Dogkennelhillbilly

Jesus 😳

Peckhamnearbe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Burgeon or John McDonnell are on > that side of politics too but no, it?s the young > Asian woman who is picked on - why? Because Burgon's selection process was in 2015 and McDonnell's was in the Jurassic era?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Consider it the privatisation of our street space! > ;-) If you're upset about the privatisation of street space caused by a few scooter parking bays, you're gonna be appalled when you realise how much street space has been "privatised" to store private cars.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DKHB - in your response to 4 you know there was a > tender and procurement process to select the 3 > companies for the trials don't you - and that the > 3 winning companies have about $1.5bn of VC money > behind them globally to win the deployment > goldrush? There's big money at stake here and TFL > and the councils know this and use it for > leverage.... So just to be clear: you're NOT now saying that the costs of the Council and TfL were paid for by the rental companies?

sand12 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >here. I?ve > brought up the filth, graffiti on bus > shelters/boards Bus shelters are a TfL thing, not a council thing. Every bus stop should have a sticker telling you the number to call if it's vandalised. There isn't an email address. When I've called about graffiti in the past, it's been fixed in 1-2 days.

hammerman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > hammerman Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Harriet is > > > leaving in the wake of so many Southwark > Labour > > > decisions made about the closing of local > > > roads/bicycle lanes being made etc. > > > > Bit of a ahoehorn there. > Don't you mean shoehorn? Mo, nate, I mean ahoehorn.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He hates sacking people > ...which is odd for someone who's sacked off so many wives and children.

There's nothing Labour loves more than bickering with itself.

#1) waste disposal is an expensive business. If the waste producer doesn't pay for it, all taxpayers will. There's no easy answer. #2) never heard of anyone anywhere actually getting fined for letting their dogs shit on the street (a shame, as I would suppose an authoritarian response). There will never be enough street sweepers to pick up all the dickheads...but TBF better dustbins and better enforcement of dumping would stop foxes spreading stuff anywhere. #3) planning is very tough. #4) between austerity and COVID, it's not easy. However - a lot of people really prefer to communicate face to face or at least by email, not through apps and forms. When emails or forms are sent, I have a 50/50 experience of whether they're responded to immediately or not replied to at all...

Daily circulation of 296,000. Twice as many as Guardian and FT, about a quarter of the Daily Mail. Obviously circulation is not the same as sales but people are reading it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation

hammerman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Harriet is > leaving in the wake of so many Southwark Labour > decisions made about the closing of local > roads/bicycle lanes being made etc. Bit of a ahoehorn there. She's retiring because she's 71, not because of some local dispute over road closures (which are a council matter and not a Parliamentary one anyway). Harman has a 75% share of the vote in this constituency, having grown it from 50% when she was first elected. In fact Lab has had 50% share continuously since 1936 and its one if the 20 safest Lab seats. Harman was not worried about losing her seat.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what I find amazing is that TFL and > the council roll out these grand programmes (often > funded by the companies who are desperately trying > to get a foothold in the market and will pay huge > amounts to do a land grab) 1) Southwark is not "rolling out" any "grand programmes". It is a trial of fixed duration. 2) TfL didn't roll anything out and didn't want the trial. It was the (central government) Dept for Transport introduced emergency legislation to allow for the trials across the UK. A bunch of London councils said they wanted to run trials. Only then did TfL agree to play a coordination role so that at least the trials in different parts of London would be run according to the same rules and produce comparable data sets. If you actually read the TfL risk assessment, it says ?as might be expected from the introduction of a new form of motorised transport, a degree of residual risk in relation to the trial will remain even after a wide range of mitigations have been applied (which include impacts on individuals with protected characteristics and an expected increase in collisions and injuries). Nevertheless, those risks will be significantly lower than if this proposal were not to be implemented and if TfL were to play a lesser role in London with the London boroughs operating their own, fragmented, series of trials." 3) the purpose of the London trials is to give feedback to central government on whether to allow private and rental e-scooters generally. 4) what is the source of your information that the costs of TfL and the Council have been paid for by the operators? There's a wealth of detailed information and statistics on the TfL website for anyone that's (genuinely) interested in understanding what the trial involves. https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/electric-scooter-rental-trial

One is obsessed with newspapers. The other is obsessed with tits. Their shared passion? Page 3 of the Sun.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe any motorised vehicle should require a > licence and insurance to operate. The fact you can > go and jump on one of these things with no > training is ludicrous Riders in the trial need to have a driving licence (full or provisional) before hiring a scooter and riding on the road. Riders not in the trial who have bought their own escooter and are riding on the road are breaking the law - just like someone who buys a car without a licence and rides it. The problem with escooters is the small wheel size - one small lip on the road surface or hole and you're toast. And I say that as someone that's not totally opposed to them...yet.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > But if you want you a genuine Brexit angle..here > it is...this is a great example of an industry > being forced to modernise/invest in technology to > improve productivity, becuase there is no longer > access to limitless cheap labour to drive the old > gritters. You and I don't know what actually drove this particular company's investment at all. It certainly happened after Brexit (and more accurately the Brexit-COVID combination that drove up driver wages), but beware of the pirates/global warming fallacy. It is generally true that high labour costs drive investment in labour-saving technology, sure. As it happens, from Monday next week I myself will be bringing onstream a bot to automatically post tedious Brexit-related content on my behalf...

Ehh - that's just the normal tenuous link you need to get your press release into the paper. Econ's PR team has done well. The good news is there's never been a better time to buy your own Union Jack-emblazoned gritter truck and run your own sovereign gritting company! https://rickardstrucks.co.uk/econ-gritter/

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Brave politicians would try to find a resolution > that appeases everyone There is no compromise that will ever appease the rejectionist lobby that wants the status quo ante at any cost. They do not see the problem and are not willing to accept any restraint on their desire to drive anywhere at any time. https://thumb.spokesman.com/D1ims2fi_wtetprNKQ2ZPakBmMU=/2500x1405/smart/media.spokesman.com/photos/2021/05/20/60a6741a3616b.hires.jpg If the Southwark Labour Party is being Marxist on LTNs (something that would come as some surprise both to Labour's dwindling cohort of actual Marxists and the Tories that sponsored LTNs), then OneDulwich is definitely playing the Rev Ian Paisley rejectionist role: "Dulwich Village says NO!" https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/2/8/1328661492265/The-Rev-Ian-Paisley-007.jpg

Do you buy a lot of mutton and goat?

Brideshead Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This > shocked me as I was very polite. ... > Maybe it?s an ocd or autism issue with this simple > task, in which case I guess we need to be > understanding. 🤔 You complained to the council last Tuesday. Yes, it would have been nice if it were fixed by now, but it's hardly a matter of life or death.

Brideshead Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have tried very hard to keep the details of the > issue objective without personal attacks or > insults. Not sure you have, hun To be blunt: it sounds like you're entitled to complain about the papers not being in. The way you're going about it makes you look petty and rude, is potentially hurtful for a real live person, and isn't going to result in the papers showing up any quicker. On the other hand, if you're trolling - this is top notch bait and I was sucked right in. 9/10, would fall for it again.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- throw ones hand in the > air and lament that you haven't been told exactly > how to act in every situation... Something that precisely no-one has done.

Yeah I've Googled for like half an hour now, I reckon that's a good substitute for having advice from experts that actually know what they're on about

You invited comments so my comment is this: I think you can complain more effectively about the lack of newspapers if you a) email the library team at Town Hall (or whatever they're called) about it instead of posting here, and b) if you make your complaints less needlessly personal and insulting. You wouldn't have thought it would be a difficult problem to fix but perhaps there is some kind of complexity that makes it much more complicated than it seems.

oimissus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > that's how well the citizens of south east London take to being asked to show their ticket...I would love to use buses more, they are a truly > democratic mode of transport. Odd thing to say for someone who doesn't really seem to like the demos very much! 🤣 > But unless those > things get sorted, and let's face it, the latter > has only got worse over the years, I'll stick to > other ways of getting about including, yes, my > car. Give over. Buses are better than ever: quieter, cleaner, operating through the night, air conditioner (more frequently), trackable to the minute through mobile apps... As the person above said... > There will always be people who will not want to move away from a car, no matter what

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark has one of the lowest rates of car > ownership anywhere in the country. Most households > don't have a car. It's about 0.4 cars per house, > maybe less now. > > That is a borough wide figure - and the > comparatively populous north of the borough is > well supplied with bus, tube and rail routes. The > south of the borough, and particularly the deep > south (here) is vey much less well supplied, and I > believe car ownership in our neck of the woods is > much closer to e.g. the Bromley figures - not > surprisingly as our exposure to public transport > provision is similar. If you look at the link, it breaks down car ownership by postcode and by ward. The most car-heavy ward is also I'd guess the richest in Southwark - Village Ward. But even then it's only 0.87 cars per household (or maybe more usefully, 9 cars for every 10 houses). Village Ward and "deep south" Southwark (lol) are not poorly served by public transport.