Dogkennelhillbilly

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 ...and use figures a decade out of date to "prove" that London traffic peaked in 1999!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... 🤔

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.