Dogkennelhillbilly

sally buying Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > May be wrong but was the ULez first mooted for > central London and not right out through the > burbs. No - ULEZ was always intended to be wider than just central London. The Congestion Charge zone got ULEX a little earlier only because they already had cameras in place. In fact, most London boroughs wanted the ULEZ to be all of London, not just South/North Circular. https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/node/32802 https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Introduction%20of%20ULEZ_a.pdf

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People who live in the congestion zone don't get > charged (I think) and the aims of that are the > same, ie to reduce pollution. > > What is the difference? The congestion charge was designed to reduce congestion. Congestion is 27% lower in the zone than it was before its introduction (despite the rise of Uber and Deliveroo etc). Old timers may remember that before the CC it would literally take hours to drive across town during the day. It was much quicker after the introduction of the CC and has remained okay (if by no means pleasurable - but that's what happens when you live in a city with millions of cars and millions more people in it). https://content.tfl.gov.uk/congestion-charge-factsheet.pdf.pdf

Brideshead Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > deliriously salivating imagining 🤔

cidolphus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The "pollis" are so messed up, they have > spent a huge amount of time investigating and > prosecuting people for "non-crime hate > incidents". They didn't prosecute him and they, err, specifically recorded it as a non-crime. Seems like the cops went and spoke to one of their colleagues about why he was trolling and acting the prick online, and he got Toby Young involved. He was not disciplined and not prosecuted. Considering the separate recent incidents of police officers texting each other racist and misogynist "banter" and pictures of corpses, which has undermined public confidence in the police, that action doesn't seem unreasonable.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has TheCat got your tongue ? Maybe they've got better things to do with their time. 🤷‍♂️

Brideshead Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Stiff > jail sentence in prisons where there are zero > access to any drug (or even cigarettes or coffee > like in the USA) might make them think twice. It may disappoint you to learn that there are actually quite a few burglaries in the US, despite them imprisoning more than 4 times as many people than the UK does. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country Maybe you can afford to keep paying more tax to keep more people in prison every year despite mandatory minimum sentences achieving nothing in which case good for you!

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "It allows the UK to lead by setting higher > standards for example on environmental protection > and biodiversity." > > EU sets a minimum - countries are free to set > higher standards anyway. That's not the whole story - EU member states can't introduce laws that would interfere with intra-EU trade or be anti-competitive. As an obvious example: France wouldn't be permitted to pass a law that only organic food could be grown and sold in France from 2023.

Okay, so not a life sentence but 3 years, not a Labour law but a Tory one, not a manifesto pledge, not for theft generally but just got burglary...and a "cursory Google" would have told you what's happened to this policy. It's, err, being applied, burglars are being sentenced to 3 year minimums, and - - burglaries are still happening. Guess it must not be a magic bullet after all. If you look at repeat burglars, they tend to be either organised pros or addicts and fuckups trying to grab something to sell for their next bottle or wrap. Still harsher sentences might dissuade some of the first category - but there aren't many of them. The second category won't be dissuaded by harsher sentences as long as the addiction and mental illness is overwhelming their common sense. Look at this lot: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/burglars-intruders-homes-businesses-misery-22421909.amp You asked what is going to reduce the level of burglary - the answer isn't something short, sexy and butch. It's boring, slow and unglamorous. You could spend a lifetime trying to work out what's effective - and thankfully some people do - but have a look at the diagrams at the bottom of the first page for a snapshot: https://www.gov.scot/publications/works-reduce-crime-summary-evidence/pages/2/

Brideshead Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You might have done a cursory google before you > declared it false I did. Couldn't find any sight of it. > the issue was very a much a manifesto > policy, Which year?

300 Liberian dollars? That's only ?1.53, what a bargain!

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > (can you not find anything good to say about > climate deniers or anti-vaxxers?) No. That's why I don't bother pretending that I'm waiting to be convinced by their arguments or debating the merits of vaccinations online.

Brideshead Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Remember that early Tony Blair policy? > ?Three strikes you?re out?.3 x theft/ burglary > convictions they get automatic life sentence? No. I don't think it ever existed (possibly because it's quite a stupid and expensive idea).

Is there anything that would convince you Brexit was a good idea?

No chance (unfortunately). Adverse possession is very difficult - and you need 10 years possession to begin with. These days, you might get a couple of feet of garden off your neighbour where the fence was built in the wrong place, but getting something like the Harvester car park just won't happen. Adverse possession was a common law check on landowners leaving land sitting doing around nothing when others could make better use of it. Now it's toothless. Land isn't like other forms of wealth that can be stacked or saved infinitely - there is only a limited amount of it. It's an outrage that the building and land is left to rot as an eyesore, and that thousands of homes in London are left empty by people who have no intention of having anyone live in them...

tasha1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also understand the > ridiculous pressure the drivers are under. They're > not treated great by their employers either Unfortunately most of these drivers don't have employers, as they're supposedly self-employed contractors. This means no sick pay, no paid leave, no H&S care, no pensions -- and no guarantee they will ever make more than minimum wage. Amazon etc can only offer cheap or free fast delivery (and we can only benefit from it) if the drivers are squeezed to nothing. This is how we have the current crazy system where 20 vans from 20 different companies drive down every street every day.

Skating isn't my thing(!) but I admire how you've transformed a piece of land that's being criminally wasted, and put it to good use for kids and the community.

I don't know if there's anyone less qualified to give advice on being a good Christian during COVID than Boris Johnson, but here we are: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/24/covid-booster-jab-boris-johnson-christmas-message

Brideshead Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just trying > to illustrate by real world example what works & > what does NOT work. FACT. Quite true. You only have to read a history book to know there was practically no crime in England when theft was punishable by death or exile. Wait, hold on...

"Complainant states that...the use of the word "nimbyism" was offensive". He was obviously being provocative and rude, but it's stretching it to claim that being called a NIMBY is offensive. It's hardly an epithet or swearword.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > if you beleive things like the long term OBR projections for economic impact, then they say a 4% negative impact to GDP long term (10 years) ...even if you take it as read, then that's what I would consider to be wtithin the margin for error on a long term forecast - so lets call it wash overall from an economic standpoint. That's a very breezy approach!

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why don't you do something positive and submit an > FOI request instead of endlessly complaining on > this forum? There is no need to do that - the raw data and detail on the methodology and analysis is all freely available on the council website already! This whole "we need more data" talking point is a load of old tut. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review?chapter=4

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Re. Liz Truss, it's all about positioning herself > for a leadership challenge, and that will include > pandering to the ERG nutters. Maybe she's been handed a poisoned chalice to stop her becoming a viable challenger...?

j.a. Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > ETA - I will admit, however, to a certain amount > of cautious optimism at the appointment of Truss > to run EU negotiations. Truss is both bonkers AND thick. She is the bottom of the barrel.

ed_pete Wrote: ----------------------------------------------> I'm > not convinced that you will ever have an official, > i.e. council-approved, response or engagement via > a thread on the EDF. This is correct. The EDF "voice" belongs to whichever "enthusiast" has most time to bash away at the keyboard. It is not representative of anyone in particular. Although the forum is remarkably popular (for which the admins should be commended), the vast majority of East Dulwich residents don't post on this forum or thread, and most aren't even aware of the forum's existence. The council engagement is not a referendum. Neither is it restricted to Dulwich residents. In addition to some pissed off locals, who certainly exist in significant numbers, there are also plenty of people who live outside Dulwich who resent not being able to drive through Dulwich on the way to work or to drop their kids off in Dulwich.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sounds like you've got a problem with a > government not good at completing all those sort > of things....;) Agreed. Successful Brexit would have been difficult and time-consuming, and required diplomacy and sophistication that was far beyond the array of wide boys, fantasists, sociopaths and bullshitters that constituted the Brexit bunch. Of course, slightly less than half of us could see that ahead of time. I wonder how Mystic Meg voted?