Dogkennelhillbilly

rachp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agree, my experience of the food in DV was > underwhelming, and I?ve never been back. Hopefully > they will up their game. I went to Megan's and thought the food was alright (humus and halloumi and bread is what I like, tbf) but JFC it was expensive and not huge portions...

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's the relevance of the "hipster entrepreneurs > who run gender-neutral kids' clothing firm" > headline exactly? It generates interaction, which is what counts. Unfortunately, nasty interaction counts just as much as nice interaction, and is easier to provoke.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As Tory MP for Wimbledon, Stephen Hammond, said > this morning, angry Tory voters didn't just stay > at home and not vote as many people thought they > would, they actually came out and voted against > the Tory party. Or maybe the Tories are just discovering what Labour discoverer a few years ago: that there basically aren't any party-loyal voters any more. The membership of the Tory party is tiny and (iirc) its average age is in the 60s or possibly 70s. The rest of the electorate is up for grabs and every vote needs to be fought for on every front. Sometimes that means you pull off unexpected coups - like smashing the "red wall". And sometimes that means you lose in places that traditionally would be a shoo-in...if Dulwich Village (the wealthy, leafy home of 80s Thatcherite stockbrockerism) doesn't vote Tory - where will?

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets, I have no illusions - four more years of > arrogance and not listening to constituents. Your mistake here is confusing the fact that you didn't get your way with the idea that the councillors aren't listening to constituents. There is a point at which you just have to accept something and move on. Maybe today is that day for you - or maybe not. You have complained that Southwark is a one party state - immediately after a hotly contested multiparty election. Please spend some time in Asmara or Pyongyang before trotting out this tired line of moaning.

Litter in the playpark is 90% a result of careless parents not cleaning up after their kids (and it wouldn't kill anyone to pick up a couple of pieces of other people's rubbish when they see it), and foxes raiding bins overnight.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Comments about how people are looking for things > to be offended at are bizarre in the face of what > he said! > > Tristan?s comments were unacceptable but it?s just > one example of how the anti LTN campaigners > (Conservatives , Dulwich Alliance - though they?re > essentially one and the same as Clive Rates > founded the Dulwich Alliance) make offensive > comments to further divide. Like this from one of > their spokespeople: > > https://i.imgur.com/l9TO8tx.png The Tory/Dulwich Alliance candidate is comparing his own bugbear to the events of 9/11 and Stalinist occupation of Germany. It's completely bonkers. The hysterical bleating by some on here about Southwark being a "one party state" is in a similar vein - rhetoric that's offensive to people who actually suffered under one party states. All of this language is completely disproportionate to what is - as a reminder - a disagreement about whether a couple of junctions in suburban London are open or closed at rush hour. But of course this is happy turf for Johnson's Tory party - if you can incite a culture war by using inflammatory terms like "bumboys" and "letterboxes", you can shift attention away from uncomfortable topics like backhanders from developers, hundreds of millions of pounds spent through the "VIP hotline" for Tory donors, woeful mismanagement of COVID, austerity, Brexit, the affordable housing crisis, the choking of TfL and so much more...

Not sure quite as much of the universe revolves around the East Dulwich Forum as you're suggesting tbh

rachp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can?t believe people > that represent household name companies like > Deliveroo, can behave like this Deliveroo is a pretty "aggressive" company to begin with. The riders are not employees (because then they'd be entitled to a wage - the horror!) so just about anyone can sign up to be exploited if they have a pulse, a phone and a bike. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/24/deliveroo-riders-suffer-setback-in-court-battle-for-right-to-unionise

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why not put them into a charity bin - there is one > at the Plough I believe the "charity" bin at the Plough is operated by a company under the Tvind umbrella. Tvind is...a bit questionable. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36940384

Artemis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I find that rather a distasteful post to make on > the day of the Duke of Edinburgh?s memorial > service. Perhaps many consider that the 95 year > old Queen, who is unwell but has continued to > serve the country at an age when most women of her > age retired 35 years ago, deserves a bit of > respect today I find it rather distasteful that we privilege one 95 year old lady to live in a Palace in the middle of London and wear a magic hat and wave a magic wand studded with stones produced by slaves...but you know, it's all a matter of taste. The current Queen seems a nice enough lady individually and you're right that it's bonkers that she feels obliged to keep pegging along. I'd pay tribute to her service by ensuring that no-one else feels trapped in her position by disestablishing the monarchy.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Looking at Linked In, TH qualified 18 months ago > and is in the private client department of a city > law firm. He?s probably is having a fair amount of > pro bono work given to him, based on my experience > - partners in loads of other departments looking > for free help for charities that they and their > clients are involved in ?as a favour?. Junior > lawyers always end up doing this stuff! > > But yep, he?s probably giving some tax planning > advice to some rich people. And charities by the > look of it. Hardly sinister. Macfarlanes is well-known in the biz for having a "high net worth individual" practice with a significant oligarch slant. That's who needs cross-border tax and estate planning. The firm is not paying associates (?100,000+ a year for newly-qualified 23 yo ffs!) to spend their time doing pro bono work for charities. I'm not criticising the Tory candidate for doing that kind of work (I don't know if what I do makes the world a better place...), but let's not create fairy stories about it. https://www.thelawyer.com/macfarlanes/

The leaflet I got was rather nasty and evidently counterproductive from the reaction above. It's been an odd time in hyperlocal politics- a Tory candidate comes from one of the most vociferous, smallest and youngest residents' groups. OneDulwich opens up as the SE21/SE22 franchise of similar groups across London, but doesn't disclose its funding. 🤔

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Creative solutions > 1. Efficient cheap green local transport (PTAL > Dulwich very poor) > 2. Reduction in council tax for anyone with no car > or one car, increase if two cars > 3. Road tax > 4. Council 'taxi' service for anyone with mobility > issues > 5. Policing of parents parking in no parking zones > to drop off and pick up kids from schools (rife on > ED Grove - idling cars every afternoon) > 6. Open up all roads - stop road parking on at > least one side of all roads and add an elevated > cycling lane > 7. Private Schools insist children must come by PT > or school coach I agree with all of this except 4 (because that's what Dial-A-Ride already is), 2 (because it's too modest - second cars and homes need to be taxed much more heavily), and 6 (because it's self-evidently nuts and would induce demand). I would also add 7) enforcement wardens to be armed with MANPAD style weapons to aid enforcement. The launchers would be loaded with paintball projectiles...for the first three weeks...

scrawford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- didn?t come across any closed roads > like the nonsense in ED. That's because they were all closed off 20 or 30 years ago. People seem to imagine that Amsterdam has always been a walking and cycling paradise. It wasn't. In the 70s it was just as traffic-prone as London. 400 kids a year were being killed. https://www.fastcompany.com/3052699/these-historical-photos-show-how-amsterdam-turned-itself-into-a-bike-riders-paradise

CPR Dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If most particulate pollution is not from road > traffic why do we have the Ultra Low Emission Zone > and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods? If your house had a leaky pipe and a hole in the roof, would you not bother fixing the pipe because the hole would still be there?

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think that what goes on in your loft Bob, is > over most people's heads. Actually quite a good joke.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > even if we had a London wide ULEZ it > wouldn't help as the Mayor said "we are importing > pollution from the continent" ..."alongside a build-up of local emissions", as the article points out. > LOL is he trying to impose his car free empire > across Europe London ain't car free. Wake up and smell the diesel.

There are LEZs in place or on the way all over the shop. https://www.carwow.co.uk/blog/uk-low-emissions-zones#gref

The truck is also usually parked across the pavement 🙄 Freezer trucks are (often) hooked up to electrical power overnight so they don't need to leave engines running if they need to be kept cold.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's why they're installing compulsory water > meters - so they can rely on an income without > having to do much to fix the 25% loss of water > through leaks This is (still) complete bobbins. kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's the annual Goose Green junction leak. It's part of our Dulwich Heritage! 😁

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