Dogkennelhillbilly

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.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And in all honesty, who?s taking the Police > Federation seriously here? A union that always sticks up for the very worst of its members no matter what they have done. Interestingly, because it parallels the discussion around Dick above, the Police Federation is currently ploughing members' money into litigation to stop police officers going to disciplinary proceedings over the use of force if they haven't also been convicted of a crime. I think most people on the street would say "if you kill someone, just because you're not guilty of a crime, it doesn't mean you did your job well". https://www.polfed.org/news/latest-news/2022/pfew-granted-leave-to-appeal-to-supreme-court-in-case-of-w80/

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you believe in the Jury system she was absolved > - although not the Met (which I guess some may > find strange) 1) Dick was never charged - the jury could not absolve her of anything when she was not a defendant. The Met was found guilty. What has it done since then to institutionally cleanse itself? And after Ian Tomlinson's death? 2) I can't find the judgement to read what the point of what the jury was trying to say. Was it "she did nothing wrong?" or was it "the Met shouldn't scapegoat 3) there's a world of difference between "she shouldn't face legal liability" and "she should get promoted to the top police job in the country"!

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's a core of people who won't be satisfied > unless tfl bring back the original routemaster > buses from the 60s. > > Overall a positive move for London and curious to > know where they are recharged if the run low near > the end of the route. There are some people that will moan about any public transport unless it involves them being lifted off their couch and directly into a litter carried by circus strongmen directly to their destination. Apparently the buses have a range of "up to" 160 miles. Even if it were only 80 miles (and presumably that's what the testing is for), that would still be 10 times back and forth between Kings Cross and Honor Oak. https://www.alexander-dennis.com/products/double-deck-buses-2-axle/byd-adl-enviro400ev/

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure if you dug hard enough into any large > organisation, no matter how well they are at > stamping out racism, misogyny, homophobia, and > even 'institutional corruption' that you will > still find individuals who secretly or amongst > friends foster those ideas. Yeah but if Kwik-Fit is institutionally racist it's unlikely to result in anyone being shot in the head. Not the same at the Met. Dick was in charge of the operation in which Jean Charles de Menezes was killed at Stockwell tube station, and about which the Met repeatedly lied. (Many of the supposed details that people "remember", like that he was wearing a heavy jacket or leapt the turnstile, were lies made up by the Met). She should have been fired - instead she got the top job. Spartacus Wrote: > Sad to see a leader respected by rank and file > being ousted by someone who's repeatedly failed to > deal with youth knife crime in the capital. Odd to see the most senior police officer not being blamed for failure to prevent and solve crime!

The Savile thing is just another example of Johnson trying to say something outrageous and Google search exploding in an attempt to distract attention from his own misconduct. The fact that he's going as far as to give fuel to conspiracy theories (as opposed to just nonsense about making model buses for fun) shows how deep in trouble he thinks he is. Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Keano has a > long long history (along with uncle) of not just > being "right wing" but outright wrong and > offensive. If people lose patience and call him on > it that doesn't mean we drop the "mask of > tolerance" Yeah but you also don't get to play the civility card when you've just called someone a sock-wanker.

Because ASBOs haven't existed for a decade. JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are these the same grifter mob that used to roam > westminster. > > Why are they not banned from the area. Sir, those "grifters" are properly addressed as "Mr and Mrs Johnson".

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Yep, the Dulwich Onesies are so genuinely > concerned about the negative impact of too many > cars, that they campaign not for a further > extension of the ULEZ, or the removal of on-street > parking, or for any of a myriad of other potential > interventions which would help, but focus solely > on increasing through traffic on side streets. OneDulwich claims to want to reduce traffic and air pollution but it opposed any and all traffic management in the consultation. OneDulwich claims to be terribly concerned about disabled people's mobility and then its leader becomes a candidate for the Tory party responsible for a decade of austerity, fitness to work checks by Atos, an explosion of food banks? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At the moment there is a presumption that if a > cyclist and a car/vehicle are involved in an > accident it it the fault of the driver of the > vehicle. This isn't true. > With the revised Highway Code there ought to be > the ability for drivers to claim off cyclists? > insurance. Drivers can already sue cyclists, pedestrians, wheelchair users, mobility carriage riders and anyone else they think has caused them damage.

What an awful, awful story.

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've lived in and around the area for decades yet > never seen or heard of antisocial behaviour in the > park. Of course this doesn't mean it doesn't > happen I was robbed at knifepoint in the park in about 1991. A man was stabbed in an unprovoked attack and put in a coma in 2017, which was quite widely reported. I can't be bothered to do the research but I'm sure there would be a reasonable amount of other antisocial activity of varying seriousness in the 26 years in between. The "the old days were better" line is nonsense. Striking that 1995 was chosen as rhe year the good old days ended- that's actually the year that violent crime peaked in this country! It shot up between 1981 and 1995, and has dropped off massively since then. It's remarkable that those who moan about "snowflakes" are often those who are most sensitive themselves. In this case, we have someone suggesting there are more important things in life to worry about than rude remarks...and yet they themselves started multiple threads on this forum and contacted the council multiple times because a rude librarian hurt their feefees! 🤣 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/thenatureofviolentcrimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020#long-term-trends-in-violent-crime https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/20/dulwich-park-attacker-convicted-at-inner-london-crown-court

trinidad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello all, did anyone receive a personal visit > from Labour councilors last month? Funny it is > council elections in May, coincidental? You're surprised that there is door to door campaigning in advance of an election? Hold on to your wig because the Tories, Lib Dems and maybe even the Greens will be knocking soon enough.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can you imagine Lordship Lane or > Camberwell Road/Green being allowed to look like > Rye Lane, with the litter, shop waste and > vandalism? I suppose it is ok, because poor people > don't need to be fussed... I agree that Rye Lane is a tip (sometimes literally). Camberwell Green/Road is also mucky, crimey and fairly depressing, and it's not any salubrious, I think...

Tbf a Trojan Horse probably counts as active travel so it's nice to see them get in the swing of things