intexasatthe moment

Well ,I've had a quick google and it seems that would cerainly help with the pain . I love Krystals ,simply the best .

that's nice of you Coach Beth .Chain saw noise is one of the worst but somehow is slightly easier to bear if purpose and extent is known . Is it just being reduced ?

what's the thinking on a mirror for viewing what is behind ? Combined with a quick physical movement of looking over your shoulder .more of a visual cue for those behind that you are aware of them ,the real looking done in the mirror . I'm in same boat as mancity .

Wil72 - I'll carry on adding comments ,I hadn't realised that one could post more than once ,so thanks for highlighting that . But ....I don't think any amount of comments will influence decisions made by Southwark .Allowing us to comment is just a diversion ,window dressing ,a con . As I was memorably instructed at a public meeting re turning a school into an Academy "This is a consultation ,not a rolling ballot .You can't just vote for what you want ."

You could also try asking in sopers the fish shop .Lovely people who have been there a long time .Think current owner probably took over after your pub's existence but staff might know of a customer or someone who would know . And they sell lovely fish .

"Are you denying that there's a material difference between A roads and residential back streets?" The difference is that some roads already carry a great deal more traffic ,both are residential . I note that you only attach this descriptor to "back" roads .Which is where the fabled comes in ,this area isn't some rural village where children play out on summer evenings .Hoping that it will become like one by trying to force all traffic onto a few roads and describing drivers who use "back" streets as rat runners is a lazy ,knee jerk use of language . Increasing vehicle movements on an already heavily used road will pollute the air in the samw way that increased traffic on a less well used route .

In my mind driving from a to b by a preferred route is a normal and acceptable activity .The route may be chosen because it's senic ,goes past a property of interest ,or maybe because it avoids congestion on other roads . Somehow driving via a short cut ,avoiding main through routes has become an activity to be criticised and compared to the activity of rodents . The constant use of the expression "rat running " which actually seems to mean using fabled "residential "roads with the implication that only residents of those streets should drive up and down them is beginning to grate . There I feel better for getting that off my chest .

Spartacus thank you for heads up . Terrible decision .Both for shoppers and the shops .

I wonder if any close neighbours/residents who lived on that stretch in the 1950/60's might remember the name ? I think asking Vincent Ayres on his twitter account might be fruitful "Ayres was opened by Vincent?s father John Frederick Ayre ? known as Fred ? in 1955, on Evelina Road. When he passed away 30 years later, Vincent took over the business with the help of his mother. His wife Frances joined in 1990." "For Ayres, social media is increasingly important ? and Vincent, who tweets from @ayres_the_baker ? says it?s a good way to engage directly with customers. ?Anybody who has an SE15 tag on their Twitter, I follow,? he says." https://peckhampeculiar.tumblr.com/post/97675453309/history-in-the-baking

great stuff nxjen !

Southwark's maps show a rectangle intruding on to the pavement at the front of nos 116 ,opposite Ayres . I've no idea what this represents - did nos 116 enjoy the right of use of the pavement at the front ? Is this where the benches on which dumped children sat ? Any memory of the pub sign lameduck - hanging ? projecting from frontage ? flat on frontage ?

"solely residential roads" are there roads which are solely residential ? Or is this wishful thinking . I suppose cul de sacs ,gated communities ,the odd group of houses set back on an in fill site would rank at the top of this heirachy where it seems some roads are more deserving than others of barricades to protect them from vehicles . The rest of us low life at the bottom end will just have to suck it up .

ex dulwicher - I agree with some of your points but whoa there with this - "Loads of people don't know about it (in spite of consultations, info on the Southwark website and elsewhere, leaflets through doors (like all the Area A, B and C had about the original Healthy Streets) - there are loads of people who simply don't engage, seek info or know (likely because a lot are outside the borough). Again, short of writing to every single household in London saying "hey if you're thinking of driving through DV...." " I live near Dulwich Library and received nothing through the door about these Healthy Streets propsals ,I bumped into someone who had and went to a meeting .It was pitiful ,A4 bits of paper which interested people like me had to piece together to form a map of the proposals ,staff/consultants who had zero knowledge of the area .It was like an exercise in how not to have a meeting/info session .

Just looking at the documentation on line .This is v telling . Total Consulted: 273 Comments Received: 107 Objections: 98 Supporting: 2

Another good site ,though no help with this particular lost pub . https://pubology.co.uk/indexes/se15.html

Vicki - I can see from the helpful link from RichH that there was a Golden Anchor at 16 Evelina Road . I think from lameduck's description of the location that the pub is in Evelina as opposed to Nunhead Lane but nos 16 would be the wrong end .

Mmm ,what a tease . I'm inclining towards the thought that it was more of an off licencse than a pub . 104 Evelina Road would be the right location and had been an off licensce for many years . No help with the name though ,sorry .

I've copied this response from Southwark's "Have your say " site .It articulates exactly what I felt when completing the questions . I hope the author doesn't mind . "I'm sorry, people, but this consultation tool is ridiculously biased. It seeks to encourage feedback on this road closure that is positive (rather than balanced feedback, positive and negative) and, at least in my opinion, strongly implies the baseline for feedback is that the closure stays in place, possibly with a few minor amendments (rather than the status quo that existed for decades before Southwark decided to implement the closure as an experiment yesterday). The 1st question (?What can we do to improve the experimental measures??) has 12 pre-set answers, none of which include anything along the lines of ?Remove the new restrictions?, ?Have the restrictions only during peak times? or ?Provide residents with access through the restrictions? etc. The 2nd question (?Following the experimental road closures, what is working well at this location?) is followed by 13 pre-set positive, feel-good answers?but the obvious partner question (e.g. ?What issues are there with this experimental road closure at this location??) is completely absent The final sliding scale question (?To what extent do you support the principle of re-purposing streetspace to prioritise public health, road safety, local business and active travel?) is a ridiculously loaded question that suggests it is a universal truth that those worthy objectives, that no one could object to, are achieved by re-purposing streetspace and, by implication, this specific road closure (not least since this answer appears to be used to colour-code our feedback pins on the map!) And that final sliding scale question is so generic as to be meaningless if it?s not followed by a specific sliding scale question along the lines of ?To what extent do you support this experimental road closure being made permanent in this location??. Plus maybe a follow-up, open dialogue question ?If you do not support this closure becoming permanent, what amendments or alternative measures would you support?? As a result of the above, if this online forum is going to be a major tool for feedback collation and decision-making (i.e. whether the closure becomes permanent, gets modified or needs to revert back to the status quo) it is completely flawed. Statistics generated (e.g. ?x% of survey respondents agreed with re-purposing streetspace??) will be meaningless. All of which begs the question...what on earth are Southwark playing at?"

On a side note ,am I the only one who was disapointed that the closure points aren't shown on the map in Southwark's consultation document https://dulwichvillagestreetspace.commonplace.is/?utm_campaign=launch ? It would make it so much easier ( for me at least ) to consider the new arrangement if it were presented visually . I may well have missed the map showing the closures so hopefully someone can share a link .

for heavens sake Kate ,did you think the suggestion that people causing a racket at Dawsons Heights and decamping to Brixton was a serious one ???

ed_pete ,it does seem odd doesn't it ?

Right ,so they are de-scoping the scheme .What exactly does "de-scope" mean ?

Second class letter posted 2 June ,not arrived .

I can't get my head round this ," staff at Lew Evans were unable to enter her mother?s room as she was still infectious." seems odd ,but I suppose there were no masks and staff presumably were terrified . I suppose whoever delivered the lunch on Thursday wasn't aware of any reason not to enter the room . "A member of the rapid response team answered and said she had been sent to care, but was supposed to be with a member of the London Care team who had failed to provide anyone. As a result rapid response had to withdraw the care and my mother was essentially left to die as no-one would enter her flat." I wonder what the protocol is for rapid response staff in such circumstances ? Must be a bit more than "withdraw" ? And whoever delivered the meal ,finding someone completely immobile and with a failure in care provision - what are their guidelines in such circumstances ? And yes yes to paying more tax to fund care services ,though I think I'd like LA services as opposed to private businesses .

If they are in talks with the school why aren't they in talks with the residents living in the area between the barriers ?