligent, rational and humane people concerned with dealing with the reality of how an industrial civilization can progress. I would suggest listening to this interesting podcast in which Peter Fiekowsky, the Founder and President of the Healthy Climate Alliance, discusses his ideas for reversing climate change. https://player.fm/series/reversing-climate-change/ep-39-peter-fiekowsky-founder-of-healthy-climate-alliance It is not surprising that while Greta Thunberg's hysterical theatrics at the UN were broadcast worldwide, the first Annual Global Climate Restoration Forum at the UN had no attention. See it for yourself http://webtv.un.org/search/annual-global-climate-restoration-forum/6087196359001/?term=2019-09-17&sort=date The more that you look into the issues around climate change and the very many good ideas that are being put forward as credible solutions, the less sympathy you will have with Extinction Rebellion and their aims. Economic progress is the key to slowing and stabilising the world's population as Hans Rosling explains in this TED talk. The sooner we get to grips with decarbonizing our own economy the sooner we will have the solutions to solve these problems for the rest of the world. Or we can just superglue ourselves to the roads and let the Chinese take over. As the attached graph shows the EU and US are starting to reduce emissions, but the current problem is caused by everyone's cumulative emissions since the start of industrialisation. Population growth in areas without industry like India and Africa has added very little cumulatively. They won't be a factor if we have zero carbon solutions for power generation.

Bob Buzzard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve really loved season 3 of Top Boy on Netflix - > their activities of selling food seemed quite > lucrative so I wondered if I could join one of the > local crews to sell food with them? I did go down > to Peckham and tried to fist bump some likely > looking people standing around in the market areas > and greeted them with ?Wah Gwaan?, but they just > either looked at me weirdly or told me to go away > (using an expletive). Why not try importing? Two vacancies have just opened up. Fancy a nice Caribbean cruise? 'Jesus Christ, I wasn't expecting more than four years!': Stunned British cocaine-smuggling pensioners are jailed for eight years in Portugal for trying to bring ?1m of coke into Europe on a Caribbean cruise https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7508345/British-pensioners-jailed-eight-years-Portugal-trying-smuggle-1million-drugs.html You only have to look at them really don't you.

rollflick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > [...] > > After road/congestion charging, parking controls > and charges are the most effective means to cut > motor traffic, and with it air pollution and CO2 > emissions. Over 3/4 of those surveyed in > Southwark's biggest consultation exercises > supported cutting traffic and concern about > climate change is at record levels. So the borough > has compelling grounds to take action. The mayor's > policy requires Southwark to ensure "London?s > streets will be used more efficiently and have > less traffic on them", so Southwark has adopted > policies to "Introduce a borough wide CPZ & Review > parking charges to charge most polluting vehicles > more." The time limit for challenging that is > over and any CPZ decision taken on the basis of > that policy will be robust. None of this has any relevance to a small CPZ covering a few streets around East Dulwich station. If the residents of that area are happy then good for them. However the CPZ will do precisely nothing to cut the volume of through traffic on any of the routes through this area. It really is absurd to suggest that it will when we have virtually stationary queues of traffic which we can all see every morning and evening on these routes. Southwark council cannot dictate the number of cars allowed to drive along the South Circular, the Old Kent Road or anywhere else in the borough. So instead of solving the problem, they try and use the problem to charge residents who own cars a poll tax. How can any rational person think that just giving Southwark council an extra ?125 will solve anything, much less climate change? In the 80s Southwark was declared a nuclear free zone. That did not end the Cold War. Now Southwark has declared a climate emergency. Perhaps this will have more impact, but I doubt it. > > The suggestion that parking policies are about > favouring driving residents over driving commuters > is not true and not reflected in any borough > policy. This statement is totally ridiculous. The whole argument made in the council's CPZ consultation proposal was that residents were asking for a CPZ because they wanted to be able to park their cars. This was restated by local councillors at a meeting I attended in April. Now if you are saying that what the council says is a lie and that they have a hidden agenda, then many would agree with you. > > That's not of course to say everyone will or > should agree with parking controls, at least those > who don't could suggest alternatives to cut > emissions to respect the desires of the majority > for a healthier, greener borough. No. The people who are in favour of new policies should be the ones explaining how their proposals will actually achieve their desired outcomes. How exactly does a CPZ cut through traffic? How exactly does charging residents a fee for parking their cars outside their houses cut air pollution? Why would a charge of ?125 change the behaviour of someone who can afford to keep a car on the road in any case? To cut traffic effectively we would need to introduce a national road pricing scheme, but the people running this country would regard that as too difficult. To cut CO2 emissions we need to build all the nuclear power stations we should have built in the 70s and 80s, but didn't because of superstitious idiots. All the people who were against nuclear power then should take their share of responsibility for the carbon emissions they opted for instead. With a nuclear reactor you can even make jet fuel out of sea water https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/fuel-seawater-whats-catch-180953623/#YLDSdRRsTxzzwUFH.99

binkylilyput Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?The problem with trying to weaponize female > hysteria is that female hysteria is not a very > good weapon? > Interesting that you quote that line. That was was my summation of something that was said by Roger Hallam, the co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, in an interview. It was a youtube video so I did not take notes, but reproduced the sense of what he said from memory. He uses the analogy of a husband who ignores his wife's complaints until she starts screaming at him, suggesting that the environmental movement has been too rational and now needs to become more emotional. He states that he wants people to become upset and emotionally animated, i.e. play the role of the hysterical wife.

peckman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've been to Cambodia. Please do not compare pol > pot to any climate change agenda . Whatever your > thoughts on Greta she is doing a hell lot more > than us to raise the agenda and talk about it . > Fair play Pol Pot was a fantasist before he was a genocidal. Extinction Rebellion may be cuddly, fuddy duddies, but they are still fantasists. The reality is our society depends on fossil fuels. We are phasing these out, but we are not going to just turn off 45.8% of our electricity generation capacity because some people lie down in the road and tell us that we should because they say so. We need to continue increasing renewables in our energy mix as fast as we can with nuclear. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/812626/Press_Notice_June_19.pdf What exactly has anyone learned about climate change from Greta Thunberg that they did not already know? Nothing, because she only repeats what others have already said. Still she is obviously having fun on her gap year. Good luck to her. Greta Thunberg joins hundreds of teenagers in climate protest https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7412097/Greta-Thunberg-16-given-rock-star-welcome-New-York.html Climate change, global warming, the greenhouse effect has been discussed and debated at the highest levels, nationally and internationally, for more than 30 years. Al Gore championed the issue before and after he was vice president. He wrote a best selling book, made an oscar winning documentary, staged a pop concert and helped broker the 1997?Kyoto Protocol. I think that most people would agree that Al Gore has done more to ?raise awareness? or ?raise the agenda? than Greta Thunberg has. However I had exactly the same criticism then of Al Gore's ?An Inconvenient Truth? as I have now of Greta and Extinction Rebellion. Presenting your version of the problem really well, but without a credible solution, gets you nowhere. Or even worse you get green washed so-called carbon taxes which do nothing to address the problem, but produce a very negative reaction in the general population.

Greta Thunberg's triumphant arrival in New York. The landing is about 30 minutes from the end. cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you're really not just trolling what > suggestions have you for any of these issues? No I am not trolling. Being critical of an obviously poorly thought through publicity stunt is not trolling. There are legitimate criticisms of the way that climate change is being discussed by Greta, Extinction Rebellion, George Monbiot et al. When faced with a very complex set of scientific, technical, economic and social problems I do not think " I vant you to panic" is a worthwhile thing to say. It is hysterical nonsense. Problems need solutions. Solutions that will come from people who actual work to solve the problems. Not from people who want to use the problems to push their Pol Pot year zero fantasy of a return to some kind of pre-industrial idyll.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Means to an end, doesn't matter about her flaws. > Loads of pampered middle class children marched > past my office. Middle class pampered kids. > Means to an end. Bump it up the agenda, raise the > profile. Who cares about their flaws. What end is this supposed to be a means to? Do you really want to live in the society proposed by Extinction Rebellion? Sincere though they may be they have no solution except to collapse the economy. The problem with trying to weaponize female hysteria is that female hysteria is not a very good weapon. The world needs complicated scientific and technical solutions to a vast range of problems to solve climate change. Nothing is going to come from PR stunts featuring a teenage girl and a sail boat. > Net zero is written into our statute. CCC will > bring it forward. Parties will fight general > elections over it. We will have to change. Bring > it on. Really? If you empower our politicians their only answer is green taxes. How well has that gone for Macron in France? How stupid do you have to be to believe any of our politicians can solve any real problem? Southwark council declared a climate emergency. LOL!! Southwark council cannot empty my dustbin reliably, but I am supposed to take what they say on climate change seriously? Why? What relevant expertise does anyone working for Southwark council have? > Chinese and Indians are 2nd and 6th largest > economies in the world. Improving the standard of > living is nothing to do with burning coal (by all Do your own research. Both China and India currently still rely heavily on coal for electrical generation. However because renewables are an actual solution, both countries are increasing their use, but are nowhere near being able to stop using carbon overnight just because Greta thinks it would be a good idea. > means have a pop at Germany and Poland). Sod the > anti-green wash. Sod Trump. Sod Bolsonaro Trump and Bolsonaro are both reactions to the failure of those that oppose them to provide credible alternatives. The fact that they are in power shows the danger of not having actual solutions to real problems.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can follow Greta in her boat here > Greta Thunberg?s ?zero-carbon? yacht trip won?t save ANY emissions as a crew have to fly to New York to sail it back https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9739595/greta-thunbergs-carbon-free-yacht-trip-flights/ Greta's boat is in fact a carbon fibre racing yacht which cost 3.7 million pounds to build, owned by a member of the Monaco royal family. This spoiled, pampered, hysterical European child is sailing to New York in a rich man's toy, rather than appearing by satellite or Skype, presumably to lecture the Indians and the Chinese on why they should not burn coal to give their people a basic standard of living. Somehow I think they will less interested in her views than our politicians with their agenda of green washed taxes. In reality to address the problem of decarbonising the world economy to avert climate change we will need an intellectual effort on the same scale as putting a man on the moon or building the atom bomb. Nothing is going to change because a few hysterical people think we are all going to die in 10 years, because we all won't. The Green Movement?s Pigtailed Prophet of Doom https://libertytoday.uk/2019/05/02/the-green-movements-pigtailed-prophet-of-doom/ THE MANUFACTURING OF GRETA THUNBERG http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/17/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

Decision details from the council. The new outline of the zone and the bays on individual roads are in appendix 1. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=6916

bloodoranges Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But they're free from the council?! people are > bizarre ha Unfortunately our council cares more about charging for a service than it does about providing that service. My large brown bin was taken away and no smaller replacement was provided. This is despite requesting the smaller food waste bin twice online. If others are in the same position it may be they are tempted to help themselves to their neighbour's food waste bins. If the aim of this whole scheme is to separate food and garden waste, then everybody will need to have a food waste bin, regardless of whether they were also using the garden waste collection service, paid for or not. It should have been obvious to any competent person that there needed to be a number of food waste bins equal to or greater than the existing brown bins for this to work.

eastdulwichlocal99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As per the posted JPEG from Charles Martel, these > roads are included in the CPZ which is what the > original consultation results also confirmed. I'm > unsure as to why they would have changed and on > what basis.. Sorry if it was confusing. That map is a screen grab from the initial consultation results document where the streets inside the revised boundary are highlighted in yellow. The boundaries were redrawn after the councillors meeting at the end of April to only include the area north of Ashbourne Grove. I do not believe this boundary has changed. The point is that the number of parking spaces available to residents in the zone is going to be decreased by the increase in double yellow lines, particularly on Elsie Road. Even more so were Ashbourne Grove were to be included. As it is the zone is small enough that the number of cars displaced by it will be relatively small. The surrounding streets are hardly empty of cars at present anyway which obviously limits the amount of additional parking that is possible in any one place. With a large area around a small CPZ the displacement problem should be self limiting, as it is now. The CPZ proposal was made by the council on the basis of making it easier for residents to park their cars, not the abolition of resident parking. seenbeen wrote: >This is going to increase pollution around the other side of LL as people drive round and round to find a space. Almost all of the pollution in this area is from through traffic on Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Dog Kennel Hill and East Dulwich Road where you regularly see queues of stationary traffic in the morning and evening. A CPZ is going to do precisely nothing to change this. Catford has a CPZ which did nothing to prevent the pollution that is supposed to have played a role in the death of Ella Kissi-Debrah. Why? Because a CPZ does nothing to reduce through traffic and therefore nothing to reduce the pollution it creates. People are still going to drive down Dog Kennel Hill and East Dulwich Grove then turn into Melbourne Grove as a shortcut between these two main roads and, CPZ or no CPZ, they are still going to get stuck trying to pass each other.

From his twitter it would appear Cllr. Livingstone has agreed the report, but has returned to two separate CPZ areas with the East Dulwich side operating all day. It will be interesting to see the final plan. A previous council survey in 2011 for the last CPZ attempt found that an average of 80% of cars parked in the area then under consideration belonged to residents, 20% to non residents. How much of the 20% freed up by the CPZ will be lost to the planned number of new double yellow lines? It would seem from looking at the old plan for Elsie Road this would be net negative for residents parking. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s27152/Appendix%20A%20Grove%20Vale%201st%20and%202nd%20stage%20CPZ%20consultation%20report.pdf pg33

Rutger Hauer has passed away aged 75. Without doubt this scene from Blade Runner is one of the most memorable in cinema history. Rutger Hauer helped to create Roy Batty?s death soliloquy. ?I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannh?user Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain..." The irony is that Rutger Hauer's unforgettable performance has trapped him in the amber of that cinematic moment. RIP.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > [...] > All I'm asking for is a link to the stats. https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichparking/results/eastdulwichparkingconsultation-interimreportfinal.pdf The overall response showed the majority of those who responded (69%) were against a parking zone, 25% wanting a zone and 6% were undecided.

Reg Smeeton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now I'm being really dim - I clicked on the link > in the OP - where is this overview map? Which > page? All I see is Fig 2, 3 etc - each with roads > highlighted in red blue or green. I don't see a > key anywhere. > > But I'll be happy if somebody just tells me: > Green = ? > Blue = ? > Red = ? Figure 2 shows, based on responses, majority support in green, majority against in red, and undecided in blue.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The silent majority who want controlled parking > (54%) have voiced their opinion, despite all the > bleating on this forum most people approve of it. You seem not to have read the report. From page 2 - 3: The overall response showed the majority of those who responded (69%) were against a parking zone, 25% wanting a zone and 6% were undecided. Results were very similar when excluding visitors to the area (68%, 25% and 7%). Street-by-street analysis shows that within the whole study area 15 streets supported a parking zone while 54 streets were against. 10 streets were undecided and there was no response from two streets. 69% were against. How from that do you come to the conclusion "most people approve of it". People close to the station have had their say and they can have a parking zone if they want one. By the time the number of residents cars displaced by the new double yellow lines are taken into account I doubt they will be that much better off. Overall the result seems like a victory for common sense so far.

roywj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >[...] > The private schools are already on holiday this > week and I have already noticed a significant > reduction in congestion where I live. Air quality, > in turn, will be improved. How exactly will a CPZ in East Dulwich reduce the number of cars doing the school run?

roywj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The ULEZ will help with air pollution from diesel > cars but most petrol cars will be unaffected. The > CPZ is required to improve our air quality The proposed CPZ will do nothing to reduce air pollution. East Dulwich is a small area in a large city. The vast majority of traffic in this area passes through on the way to somewhere else. Therefore the vast majority of the traffic related pollution comes from the routes through East Dulwich like Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Road as shown on this pollution map. The CPZ will do nothing to reduce this traffic flow. The CPZ is designed to privilege one group of car owners, residents, over another, so called commuters. The cars of both groups produce pollution. The green washing of this CPZ proposal is ridiculous. So long as residents are prepared to pay they can pollute as much as they like on the school run, short trips to the shops, to the hairdresser etc.