Dogkennelhillbilly

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Daring to question or disagree is now 'promoting > anti-southwark hysteria'. Goodness! No, making up rubbish about the council introducing LTNs in order to creat bars along Melbourne Grove is anti-Southwark hysteria. Hope that helps hun x

I think it's a bit of a swizz that TfL charges you to sign up for Autopay. If it were free, OP could have just signed up for that, and if they got pinged, they wouldn't have to worry about getting fined.

ed26 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If it really must be another > market, it needs to be a proper old-fashioned > working market - fruit & veg, meat, fish, > provisions, etc., sold at competitive prices There's insufficient demand in East Dulwich for that. That's why no-one does it at North Cross Road any more. It's literally market economics. Ironically we do have an old-fashioned grocer on Lordship Lane (as well as two good modern greengrocers) and people are moaning about it already.

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, you're not predicting, you are rumour > spreading to stir up further feeling against > Southwark Council, as do many of your posts. If > you have any evidence that this is being proposed > please supply proof They have no proof, of course. It's literally conspiracy theory. It's not even internally consistent: apparently the LTNs are created by an alliance of Spartist cyclist civil servants and ?berwealthy car-driving NIMBYs that want to turn their streets into gated communities and then set up late night bars on them??? It is complete cobblers.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe this is what the Taliban > did in Afghanistan. What the Taliban did was much worse than tell promoters "if you're just going to spread litter and noise and block off the park, you can fuck off and find a private landlord for your gig". However, if you really think that not being able to have a 3 day rave in a public park is comparable to Taleban atrocities in Afghanistan - maybe it's a bit of perspective that's in order.

ED_moots Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'll > try to forget you clamouring for your own LTN on > CPR. oooooOOOOOooooohhhh! 👜👜👜

Bit of a waste of the EDF this discussion tho? if a missing Daily Mirror is the worst someone encounters in a South London library in 2022, then it?s passed me by that we have achieved utopia. 🤪 Maybe I?ve missed something about this post! /forum/read.php?5,2255773,2262584#msg-2262584

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi DKH, > > > Of course, any large scale event will bring some > noise, disruption and litter with it. That is for > each individual to weigh up whether or not they > think the enjoyment the event brings to x1000s of > folk is worth it or not. TBH mate instead of saying "well, it's okay if piss and litter get spread around by punters at a for-profit event so long as enough people enjoy it", I'd rather have the for-profit organisers pay enough that the council can clean up the crap quickly from the park and surrounding streets and still make a profit. If the council isn't doing that, then the promoters should piss off and find a suitable privately-owned venue. That's especially true when the people that bear the downsides of the event aren't the same people that get to enjoy it. https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/uvicmicroeconomics/chapter/5-1-externalities/

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Would it not be more appropriate to contact Thames > Water? Usually yes: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/flood-risk-management/reporting-flooding-from-public-sewers-pipes-and-drains

CPR Dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the residents of Malbourne Grove don't want > this market then I will vote in favour of it. A consultation is not a vote.

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Every post box used to display the various times > of collections during the day. This was banned by > the Brussels Commissars as ?unfair > competition? Was it? Can't find anything about that online - maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. Royal Mail still posts very generalised last collection times on its website.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the fatal shot that killed Justice, Freedom > and Knowledge (JFK) for drivers in Southwark ... Interesting insight into who you're really worried about!

Can you hear the play park from 2 streets away? Does the Friends of Peckham Rye annual fete create a lot of litter? 🤣🤣🤣 Come off it, mate. I can see the point if the rental income (after the cost of wear and tear, clear up in surrounding streets, and hosing down the piss of x thousand twonked clubbers) for the council is significant. Is it? There was a suggestion that Lambeth makes peanuts out of the Brockwell Park festivals.

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Then fill in question 8 on any other comments and > say you don't want the market. The form seems > acceptable to me. If there is no demand businesses > will not flock to join. I don't see this as a > conspiracy. This thread is a great example of Southwark Derangement Syndrome in action: Southwark is apparently simultaneously proposing the market as a response to the LTN but also Southwark planned the LTN in order to get the market in! The existence of the consultation on the market is proof that Southwark doesn't want to consult on the market! I'm looking forward to learning how Southwark and LTNs were also responsible for Storm Eunice, kidnapping Shergar and assassinating JFK.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Before the x5 LTNs forcing traffic to be > funnelled down my high density residential school > road, I never noticed the traffic being that > different between term time and school holidays. > Of course I will be told that I'm 'dreaming' this > or it's my 'perception'... Traffic in London has always been markedly different between term time and holiday time. This article is in the context of COVID but shows radical variations in congestion across London depending on termtime or not: https://bigworldtale.com/world-news/londons-roads-are-quietest-for-five-months-during-tuesday-term-time/ In Dulwich the distinction is actually between PRIVATE school term time and holiday time: there are weeks when private schools are out and state schools are in, and in those weeks there is markedly less traffic due to fewer kids, more walking/cycling, less car commuting, less coaches. I don't have data to substantiate that, it's just my anecdotal observation.

Soylent Green Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They are not private events as > everyone can pay to attend Ha ha ha ha! 😂 Brilliant satire!

Actually come to think of it I think the Sainsbury's (DKH and Dulwich Library) do as well - but better to buy from the independent newsagent opposite the Library if you can...

macutd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > well let's see Already seen, mate.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > quite clearly the enforcement of usage meters > - when the 'shortfall' could be met by actually > mending leaks - is all about excusing Thames Water > from effective repair. ... > If you believe this is being done for any better > reason than it benefits Thames Water and its > owners then I'm afraid you are startlingly na?ve. 1) The Environment Agency first called for meters to be installed in London 15 years ago http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6314091.stm 2) If you look at the OFWAT document from a decade ago, you will see that even then 40%+ of consumers had a meter fitted. Today it will be even higher. Despite that, Thames Water and all the other water companies still have leak fixing targets imposed on them by OFWAT, and if they don't hit them, they get penalised. It is simply untrue that consumers getting meters means Thames Water won't have to fix leaks any more. It is also untrue that meters are something new - although perhaps they are new to you.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thames Water plan to use price rationing (which > will hit the poorest hardest...)... to > relieve them from the expense of mending their own > leaky pipes... They > have been given a get out of jail free card almost > in perpetuity - with the ability to blame the > customer for the effects of their own lack of > diligence...If HMG required them to mend even 50% of the > leaks before they were allowed to pay another > dividend... > things would be different, perhaps. This is conspiracy theory-tinged twaddle. Please kindly inform yourself about how the water industry is regulated in this country. Metering consumer usage doesn't mean that Thames Water doesn't have to fix leaks. It is not a get out of jail free card. The government DOES limit how much Thames Water can pay in dividends if it fails to hit leak fixing targets - example below. Low income consumers are among the smallest consumers of water - they don't have huge lawns to water - and there are social tariffs targeted to them. https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/pn-22-18-thames-waters-failure-tackle-leakage-results-65m-package-customers/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/17497482/water-bills-price-cap/

cidolphus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's OK until you get a dry summer. > Then they lobby for a hose ban!" The only hosepipe bans in London in the last thirty years were in 1992, 2006, and 2012. Am I forgetting any? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4799446.stm https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/water-postcode-lottery

If you're that upset about water meters, I suggest you read this publication from 9 years ago that will answer basic questions: https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/prs_lft_101117meters.pdf If you're not running a salmon farm in the back garden, you probably don't have much to worry about.

DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'The reduction in the timed access is a clear > demonstration that the measures have not worked as > originally hyped' > > Isn't it more like a clear demonstration that the > Council has listened to concerns from residents > voiced during the consultation, and made some > sensible adjustments? That's exactly right, but the hardcore on here are chucking an epic tantrum because they didn't get things exactly their way. Compromise or fixing congestion and pollution isn't what they're interested in. Anything less than total removal of all aspects of the LTN is unacceptable to them, regardless of the data, the facts, or the opinions of anyone else. OneDulwich was categorically against all new traffic measures during the consultation, and it hasn't changed its mind since.

A waste of the EDF? 🤣 It was kind enough to host your multiple threads about you not liking someone's demeanour in a library! /forum/read.php?5,2248920,2249155#msg-2249155 Of course, if someone being rude to you is the worst someone encounters in a South London library in 2022, then it?s passed me by that we have achieved utopia. 🤪

Penguin68 Wrote: --------------------------------------------- now we > have a foreign owned monopoly... able to charge effectively what it wants. 1) OFWAT regulates water prices in this country. Thames Water can't charge what it wants. 2) it's not like HBOS/Virgin/Capita would treat you any better. If you like your capitalism wrapped in a St George's Cross and wearing a bowler hat, that's up up you.