Dogkennelhillbilly

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s interesting how many people claim to be in > favour of reducing car use, reducing pollution and > increasing walking and cycling yet oppose every > effort to actually achieve these things. I'm in favour of reducing car use by other people.

OP - complain to the company whose van it is. Copy Alleyns on the email. Parking on zigzags can be reported to Met Police via their website: https://www.met.police.uk/ro/report/rti/rti-beta-2.1/report-a-road-traffic-incident/ (Describe it as failure to comply with a road sign on the drop down - it is reviewed by MPS staff anyway). They do take action. You can't report "normal" naughty parking to Met Police - that is a council job. I don't know if parking on footpaths is council or police. Have you tried contacting the council parking team? It is not great that they're blocking the pavement outside the school...

trinidad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > if you go over the red large c painted on the road > between operational times, you need to pay. Yes but you also need to pay if you drive within the zone during the operational times. It's not only if you enter or exit the zone.

It hasn't come true, though. Dugin is bonkers and this stuff is just a rambling collection of assertions that give dogmatic cover to the prejudices of siloviki. It's like a cross between Mystic Meg and Sam Huntingdon. It's influential but it's not insightful.

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's interference with a vehicle not damage. It isn't, actually. It's not interference with a vehicle because none of the offences in s9(2) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 were intended. Interference is "tried to nick the car, tried to hotwire it, failed in nicking, succeeded in interfering". https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/47/section/9?view=plain It's criminal damage: "Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may amount to damage within the meaning of the section. The courts have construed the term liberally and included damage that is not permanent such as smearing mud on the walls of a police cell. Where the interference amounts to an impairment of the value or usefulness of the property to the owner, then the necessary damage is established - R v Whiteley [1991] 93 Crim. App. R. 25." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/criminal-damage

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In terms of > criminal damage, it isn't, It is, actually.

The council was out painting the white posts out there (why, I don't know - I thought they were the estate's problem). Maybe the worker mistakenly thought he was repairing a missing section? It shouldn't be there.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it sad or cynical of his motivations > > After all in a few years we're all supposed to be > driving electric or hydrogen vehicles so it's a > short term expensive tool that when petrol/ diesel > is no longer used will need to look at another way > to raise revenue Petrol and diesel cars are going to be sold for another 8 years - if the government doesn't let the timetable slip. The idea that we are shortly going to be in a place where London is running on electric cars only is nuts - and even electric cars cause congestion and noise. They're not a magic bullet. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-takes-historic-step-towards-net-zero-with-end-of-sale-of-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

While I don't agree with interfering with blah blah blah, it is totally absurd that people are driving around South London in Range Rovers and Jeeps.

While of course one is sympathetic to Zelensky - you'd be mad to admit Ukraine to the EU. They're miles off the accession criteria and the corruption and organised crime was ten times worse than even Bulgaria before the war.

Johnny Vaughan, buying a large jug of disinfectant at Farmer's.

No, it's not.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear Billy , you are now showing your true colours > by trying to troll other posters Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Be brave Billy, walk into each bar, ask for the > owner or manager and tell them yourself > I'm sure you'll get a good hiding response Okay, mate 👌

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > As for which bars I personally think are good, > they are already patronised by me. I don't doubt it for a second

Leather Lane is 95% food and 5% fast fashion now.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > CPR Dave Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > That was the last decent bar with live music > on > > > Lordship Lane and it is gone forever. > > > > The street is lined with other, crappy bars. > Tell > > them to be less crap. > > > Be brave Billy, walk into each bar, ask for the > owner or manager and tell them yourself > I'm sure you'll get a good hiding response Okay, internet tough guy. 🙄 There are more than enough bars on Lordship Lane. Instead of moaning at the council when the owner of your favourite one sells the building - vote with your feet to reject the crap ones and support the good ones.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I tell my students off for being lazy > researchers...then I come on here... ...and use figures a decade out of date to "prove" that London traffic peaked in 1999! 🤣

CPR Dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That was the last decent bar with live music on > Lordship Lane and it is gone forever. The street is lined with other, crappy bars. Tell them to be less crap.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks bud, so Uber has dramatically caused an > increase on EDG at school run hours. Ah ok, that > explains it. No, mate, this is another claim you've just invented. I'm just pointing out why using data from 2011 to prove that London traffic peaked in 1999 is valueless. The 2011 data won't reflect any of the big changes that have since then e.g. 10% growth in London traffic, a 10% growth in population, a 29% growth in PHV (Uber) journeys... What exactly did you mean by the below? Will you expand on this or will you just make oblique and unsubstantiated references to some kind of conspiracy within Southwark? > I suppose if you know who and why these particular > planners were employed, it might be a clue to why > such a terrible plan went ahead.

heartblock Wrote: -------------------------------------------------------. > > From ROADS TASK FORCE Thematic Analysis TFL > https://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-02-what- > are-the-main-trends-and-patterns-for-road-traffic- > in-london.pdf That was 11 years ago, bud. Uber was still a small limo service in San Francisco then. The world - and London traffic - has changed since then.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > EDG traffic > has been made worse by successive fiddling around > with Townley junction and then LTNs... Nothing to do with a 10% growth in London traffic between 2010 and 2020, a 10% growth jn population in the same period, a 29% growth in PHV (Uber) journeys...? EDG is not some traffic blackspot surrounded by free-flowing autobahns. Everywhere in London is busy. > I suppose if you know who and why these particular > planners were employed, it might be a clue to why > such a terrible plan went ahead. Be explicit. Don't be coy.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > emojis indicating > that your neighbours suffering from pollution are > lying about their daily situation. I don't think you're lying. I have no idea or interest frankly in you personally, and have never commented on you (apart from here, obviously, as you mentioned it). I think your posts demonstrate why anecdotal evidence (there was traffic this morning/there wasn't this afternoon) and personal observation (I've never noticed a difference between termtime and holiday traffic/there's always been a dramatic difference) are practically useless. Data is the only useful thing. Unfortunately, there are some here that reject the data because it shows the opposite of what they believe and imply there's a council conspiracy to fabricate it.

Moovart Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's trivial to one person may be important to > another and shouldn't it be ok to state a view > seemingly trivial or otherwise without being > patronised? You'd have thought so... 🤣 /forum/read.php?5,2255773,2259390#msg-2259390

Lee Scoresby Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I invite > you to try to identify who 'We Are the Gala' > actually is ... good luck with that. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09327525/persons-with-significant-control Bunch of w⚓s

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ED Grove just awful this morning... ...and absolutely nothing at 4pm... 🤔