redpost

I think I know the answers already, but I need some outrage How much was a pint? Was the food any good? how much?

Sorry to interject with a few facts: One dulwich email goes to an anonymous gmail address One dulwich website registered anonymously (see whois lookup) No contact details, contact address, legal details or any name on the website at all All blog posts are anonymous, no name presented ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "They specifically don't publish anything anywhere > where it could be questioned publicly". Eh? > > Type in "One Dulwich" or "Dulwich Alliance" and > you will see lots of info. > > What is is that you cannot find on their > websites? > > > northernmonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You talked about the right of reply - so the > point > > 'I'm trying to make' is that One Dulwich / > Dulwich > > Alliance either send emails to registered > > supporters via email (so thats fine), or they > > publish things on their website. They > > specifically don't publish anything anywhere > where > > it could be questioned publicly. > > > > I'd imagine you could contact Clean Air Dulwich > > via social media accounts if you're a follower?

Avoid like plague, numerous cases of extortionate service charges e.g. ?40K for a few windows.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "UK car ownership has doubled over those 30 years > from 20m to 40m" - so? > > How does this justify road closures and pushing > traffic from quiet roads to those already busy and > polluted? > Overall air pollution stays the same or is even > worst - idling traffic - so how does his help at > all? > > Shouldn't the busiest and dirtiest roads be > treated as priority? > > There has to be a bigger change: stop producing > cars; stop exporting cars; make it illegal to have > more than one car per household (with exceptions); > make people pay for driving. > > Or do the LTN supporters want to make it better > only for themselves? because with current traffic growth on sideroads continuing at its current rate, ALL roads will be chock a block in a few years time unless something is done about it ... and something more than the vague handwaving of timed school road closures expressed on this forum at least this gives children, pedestrians and cyclists the use of clear side roads

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Living here for 30 years I have noticed all > changes and as someone who professionly is very > aware of the inflammatory response to pollution in > terms of cardiovascular and respiratory health I > don't confuse changes in traffic on my road. > > When the junction at Townley and ED Grove was > changed it caused more congestion on ED Grove, > when Southwark planned a pedestrian crossing on ED > Grove in the wrong place and then left a useless > speed hump that caused more pollution I noticed, > when the hospital was knocked down and lorries > with dusty particulates drove down the Grove..I > noticed. > > So as someone who teaches at a clinical level > about the dangers of pollution on health..please > do not 'explain' to me about my perception. UK car ownership has doubled over those 30 years from 20m to 40m Of course, it's nothing to do with this though

how do you know there is not much enforcement? I regularly see the little camera car patrolling the streets

It's very basic physics: force = mass x acceleration Bigger engine provides more force Range rover sport is twice the mass of a Nissan juke, 6/8 cylinders vs 3, and emits twice the pollution with most conservative engine option. When you figure that the RR owner is more likely to plump for turbo/supercharged v8 option and drive more aggressively, I wouldn't be surprised if pollution is 3 or 4 more times as much as a conservative juke driver. This is the madness.

There is heavy construction work ongoing, I assume that the rear will be redeveloped afterwards also. There was a forklift accident a couple of weeks ago which spilled materials onto the closed street, and there is much heavy building materials to be dropped off. This all justifies closing off the road temporarily rather than clogging up the road (which you would undoubtedly bleat about).

Pugwash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hubby had to take a taxi from town yesterday as > all bus routes he needed to go on were not going > south of the river (he could not find any > notices/people to ask where they had been > redirected to) Chatting to the taxi driver, > Croxted Road was mentioned - it would appear that > many taxi drivers will not take fares if they have > to use this route as delays are up to an hour some > days. Uhm, most drivers are desperate for work - some black cabs are queueing at heathrow 12-18 hours for a fare. They get paid whether moving or not.

Pugwash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Last bus stop coming from Barry Road is by Nigel > Road, buses are then diverted either to near bus > garage/Peckham Hill Street. You need to get a 12 > bus if you need to get to the lower part of the > Lane i.e Primark/Boots/HSBC etc. > Coming back towards Barry Road nearest stop is by > Pub (Drovers?) or a walk up to Heaton Road near > Tesco Local. Yes, for the 12 the worst case is just under a 400m walk (on a mainly unpolluted road) I've waited for the 37 hundreds of times on the rye before the closure, it was really quite badly polluted and unpleasant

You need to be wary of inheritance tax and legal implications. If you pay for her care without some kind of formal agreement, it's likely that this would only be repaid after IHT or indeed may not be paid because of the will. I think you really need some *paid* professional advice, don't take any equity release or lifetime mortgage from the advisor as they'll be making a chunk of commission, just pay for their legal/financial advice and go to a broker or look at the market yourself.

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I live off Rye Lane and I can assure you there is > no bus stop within 200m of my house. > > I suspect you are not a local resident. I suspect you are or are an ex car driver? I shop/socialise around peckham rye 3+ times a week, cannot drive and use public transport intensively. I've looked on open street map, three replacement stops are within 220m. P13 stops are longer, the closed stop V (peckham rye station southbound) is out on a limb around 400m away. Note that the average london bus stop spacing is around 400m. Shoppers will tend to cover the street in a linear fashion and finish their trip at one end or the other. Any reasonable, progressive person will agree that this is a very small price to pay for the clean air in a poor working class high street. Further evidenced by the fact that almost every UK town/city has implemented extensive city centre pedestrianisation over the past 40 years or so. I'm truly sorry that you have to walk further for the bus, but unfortunately car drivers cannot be trusted to not illegally drive down peckham rye when traffic control measures have been put in place in the past. Therefore, it needs to be closed to both cars and buses. You may find this an interesting read .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

The risk is most acute for younger females, those who smoke and females who take the pill. If I was in one or more of these categories then I would definitely ask my GP for a non-AZ jab, this is unlikely to be a problem since Moderna (as well as Pfizer) are in good supply.

scrawford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > An interesting article by London Councils that > develops the ?nudge theory? approach > https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/download/file/fi > d/26353 > > Though nudges also need harder deterrents, and > schools should have parent exclusion zones from > car stopping around them. They also need to look more closely at parents who game school entry by renting in the catchment area and then moving further out in order to reduce rent or afford house purchase, but then commute their children by car. Personally, I have no problem with this at all if they don't use a car. I would do the same.

Lynne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Completely agree. Bring back the buses. This is > just driving trade to supermarkets with carparks. What utter bilge, most parts of the rye are no further than 200m from a bus stop (bus station / stops opposite greggs / south end stops outside tesco express). Why not think about the traders on the lane who can now breathe clean air all day?

I very much doubt that EWI in a sheltered arch will need a vapour barrier let alone vents since it'll be 100% shielded from rain. If you are leasehold then I wouldn't bother with this solution. As said, the easiest option is get your floorboards up. If sound bothers you, then fill around 75% with high density mineral wool with air gap at top. Mechanically couple the joists with noggins at regular intervals, couple joist ends to brickwork securly with steel brackets and chemical fixing, discard the floorboards and top with a layer of 18mm ply on top well screwed down to joists. Basically mass and mechanically coupling the building copmonents are your friend in lowering the resonant frequency and reducing noise. Resonant frequency = 1/ (mass x area) ... larger the mass and coupled area, lower the resonant frequency and lower the noise. If you want thermal insulation then 100% fill with PIR insulation (celotex/kingspan etc) Pay attention to air tightness to stop windwash, squirty foam does the job. Most builders are blaggers and won't have a clue about any of this.

PollyGlot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some local residents had the opportunity to > discuss LTN matters with a Councillor today. This > was none other than Margy Newens, who is Deputy > Community Champion for the South Area. > > One of the first questions presented to her was > "What is the PRIME purpose of the LTN measures?". > > Her emphatic and unequivocal response was "TO > REDUCE TRAFFIC". No mention of pollution!! > > She apparently failed to understand that pollution > would be reduced if electric cars were exempted > from the LTN penalties ( as is the case with taxis > and buses) and that if they were exempt, then that > would accelerate the adoption of electric cars and > bring about rapid reduction in pollution. > > She was unaware that the statistics provided by > Southwark on their website are 20 months out of > date! > > What hope do we have when our community has > representatives like this? Well duh, trafic equals pollution atm to a very high correlation Even electric cars will pollute, road dust, brake dust etc

Apologies, or perhaps it's an attempt to obfuscate what the user was doing when they close the site - but doesn't seem to work very well and loads of redirects makes it look like a scam Perhaps advise people to only access site through private browsing?

Perhaps someone has hacked the site then Go to site, click 'exit site' it then pops up 2 windows one of which does a load of redirects too quick for me to see what is happening

Don't click on the link!! it's a scammer

Try and keep the wooden shed base off the ground slightly, supported with something non-wooden. I recently installed a bike shed and fixed it to the concrete base with stainless chemical fixings spaced upwards with some cheapo stainless bolts and washers from toolstation. Nice 50mm+ gap means base will be kept nice and dry and shouldn't rot at all.

Chick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > A different perspective. > > > > > https://www.thejc.com/comment/opinion/is-israel-di > > > > scriminating-against-palestinians-with-vaccine-1.5 > > > 10338 > > To be expected. There are over 2m Israeli arabs, they are just as entitled as Israeli jews to get a vaccine and indeed get them.

hammerman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > redpost: I wondered why there are suddenly a lot > of dithering bike users suddenly pulling out in > front of me. No signals etc. just expecting that > a car driver on a normal road can read their > intentions! You need both hands on handlebars to get sufficient torque when starting from static. It's pretty obvious they're starting up, and need to pull into the traffic lane, so why do you need a handsignal for intentions? Of course, it's unknown for cars in london to pull out suddenly or cut you up.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe they might cross Lordship Lane safely > (assuming they are on the road and want to cross > over to, e.g. enter a side street) by properly > signalling a turn? When I was a child, and cycled, > my parents refused to allow me on the public road > until I could demonstrate that I could cycle with > one hand whilst signalling a turn with the other. > Granted there was less traffic in those days, but > in towns it went at 30 mph (and there was less > other traffic to impede it). I rarely see cyclists > hand signal now (if I do it tends to be by people > in my baby-boomer generation. > > The traffic in Lordship Lane is (1) generally slow > - most people do stick to the 20mph limit - if > only because the weight of traffic forces them to, > and (2) there are numbers of stop points (all the > crossings and lights) to slow traffic further. I > can hardly think of a safer place for cyclists who > can (and will) signal their intentions to > manoeuvre. But they have to be competent cyclists, > well trained. In my day that included school > children, who regularly cycled to school. > > The Green Cross code was about (generally) younger > children crossing roads - it assumed that children > who were cyclists would be able to cycle on public > streets because they had trained to be able to do > so, first gaining cycling skills and then road > usage skills. The state of the roads (potholes, sunken drains etc) means that I want both hands on the bike as much as possible. I used to signal all the time, but it's just too dangerous now and I will only do so when absolutely needed (right turn, filter into right hand lane etc)

Dave With unchecked traffic growth the use of CPR as a lordship land bypass would have happened anyway, far better to get road traffic down and get alternative means of transport up.