northernmonkey

Feel free to keep standing by the slogan if you like. Alternatively accept it was ill judged and wrong and hope that the replacement poster is less offensive?

And yet - stopping short of encouraging people to take down their posters that had appropriated a phrase aligned to the 'all lives matter' phrasing of the far right in response to the BLM matter movement. The poster was at the most generous interpretation 'ill judged' from those designing and circulating it, but also questions the judgement of all those displaying it especially now the offensive nature has been made clear. What is interesting is that certain businesses - eg Fashion Conscience on Grove Vale, rather than removing and waiting for the next poster, still have the poster up. They're core members of the Dulwich Alliance and certainly able to coordinate with each other but are choosing not to do anything about this.

You know that just cos someone else used it it doesn't make it ok right? Is it ok to leave up posters with slogans from far right racist groups as long as 'new ones are coming'? I don't doubt that many people 'didn't think' about it but now its been pointed out its interesting how Dulwich Alliance have dealt with it (ie they haven't really!)

Perhaps they could use the facebook page to suggest to supporters that they take down the tone deaf posters they produced and handed out? Dulwich Alliance have finally begrudgingly conceded that 'all roads matter' could cause offence (whilst trying to claim that using the statement wasn't intentional)- but shops such as Fashion Conscience who are core Dulwich Alliance supporters are still displaying the poster in their window, as well as an unbelievable number of houses on Ashbourne Grove!

probably post in the family room discussion for more input - criteria says apptitude rather than formal grades. Also the SE22 piano school do music aptitude test prep.

I think if you can have a really sturdy lock that is gold rated that you leave in the hanger then you're not worrying about the weight for carrying it might be best, together with a second one that you use that you take with you? Even in my own bike shed we lock the bikes within it - it won't stop the most determined bike theif but it will make it more difficult for an opportunist!

How is it that Waze has updated for these closures, yet LAS (where you'd think that accurate mapping was more critical than popping to the shops) hasn't managed to update 8 months on? What kind of system did LAS sign up for - the procurement team need sacking!

Not really monitored in sufficient detail - anecdotally though I'd imagine 'awful' and everyone who has a wood burner and another source of heating should stop burning wood now. Latest research shows that the toxic spike within your own home each time you open the door is huge - so perhaps people might start to think now its clear they're poisoning their own family as well as their neighbours. ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting; although must admit I trust The > Guardian less after their biased and one sided > reporting on LTNs > > > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/0 > > > > 7/fireplaces-and-stoves-are-bigger-polluters-than- > > > traffic > > > > Saw this. Wonder what stats are like in > Southwark?

I think that the majority of people on here who are pro LTNs want them to be monitored properly and adjusted if required - but unfortunately right now there isn't any data. Rather than pushing for you not to be included, those of us who are supporting the council have in fact been pushing for more data, for it to be released well in advance of the consultation so that people can have time to review it and understand it. The fact that this hasn't happened is unsatisfactory for everyone really. Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I keep saying this - and it's notable that no-one > who is pro the current LTNs has acknowledged this > or responded, other than rahrahrah (which was > appreciated) - it is possible to be anti the LTNs > in their current form, or advocate for them to be > reviewed and adjusted without being pro-traffic > and unfettered driving. > > At the risk of repeating myself - I'm a very > occasional driver, but a regular commuting cyclist > and pedestrian. I made the "modal shift" (which > is a new term to me) a few years back and I've > never looked back. However, the implementation of > the Court Lane LTN has significantly, adversely > affected the roads that I live on and cycle on, to > the point where they feel less safe and I actively > avoid cycling on them at peak times now, because > they are being used as a cut through by drivers > seeking to avoid the South Circular and Lordship > Lane. > > Leaving aside this was foreseeable, and taking the > point that was made that these are experimental > LTNs and can be adjusted, what is frustrating me > and most of my neighbours is that no-one on the > Council side will acknowledge there may be an > issue, they are going out of their way not to > monitor in our area, not to include us in the > consultation (and when we pushed to be included, > we've now been told that our views won't carry as > much weight as those in the core area where the > closures are) and that we must just be patient and > wait for these sunlit uplands where traffic > evaporates. > > Very few people on here are advocating for the > LTNs to be removed entirely - I'm certainly not - > but I do want a proper monitoring program which > looks at the impact outside the core area of > closures so that we can assess whether these > measures are actually working and if they are, > whether the impact on other residents is worth > it. > > And I don't think that's unreasonable. But no-one > who is pro the current LTNs will advocate for > that, and we are just getting lumped in as "the > vocal minority" who are "anti-traffic reduction". > It's so frustrating, as we all want the same > thing, but apparently asking for a system which > would actually show how well these current > measures are working is akin to heresy.

I think 'alice' is commenting on 'joyriders' which is indeed a movement trying to encourage more women and especially those from BAME backgrounds to cycle. Getting people to discover / rediscover cycling is really only the first step but its an important one. The next is to discover that many of the local journeys you typically do by car (eg dropping the kids at ballet / football / rugby / swimming) etc could easily be done by bike. We are really lucky locally too that Wheels for Wellbeing do fabulous sessions at Herne Hill Velodrome to showcase the huge range of adapted bikes that exist and how cycling can work for many more people than you would traditionally think - Isabelle Clement is a great advocate for this group. People don't just suddenly decide to get on their bikes when they've been happily driving round - they need things like safe infrastructure and help to realise that its do-able, only then will people realise how much better local cycling is than local driving for so many people.

Slightly odd that you went back to look at my posting history - also not sure that suggesting 'perhaps i didn't look back far enough, having acknowledged how many years i've been posting on here, is the ringing endorsement you think it is. Anyway - I'm sure people who are thinking about the nursery are capable of looking through the previous posts and speaking to existing parents to take a view. I don't have personal experience of using your nursery so can't comment on it directly. We did look round but decided to go with another provider. Piplings Nursery Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > goldilocks Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But for balance - I'd have to say that in years > of > > using the forum, that's the first whole-hearted > > recommendation for Piplings I've ever seen! I > > would recommend searching for previous comments > > which are generally along the lines of the care > in > > the nursery being fine / good and the management > / > > admin being awful. It may be though that > things > > have changed recently and the glowing > > recommendation above is the new normal, but > would > > make sure you had understood everything fully > > before signing up. > > You have been using the forum for almost as long > as Piplings has been around! Perhaps you didn?t > look back far enough? There are some super > positive posts about the nursery. So it may be the > first recommendation you have seen for Piplings > but they do exist!

Some of the key One Dulwich supporters continually complained that the kerbing in what was previously the central pedestrian refuge presented a 'dangerous trip hazard'. I can see that for those who don't have great vision, it might be something that wasn't obvious when walking. The new planters are easier to see in the eyeline and will draw attention to the fact that there is an 'obstacle' there.

was on twitter

Crossing Lordship on a bike with kids isn't great at the moment - would definitely recommend a pedestrian crossing. Would be nice if there were some cycle crossings but without a safe mapped network to link to then its not so helpful. Some of the new road layouts around the Elephant are nice for this where there is a cycle section of the zebra crossing - also Norwood Road has one where Rosendale Road cycle lane meets it - but in both scenarios there is somewhere defined to cycle beyond the crossing.

There was a broken down truck on ED Grove at the junction with Half Moon lane causing huge tailbacks this morning - the difference between school drop off this morning vs yesterday was night and day because of it. There are just so many people driving journeys that they wouldn't have done pre pandemic.

We are on a Tues collection and our brown bin is collected weekly. Do you leave it at the entrance to the property so it can be easily collected. On EDG you might need to put it on the pavement? Re the bin stickers - ours arrived last week, but obviously the post situation isn't great at the moment, i'd expect that there would be some leeway on the existing permits to allow for this. Foxy - assuming your bin was collected this week?

Hadn't heard about trees - but if they're the same / similar benches as the ones outside Au ciel / village Books then they could be easily moved elsewhere if the trial doesn't continue.

There are DYL outside the cafe so it looks as though the pavement could be widened here without even losing car parking. For those saying that it wouldn't leave room for 2 way traffic - the widened pavement would be less wide than the space taken up by a car parked on the road, so would be stepped in from car parking!

I agree that the pavement widening should either be made permanent or removed - the barriers don't look great so finding a better long term solution is key. Also agree with comments on waste management being something that would make a major difference to Lordship Lane and Melbourne Grove - there is often waste strewn everywhere on MG in particular because foxes get to the bin bags before the collections do. Graffiti is a problem - more so on the Melbourne Grove / Grove Vale shops than Lordship Lane but as this is something businesses can get the council to remove I think that this is something they could be more proactive on. Agree with all Nigello's points re a general tidy up! Turning the stalls round for the market has been great - and it should have always been like that rather than the shambles of half the stalls facing the pavement and then the ones on the other side facing the back of other stalls. Having it so people can browse through the market in open air is much better rather than being cramped onto the pavements - pavements which I believe the businesses on there are sensibly using for tables and chairs where possible to provide outdoor seating!

And yet parking on estates is still free... Not even an admin fee to cover the cost of issuing the permit!

Not sure just posting the same thing over and over is doing it for him...

@Trevor Moore - you keep posting the same non-sequitur. Did you get stuck?

Chadwick hasn't got any changes that I'm aware of but the segregated cycle lane on Lyndhurst starts near the bottom of chadwick and then goes under the bridge almost to Holly Grove. Its lovely whilst its segregated. Unfortunately just under the bridge the segregation ends as the road narrows and it spits you out on a bit of road that isn't actually wide enough for a lane of traffic and a cycle lane, but because its painted on cars pass and its stressful. The contraflow on Highshore is quite nice too - its just the bit in the middle that isn't.

It is a good question as to why its taken FOIs to release information - this hasn't been acceptable - but its not just 'one side' of the debate who feels this. Better council communication would be helpful all round. I'm all for the information being released - whereas now we are in a position where the data hasn't been released to anyone except seemingly 'One Dulwich' via FOI and they are still issuing 'trailers' for it like its some kind of gripping cliffhanger!

> It does however, raise the question of how to > validate the cyclist count when the council > monitors the ltn roads. Really - it doesn't! Just because someone with an agenda posts a conspiracy theory doesn't mean anyone has to answer questions as to how to address the conspiracy that has been made up! Can't believe I'm even trying to comment on the ridiculous Grove Reopen tweet, but Lane 8 on MG is a bit of a cyclist hang out in the mornings - and perhaps it wasn't open so someone cycled up and came straight back out? Or yes, potentially took a wrong turning! Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > True , as I said it is one of the posts that are > being discussed and as such can't confirm or > dismiss how true it is, but equally I can't off > hand (like some) say it's an urban myth > > It does however, raise the question of how to > validate the cyclist count when the council > monitors the ltn roads. > > If they use just strips then they can be tricked > by riding back and forth > > If visual counting, then this should be done on > random days and times to ensure that false > positives can't be drawn if the pro lobby know in > advance and flood the area with out of area > mates. > > It has to be done in such a way that the true > usage figure is captured and not false peaks or > troughs that could skew the data.