Dogkennelhillbilly

CPR Dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Will One Dulwich stand on a promise of removing > the LTNs and starting again with a scheme that > works? I would vote for them if they did. 1) that would be great - they'd have to be more transparent about their funding for a start. 2) I suppose if your sole focus was whether or not you could drive down a specific street any time you want, and you had zero interest in education, social care, planning, housing, parks, waste management or anything else local government does, then yes, voting for a single issue candidate would be a great idea. 3) have any of those who think Southwark is an autocratic regime or single party state ever actually spent much time in a genuine authoritarian regime? Or do they really think their plight is comparable to the average Uyghur or Aleppo resident? We're not talking torture camps or barrel bombs here, we're talking about whether some roads in suburban London are open or closed to cars.

Is it big enough inside for an Ivy? It's quite a demanding franchise. There's not much room for deliveries etc...but what do I know.

You have to watch out for "charity" bins operated by the fraud-cult TVIND. I'd rather give clothes free to private dealers than that lot. http://www.tvindalert.org.uk/how-does-tvinds-used-clothes-money-go-round-work/

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The only eventual remedy may be either judicial > review You don't get judicial review of elected officials' decisions just because you think they're crap. You need to evidence some illegality, a decision that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could ever make it etc. That is (deliberately) a high bar. https://www.ashtonslegal.co.uk/insights/business-news/a-quick-guide-to-judicial-review-planning-claims/ But feel free to invest your time and money in discovering that for yourself. I'd be happy to recommend some expensive barristers.

I don't know about East Dulwich but it's all happening in West Dulwich: - La Gastronomia is temporarily closed, apparently for renovations - at least they're moving stuff around inside. Hopefully the back garden and greenhouse will have a spruce up, as it could be a really nice little space - Sheriff Coffee inside West Dulwich Station has reopened (or just rebounded?) as Colibri. Didn't get a chance to see whether the coffee has improved, but the pastries look the same as always - the new grocer/organic/eco supplies store has opened up at 10 Croxted Rd. I think it's called hummingbird or something. It looks very nice inside. - Peace & Riot has (hopefully temporarily) closed due to COVID restrictions.

If you get pinged by six cameras in one day, do they tell you the locations and times of all the instances on which you were pinged or just one per day?

micromacromonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What they really SHOULD do is to change the MOT so > that if there is any blue smoke (well, some low > level anyhow) then you automatically fail. Too > many vehicles that are probably 'ULEZ compliant' > that are disgustingly dirty. Emissions of the individual vehicle are tested at MOT and prolonged or dense blue smoke is already a major fail. https://www.motester.co.uk/mot-test-of-exhaust-system-and-emissions/amp/

You can?t compare the UK & Afghanistan as though they were identical in such a crude way. Like comparing apples & oranges.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > malumbu's gone all Vichy You're comparing leaving the EU (a bad but democratic decision) to fronting a genocidal regime. You need to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > focus your energies on how you can improve > things for society, campaigning, getting involved > in local or national politics, volunteering and > the like. TBH mate moaning on the EDF doesn't take up a lot of my bandwidth (I literally wrote my last post on the bog) and you shouldn't assume I'm not already doing some of that stuff.

Brideshead Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Crime rates massively affected > by all sorts of variable including age > demographics > In Afghanistan despite starvation theft > was eradicated in 24 hours by threat of > amputation. 🤔

Neither a money generation scheme nor surefire, as revenue has been lower than expected because the drop in highly polluting cars has been vwn higher than expected - about 30% down overnight. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ulez-expansion-tfl-diesel-polluting-sadiq-khan-north-south-circular-b971107.html Not sure how you come to the conclusion that people weren't considered. There were multiple, long and detailed consultations and impact assessments - see the links above. How much would you charge?

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >, the general > populace is slowly realising that this govt, under > Johnson, is bereft of basically most positive > qualities one would hope for in a government. UK population: 68.4m Registered voters: 47m 2019 turnout: 67.5% Actual voters in 2019: 31.8m Conservative voters in 2019: 14m Johnson approval rating among Tory voters in 2019: 57% Johnson approval rating among Tory voters in 2021: 47% Not sure Brexit was a price worth paying to show a small member of Johnson supporters that he's useless tbh

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).