Dogkennelhillbilly

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

Do you think having Billy Bragg and William Wragg in the same place would tear a hole in the time/space continuum?

Has OneDulwich decided to endorse the Tory candidates for the council yet?

Marcia123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cars can only overtake by leaving at least 1.5m space. Basically > cars need to leave a width of a bus lane. Or don't > overtake. Min recommend width for a bus lane is 3m ie twice the amount you think. A bus will not fit through a 1.5m gap. Maybe a good illustration of why the Highway Code now needs to be more specific about how much free space should be left when cars overtake cyclists. Interesting to note that some people are huge fans of the Highway Code when it comes to children riding on pavements but absolutely lost their shit when drivers were fined for disobeying bus gate road signs that were perfectly lawful under the, err, Highway Code...

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > march46 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Your regular reminder that it wasn?t ?the vast > > majority of residents? but the vast majority of > > respondents. Two very different things, yet > some > > struggle to tell the difference. > > > > Bic Basher Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Two Dulwich Village Cllrs along with other > > Labour > > > Cllrs in other Dulwich wards supported > pushing > > > through a LTN scheme that wasn't supported by > > the > > > vast majority of residents, yet the attitude > of > > > one particular Village Ward Cllr has stunk > > since > > > the start and now to pass the buck is a > typical > > > politicians response when they're in power. > > It's easy to spot a pro LTN person on EDF. Interesting that you identified someone as pro-LDN because they had their facts straight. 🤔

Good grief, Fox, that sounds awful. Get well soon. KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Foxy - I?m off to dump again tomorrow morn, Your motions might be regular but there's no need to boast

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe the parents of the children attending > Alleyns and JAGS could deliver their children by > cargo bike rather than to Mercedes, Jags, Range > Rovers... ...or even send them on the numerous school buses that the schools run. As an aside - 90% of these cross-town commutes of young children are just a symptom of a wider problem: that state primary schools vary widely in quality. If every neighbourhood state school were high quality and the rich didn't insulate their kids from the problem by chucking money at it, then there would be no need for kids to be shuttled across London so often. Plenty of other European countries seem to make it work.

ed26 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not > saying that Court Road or Dulwich Village should > be the signposted diversion, but a soft reopening > so that locals can go about their business would > be an easy option. Ahahhhahahaaahahahah! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 "oh, gosh, Sebastian, we must reopen the roads because it's an emergency, but only for the right kind of people! Just local Dulwich people making local Dulwich journeys!"

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why doesn't it surprise me that one of the pro-LTN > councillors is passing the buck to Thames Water > instead of proactively re-opening Court Lane for > the duration of the works? Why not reopen the old road through Dulwich Park for that matter?

ed26 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Ringing a bell at pedestrians on a pavement or > shared pavement/cycle path is pretty much like a > car driving down a cycle path and beeping the horn > to tell cyclists to get out of the way. Neither is > acceptable. You have people (not you) moaning about "children ringing bicycle bells" and then you have people moaning "oh, these cyclists just sneak up on you without ringing a bell, why are they so rude?" See for example the comments at the bottom of https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/changes-and-answers/highway-code-for-cyclists

TBF at least Carrie has a flat to go home to, even if it is in Far North East Dulwich (wonder what her login here is?). If Johnson isn't PM, he'll be slung out of No 10 and be homeless.

And did you think that meant the ULEZ alone was going to fix London's air quality problems? Because that's not what he said. (That quote should probably go in a little book of "things Johnson said that are true").

rachp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m not sure which active travel supporters > would seriously hail the example cited as an > example of active travel to be celebrated, it?s a > symptom of the problem they are campaigning > against. The whole scenario has just been imagined for argumentative purposes. It's a straw man. 🤷‍♂️

The best way to avoid getting drawn into distracting investigations into illegality is to not do illegal stuff in the first place. It's not foolproof but it works most of the time. Johnson should try it.

Were you under the impression that ULEZ alone was going to fix London's air quality problems? Because no-one ever said that.

No, it's not. ULEZ was designed to reduce usage of older, dirtier vehicles inside rhe zone - which it has done very successfully, by 37%, at a stroke. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ulez-expansion-tfl-diesel-polluting-sadiq-khan-north-south-circular-b971107.html?itm_source=Internal&itm_channel=homepage_banner&itm_campaign=breaking-news-ticker&itm_content=4 If it had been designed merely to raise revenue, it have been priced cheaper so that more people continued driving in and paid extra. The price wasn't just plucked out of the air. No-one ever said that ULEZ was going to fix all of London's traffic and pollution problems and that we would never need to do anything else.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The tunnel is being financed by a private sector > consortium - they will be paid back over a 25 year > period with that money being generated by > user-charging. Yes - the private sector will get paid no matter how many people use it. The Mayor will be torn in two directions: to reduce traffic for environmental and congestion reasons on one hand, and to induce and maintain traffic to keep paying off the construction and maintenance cost on the other.