alex_b

I have Ubiquity Unifi Mesh APs wired wire a switch under the stairs, I?ve switched off the Wi-Fi from the SuperHub. I?d tried a bunch of other options including the Linksys ones and always had problems with handoff in the overlapping areas. Three units cover our Victorian mid-terrace really well, on in the front of the house, one at the back (which also covers the garden) and one upstairs in the middle of the house covers the rest. It?s not the cheapest setup but it?s a long term solution rather than having to constantly fix things and fight with configurations.

trinidad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is a reminder, that the consultation has now > been extended until 7th February, due to late > delivery of hard copies via the post. Are you sure about this? I only saw the the East Dulwich and not the West Peckham consultation had been extended.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Its funny you know, we may be two sides of the > same coin. I voted to Leave, and feel similarity > as you do that whenever I have tried to voice what > I perceive as my valid reasons at the time, that I > have been 'drowned out'. You have bemoaned in > previous comments the lack of reasonable debate, > and the deeply held emotive nature of how people > feel on this issue; which has actually made > meaningful, constructive discussion impossible - I > feel exactly the same. > > My few attempts to engage on this thread > specifically have been made in good faith to try > to gain an understanding of differing viewpoints, > and while there are a few posters who i have > learnt something from, the general boorishness and > judgement applied by the majority of the crowd in > painting someone as either a Brexiteer or a > Remoaner makes it largely pointless to try. I am > not a 'Leaver' - I am a person who happened to > vote Leave - I happen to be many other things,many > of which probably make me different from other > people who also voted to leave - and being > ascribed every trait often associated with Leavers > again makes sensible discussion almost impossible. > So in that sense I share your despair. > Thanks for your detailed post and I do think (particularly on immigration) you are in a minority of those who voted leave. Could you explain what you think a good exit deal would look like then, what were you expecting to be the outcome to be when you voted leave?

Ok, I?ll bite. I would be OK with the UK joining EFTA as an individual member and trying to join a customs union (or other customs facilitation agreement). I would hope to reach bilateral agreements on fisheries and agriculture either as part of the customs arrangement or separately. Broadly I?d hope to remain the status quo in both agreements. I don?t think it?s better than our current membership but we would have left the EU and it would protect us from the worst of the downsides. I think this is a plan the EU might agree to, although I don?t know if the other EFTA members would agree. It might be able to get through Parliament if Labour backed it, but otherwise not. At this stage the current withdrawal agreement would have to stand, though the political declaration would be rewritten. Now I?ve made a proposal, how about one of the brexiteers gives their version of a proposal?

I replied. I found it very hard to follow and the questions were vague to the point of uselessness. I simply stated and restated the need for proper noise respite in SE15/SE22 and to take into account the combined effect of Heathrow and London City for our community.

I like Tokyo Diner, it's cheap, quick and good food, but it might not be the type of ambience you're looking for.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think anyone wants no deal - EU or UK - or > any individuals - and hopefully the fact that it > is a very possibly outcome will focus everyone > involved in getting something that actually > works. > > What May has put forward is an equally unfeasible > alternative. It's two extremes. First, I don't think they're two extremes: May's Brexit with all her red lines is about as hard a Brexit as you could get while still getting a deal. If implemented the lack of single market access will devastate the City and the lack of Customs Union will destroy cross border just in time manufacturing. Leaving that aside, why don't you summarise what you think is a deal "that works". Be specific, no slogans and "cake and eat it" demands. Specify what of the current arrangements you no longer want and what you're prepared to lose in exchange. Bonus points if you can suggest something that the EU would also see as a reasonable tradeoff.

jenf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pretty sure they were too but at some point the > restrictions on the signs have been redacted - > we'll be submitting a request to the council to > reinstate them. The good news is that all of the > offending cars received warning stickers > threatening towing yesterday and have all been > removed this morning. Apparently the majority > belonged to the same person so assume they'll be > receiving a fine. Great news. Was it Trading Standards or the Roads team who eventually listened?

Trinnydad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They boxed themselves in because they were not > experienced negotiators. It wasn't May who did > that. Where she erred was to send boys off to do a > man's job. They boxed themselves in because of May's red lines and because they didn't have an internally agreed position before they triggered Article 50. From that moment the stage was set and this was the obvious end point. Whomever tried to negotiate with those constraints would have achieved the same outcome. > A few senior Canadians who had battled with > Barnier for 5 years would have got a better > outcome. Not with the red lines and no plan they wouldn't. > And they certainly wouldn?t have signed a > withdrawal agreement until the so-called future > trading relationship was agreed. It goes against > the basic principle of ?it's not agreed until it's > ALL agreed?. This approach is prescribed in Article 50, how do you propose the government should have got around that? Certainly triggering Article 50 and then complaining you're bound by the obligations of this seems pretty silly. > The first side to make even a small concession is > on a slippery slope which then leads to other > concessions. That is why politician are useless at > negotiating as they always try and get a win-win > which in other parlance is a fudge. Win-win deals are the basis of all sustainable business transactions. People who view transactions as a zero sum game tend to be very transactional and do not build strong, long term profitable relationships. The fact that we're trying to negotiate a lose-lose agreement where each party minimises their loses may make this harder, but the difficulty also comes from us fundamentally not having an agreed end position that accounts for our counterparty's constraints.

i*Rate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, have just completed consultation online and > it certainly ignores the fact that we have enough > noise already! Also states that early morning > flights start at 5.30 - no thay don't. I got woken > at 4.30am one day and counted around ten flights > overhead until just gone 5.00am. They open for unrestricted operations at 5:30; however, this covers up they're allowed a restricted number of movements overnight (which they typically use for flights coming in from Asia at 4:30-5am). For me it's a meaningless distinction as it really doesn't matter if I'm being woken up by 10 planes between 4:30 and 5am or 20 planes in that time frame.

ech Wrote: > This is what I have seen in the Lyndhurst Road > area and had as feedback from other friends who > live in the CPZs which is why i am in favour and > do feel it will address some of the broader issues > in relation to traffic volume and road rage on > Adys Road. I'm not sure I follow the logic. My (unscientific) observation is that most traffic down Adys is through traffic (often commercial/goods); presumably as a cut through from Peckham High St (and North) down to the A205. I don't see why parking restrictions will reduce that traffic volume. I accept it may improve traffic flow and hence reduce road rage, but at the cost of increased speed.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Galileo, I feel for you living next to the station > and agree that it must be awful but the proposals > will not deal with your problem and your sister in > law will likely still end-up parking streets away. > I don?t know what road you live on but do look at > the number of non-resident bays on your road and > work out whether if one or two other visitors are > in the area, or commuters phoning from wherever > they work to pay for parking, whether she will get > a space. > > Also, will the CPZ operate at weekends? People parking with a visitors voucher bought by a resident can park in the residents parking. Its only those using pay by phone who are restricted to the non-resident visitors bays of which there are limited numbers.

ech Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > alex_b Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > We have occasional spaates of it on Adys, where > I > > wind up parking on nearby streets or down by > the > > park, but by and large it?s ok. Could it be > that > > as the houses are slightly narrower there are > more > > houses per metre of road? Or perhaps more > houses > > split into flats? It is odd that Nutbrook is so > > much worse than other streets. > > We must be on opposite ends of the street!! > > It's terrible down at the Oglander Road end. We > have lived here for nearly 11years and it's got > progressively worse - the first issue was the > council making the end of Crystal Palace Road no > right turn around 4 years ago forcing all the > traffic and HGVs straight on down into the Adys > Road area where the streets are too small to cope > (note the constant knocking over of the bollards!) > Then the introduction of the CPZ's at Lyndhurst > Grove meant a further increase in commuters > parking (i've followed lots of them to the station > in the morning and we can park more easily at > weekends before people say this isn't a cause) and > of course more recently the Denmark Hill CPZ. > > Apart from the challenge parking (i don't expect > to park outside but reasonably nearby would be > great) means there are no passing spaces for cars. > This end of Adys Road the street isn't wide enough > for 2 cars to pass so almost every night there are > road rage incidents, damage to vehicles, car horns > blaring at each other. It's horrific to live with. > Seeing how pleasant it now is around the Lyndhurst > Grove area and how easy it is to park since the > CPZ was brought in i am now hugely in favour. > > Being the only area left without one is crazy and > it's obvious all the issues previously faced by > other areas will now be displaced here if it > doesn't go ahead! I'm in the middle of the road and while it's not empty, I can usually park either outside the house or on the other side of the road (except when everyone leaves 3/4s of a space between cars). I don't think any of my immediate neighbours own cars and only a couple of the houses/flats opposite do. You are absolutely right about the HGV traffic, road rage and general traffic volume. That's what I really want the council to tackle, but I see the CPZ introduction making that worse (due to the double yellows allowing coaches/HGVs to turn from Nutbrook, increased speeds due to more space) not better.

You may find that if they are looking abandoned (i.e. damaged) then the parking people may be more sympathetic (we managed to get rid of a couple of vans dumped near us that way). The other thing to do is check tax/MOT/insurance via the DVLA online checker. If any of those are expired Southwark will generally take action. It's such a frustration that Southwark are so lax on these issues.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > - paid-for bays that you can pay for from your > phone. This does nothing to alleviate commuter > traffic as most commuters will probably pay the > few pounds for the controlled hours via their > phone. Make it a machine payment only and the > problem goes away. At least in the West Peckham CPZ consultation, the number of paid bays is tiny. So if there are a significant number of commuters (I don't know if there are) then they are likely to be squeezed out.

I've heard good things about the one of the corner of Townley Rd/Lordship Lane. We use the one in Crystal Palace at the top of Gipsy Hill.

ed_pete Wrote: > The consultation has now been extended to 7th Feb > due to "due to late mail delivery of consultation > information" - (Hmm..no surprise there then). Important to note that the Peckham West consultation has not been extended, only the East Dulwich one. I know there are two threads, but I want to ensure there's no confusion.

Kjet2 - I completely agree with your points. The council are proposing the wrong answer to the wrong question. What the streets in "West Peckham" need is a reduction in rat running, especially by large commercial vehicles. Unfortunately our local councillors seem to have absolutely no interest in the views of local residents.

We have occasional spaates of it on Adys, where I wind up parking on nearby streets or down by the park, but by and large it?s ok. Could it be that as the houses are slightly narrower there are more houses per metre of road? Or perhaps more houses split into flats? It is odd that Nutbrook is so much worse than other streets.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think part of the problem is that those cyclists > that do break the road law - and they are very few > comparatively - know that they?re doing it and > have it already justified in their mind; as such > they respond forcefully to anyone who challenges > them. Isn?t more that cyclists can be challenged because they?re not in a sound isolated metal boxes? The driver who almost ran me over as I was crossing the zebra crossing on East Dulwich Grove was completely oblivious because she had her iPhone in front of her face. I?m sure she knew she was doing it and had justified it to herself somehow, I?m sure she?d have been forceful if I could have challenged her, but of course I couldn?t. Similarly the red light jumpers at every crossing or the majority of motorists that speed, they all are choosing to do so, but cannot be challenged in the way cyclists can.

Eileen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This message is for people who live in Nutbrook > Street - what do you think of the proposals for > our street? > I frequently can't find a place to park in the > evenings long after a CPZ would have ended. Could > this CPZ solve that? > > To anyone else - do you have any experience of > CPZ's solving car parking scarcity after 6.30pm? I wonder whether some of the problem on Nutbrook (other than bad parking) is the number of ?commercial? vehicles that seem to be left there for long periods of time. I would presume these would be moved on under a CPZ.

rollflick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Breaking up the wall of metal (parked cars) calms > traffic and makes streets easier to cross on foot. Is there any evidence for this? Anecdotally, the addition of the double yellows at the corner of Nutbrook and Adys has led to drivers trying to turn at higher speeds and increased the number of bollard collisions. I really worry that the additional double yellows proposed in this scheme will encourage higher speeds and larger vehicles.

It looks like the quietway plans that everyone objected to are baked in. I?m sure this ?consultation? will equally take residents? views into account. The ?parklet? on Adys Rd is particularly moronic given the volume of HGV traffic using the road as a rat run.

Consultation documents just arrived by post in Adys Road. The "interesting" thing is that the loss of parking spaces and other street amendments proposed in the Quietway "consultation" are also shown which makes me think that they're going ahead despite the widespread objections. I don't really see how we can say no to a CPZ given we're set to lose so many spaces from the street already and already have pressures from commuters and lots of trade vehicles stored on the street.

rendelharris Wrote: > I would be delighted if the > police would focus more on stopping this sort of > behaviour and fining those who do it - such > cyclists (who are a minority) just give the > anti-cycling mob a free stick with which to beat > us (it's rare to see a light turn red in these > parts without three or four cars running it of > course, but that's another matter). I'm in two minds about this. Of course I too hate cyclists jumping lights and agree with your general point. However in terms of police priorities it has to be massively below cars jumping red lights (at pretty much every light change at every major junction in East Dulwich at least one car goes through on red), the constant speeding (most cars around here) and the use of mobile phones while driving (again I see at least five instances a day around here). I have some sympathy with the view that using police resources to target cyclists while rampant criminality from motorists is lightly policed is vindictive and only occurs because of an anti-cycling bias.