rendelharris

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your assumption is that they don't like your > suggestion because it is not as convenient or > quick, but actually it might just be that they > don't want to use the so-called alternative as > that means they will create excess unnecessary > pollution, or come into conflict with a plague of > self righteous passive aggressive cyclists. Ignoring your silly ad hominem, could you tell me where one can find this vast cohort of selfless drivers who apparently only care about pollution and the welfare of others? To read these threads regarding traffic control, CPZs etc, it's marvellous, nobody is interested in their own convenience, all they care about is others. If you care about pollution, child welfare etc (with the usual caveats regarding the elderly, disabled, tradesmen etc, before you insert them)the best thing to do is stop lobbying for ways you can use your car more quickly and start not using your car so much.

sally buying Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It may be exactly the same distance according to > you, but the time factor is far far longer. It's not according to me, it's according to Google Maps. You're missing the point, which is that the OP is claiming that there is "no alternative" to driving through the neighbourhoods s/he mentions; there is an alternative, they just don't wish to take it as it's not as convenient or quick.

Talfourdite - if as your name implies you live on Talfourd Road, how did you previously access Denmark Hill without driving through other people's neighborhoods, viz Lyndhurst Grove, Macneill Road, Camberwell Grove, Grove Hill Road and Champion Hill? As for having "no choice" but to drive through other people's neighbourhoods, you could easily drive via Peckham Road and Denmark Hill. As a point of interest, that route is almost exactly the same distance (1.36 miles) as your previous route (1.3 miles). I get that people are annoyed that their convenient ratrun has been sealed off, but trying to scare everyone into objecting with claims that there are no alternatives to driving through their neighbourhood isn't on.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > another fan of the No Bull burgers here - Rendell > have you tried the meatballs or sausages ? If so > ...can you give a verdict ? Not yet - didn't know they existed! I shall have to investigate...

peckham_ryu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In sad news, they no longer stock Swedish frozen > meatballs :-( You sure? Still on their website... https://groceries.iceland.co.uk/k-c3-b6ttbullar-swedish-meatballs-900g/p/61206?fo_c=2200&fo_k=248c96ab7434ce37c34c4a355b36e810&fo_s=awin&awc=7868_1551166698_6d1c7eeff9f7c29b65bd3a8f7a762a31&gclsrc=aw.ds&&gclid=Cj0KCQiA5NPjBRDDARIsAM9X1GKMOScHno7WPVTZC_kBRrbwya66u6mVCbfJW_PGnxUi4sezmcXJZG8aArCtEALw_wcB&gclid=Cj0KCQiA5NPjBRDDARIsAM9X1GKMOScHno7WPVTZC_kBRrbwya66u6mVCbfJW_PGnxUi4sezmcXJZG8aArCtEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds&utm_source=aw&utm_medium=aff&utm_campaign=httpnmpidigitalcom&awc=7868_1551169601_c52b7a2c1b57d41c62774682cb9dc107 Might be worth asking the store to consider if they don't stock, they were very helpful when I asked why they didn't stock the No Bull range in my father's nearest store.

mancity68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ooh no, the nacho cheese bean burgers! They're jolly good I'm sure, but I did say "the best vegan offering"!

For those interested, the Iceland No Bull burgers are (in my opinion and that of many others, including meat eaters, to whom I've served them) the best vegan offering out there at the moment.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agreed...most babies born into fundamentalist > religious families are indoctrinated from day 1 > and the laws of this country and the UK protect > that in the name of FREEDOM. The only freedom here > is the freedom of the terrorist to kill and maim I'm more concerned about Islamaphobic racist antisemitic bigots who celebrate when someone of differing opinions to themselves dies young of cancer being allowed to teach our children.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe take it to a different thread Chick? > > It?s a volatile subject, likely to lead to serious > thread detailing. To be honest the OP derailed their own thread right from the start - only one sentence is about the actual topic, the rest is moaning about Labour and cycling, which is presumably why Admin lounged it a soon as it was posted.

se22cat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Speaking of the Two Wheeled Peril, it'd be nice if > TFL could spend a few quid and get some Boris > Bikes for ED Are you mad? They'd take up valuable carparking spaces or stop elderly people getting down the pavement or (fill in generic reason why bicycling is second only to smallpox as a threat to health and happiness).

Wow, cyclists and cycling really are becoming the new go-to scapegoat for some people, aren't they?

sdrs Wrote: None of this is being monitored by > the Council who have not yet bothered to get > cameras on down there! There is a camera monitoring the junction, on the lampost on the left as you come from DKH - in fact I managed to stop a moped delivery guy yesterday as I cycled there going through the cycle lane, he was very cross until I pointed out I'd saved him a ?80 fine, then he was very nice!

MarkT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If people drive from the other end of East Dulwich > to catch a train, they must be confident of > finding a space to park near the station. Whether > they are coming from Underhill Road or Canterbury > surely it demonstrates there is not a critical > shortage of parking space near the station. ...until the commuters have got there and taken all the available spaces, and then there are none left during the day for carers, tradesmen, visitors or any person unfortunate enough to have needed to use their vehicle around the time of the commuter influx. This is what happens on our road (near the station) - there might be a few spaces available early in the morning, but from 7.30 onwards those spaces are quickly seized by commuters (who literally circle the streets waiting for a space to come up) and then for the rest of the day until the commuters leave spaces are of the hen's teeth variety. There wouldn't be a critical shortage of parking space without the commuter, but they are there and there is.

char1i3 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The police have a job to do - they solve crimes > and find offenders. They don't look after your > lost and found FFS. If you have lost something > post a note on a forum or gumtree or something. A little unnecessarily aggressive, don't you think? The police only stopped taking in lost property on October 1st last year, so it's perfectly understandable if people didn't know that yet. I suspect many (including me) will regard this as a retrograde step; yes the police have a job solving crimes and catching offenders, but they also have a wider remit to serve the community. Obviously cutbacks have forced them to cut this service, if they were properly funded there's no reason they couldn't have maintained what was a very useful service for the public, run by civilian staff. ETA: Just a memory that's come back from thirty odd years ago when I was in Cambridge: found ?180 in the street in a tight roll wrapped in a rubber band, handed it in to the police station on Parker's Piece, got a nice call a couple of days later saying an old person had been in and claimed it, it was money she'd been saving for ages and had lost on her way to the travel agent to buy a ticket to go and see her daughter in America. Isn't that a community service worth saving?

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rude? Look at some of your own posts and replies > to other comments! In what way does your opinion of what I say mitigate your unjustified rudeness to James?

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some of your statements have a quite a selfish > attitude James! No they don't, that's just plain rude. James has been quite open about the fact that he lives on Champion Hill but is clearly much more interested in the wider issues facing London. Whereas your comments have demonstrated time and again that you think you should be allowed to drive your car wherever and whenever you like, regardless of the consequences for the environment and public health. Sorry, who's got the selfish attitude?

The question surely must be has Begum (for whom I hold no brief and seems a pretty repellent character) committed any crime, let alone treason? Unless she has actually taken up arms herself (for which there seems to be no evidence), how does marrying a criminal make her a criminal? As a British citizen she surely has the right to return to the UK and be asked to account for herself and sanctioned as necessary, however much that may stick in our collective craw. Allowing a politician to declare someone "uncitizen" for holding views, but not committing actions, that most of us find repulsive is not a safe precedent.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If Mueller has a case against Trump it has to be > brought before 5 years due to a statute of > limitations. However if Trump wins again he will > be protected by his office and it will be too late > to bring the case. I have heard it rumoured that the intention was always for him to do his four novelty years before claiming ill health or some such and handing the baton to Pence, but he hadn't anticipated the legal trouble and is playing exactly the game you mention.

Lynne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What, in simple English, are "Visionary > strategies"? Visionary: "thinking about or planning the future with imagination or wisdom." Strategy: "a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim." You're welcome.

Have you tried noise-cancelling headphones? I tried an expensive pair of Sennheisers in a store the other day and they're amazingly effective. They make ones specially designed for sleeping in too. The good ones are pricey but surely well worth it if damaging your quality of life so badly. https://www.nosleeplessnights.com/headphones-for-sleeping/

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just seems a very strange decision. Can only think > it has something to do with the cyclist > lanes/routes around that area i.e. Greendale, > Bessemer Grange Primary School that Southwark seem > intent on putting in place. Isn't it just terrible that the council is trying to encourage people to cycle and stop the pollution that, literally, kills children? Down with this sort of thing! Would you mind having a look at this and thinking about whether your right to drive wherever and whenever you like is worth more than a child's life? Thanks. https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2019/feb/15/london-air-pollution-death-ella-kissi-debrah-podcast

Jesus wept. A picture taken at 11.30AM shows that there is no problem at rush hour? If that's what you believe then it certainly is "pointless to have any conversation" - and yet you do persist, don't you? The closure has happened, it's already evident that the teething problems, which were inevitable until drivers decided on alternatives (or, heaven forfend, realised that they could use alternative modes of transport), are being sorted out and traffic levels are reverting to the status quo ante. "As old residents can confirm Champion Hill has never been a problem." As someone who lived and worked in a flat looking out directly over the Champion Hill/Denmark Hill junction for ten years, I can assure you that there was a problem. You may be an "old resident" - but you don't actually live on Champion Hill, do you? I may not have your seniority as a resident, but having lived in the area since 1997 I have a reasonable take on its problems.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Cripes. Give us a puff on that what you've got > > there. > > > Is it a bot? Could be, very weird if not!

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Following your message I looked at the Southwark > Photo and the attached was the photo Southwark > used. > > Can someone tell me where the problem arises to > close Champion Hill. Taken 2018 after the > consultation As previously noted by me on this thread (as you know because you responded), that photograph was taken at 11.30AM (it's also on the section of Champion Hill where traffic doesn't bottleneck and backup, that occurs on the perpendicular section running towards Denmark Hill). If I go out at 11.30AM tomorrow and take you a picture of Champion Park with very little traffic backup (as there isn't at that time) will you accept it as evidence that there isn't a problem with the new setup?

Cheers I'll check 'em out.