Dogkennelhillbilly

25 October 2021 is the first day. https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-expansion

Good thing it's in the Lounge forum, then - "The place to relax and chat about anything". Course if no-one's interested, the thread will fade. Of course, some people might be interested in a live music venue that'd be a short bus journey away from East Dulwich. others might see an interesting community solution to the problem of a once-loved landmark pub that's been sunk by its unimpressive landlord- you know, like what has happened to the old Harvester in East Dulwich.

The butchering of the state's ability to administer education is a feature of academies, not a bug.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I tripped over in the street today. Bloody brexit. Expect to be tripping over many more unfixed pavement defects and stepping over more potholes - there's a 25 year peak in demand for labour in the construction sector but half of London's EU labourers have left and replacements can't just jump on a plane or coach to work here. The materials shortage isn't only a UK problem to be fair - but it's aggravated by Brexit. https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/brexit/uk-construction-loses-a-quarter-of-its-eu-born-workforce-22-01-2021/

Not an expert so correct me if I'm wrong but: Central government passed a developer-friendly planning law that says commercial property can automatically be converted to residential UNLESS the council say otherwise. This is the council saying otherwise, as it has done for commercial strips elsewhere in the Borough. Something will eventually be done with the property and the skatepark will have to go or at least move. However, on past (scandalous) performance it could be another 20 years so hopefully the skaters aren't too downcast. It's a very busy junction so I don't know if it's a great place for housing. It might be that in 10 years (by the time something is down) traffic will be noticeably cleaner and quieter because of more electric cars but even so... It's an outrage that such a big piece of land in one of the most expensive cities in the world has been left vacant and idle for so long. The Estate should be ashamed.

The British Red Cross has a (free) app that will teach you how to first aid AND it has an emergency section that will tell you exactly what to do in simple language if someone is bleeding, choking, having a heart attack etc. Download it and have a flick through today so you're not fumbling when you need it tomorrow! :)

I'm ancient and there was plenty of late night boozing and clubbing when I was a student. Maybe it matters more where you went than when you went? Anyway, the younger generation booze less and shag less and do drugs less than any previous generation. They also have worse mental health, are in greater debt, and have worse chances of ever owning a house or having a permanent job. The stereotype of students being a bunch of workshy dissolute deadbeats has never been less true. (It was definitely true in my case though).

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I doubt whether few of > the current student generation would get up at 5 > to earn minimum wage. I doubt whether many of any generation are willing to get up at 5am. A lot of the older generations still in work won't show up before 9am for far more than minimum wage. Lazy white collar sods.

Don't think Johnson really cares unless Andrew starts to make more donations than the Tory pary base of Russian oligarchs and dodgy property developers. Private Eye reckons that Brenda (QE2) can't stand Johnson.

Bonfire night is literally a performance. @legalalien: I have no idea of numbers but they are around - quite a few people have firewood stacked in their doorways etc. There's a geezer on our street that has one and when he lights it the whole street smells of smoke. I have no idea if being within smelling distance of it also means being within coughing distance of it if you has asthma, COVID etc

Looks like a section of dual exhaust was dumped at the corner of Frank Dixon Way and College Rd today. I don't think it's just fly tipping as the section was cut out instead of being unbolt as a whole unit...

Funny you should say that: "?Eco? wood stoves emit 750 times more pollution than an HGV, study shows" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/09/eco-wood-stoves-emit-pollution-hgv-ecodesign

Good on you, matil

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But the UK's reliance on Nat gas peak load > style > > generation (as a result of closure of base load > > and replacement with intermittent renewable > > capacity) means that the whole system is > > vulnerable to Nat gas price rises. The cost of > Nat > > gas electricity generation is also far more > > sensitive to the price of gas, than coal fired > > generation is to the cost of coal, or nuclear > to > > the cost of U308. So the increases in the cost > of > > coal and uranium we've seen recently would not > > flow through to the cost of generation in the > same > > way as they have for Nat gas...we have low > > proportion of coal or nuclear baseload, which > > would not have seen the same rise in cost of > > generation as we have seen with Nat gas, > despite > > the increase in cost of those generation fuels. > > What you're ignoring is the cross-elasticity of > global demand between coal and gas (even when it's > dampened in the UK because there are so few coal > fired power plants). Having a whole bunch of coal > fired power plants lying around wouldn't have > meant the UK could switch from gas to coal in > response to gas getting more expensive - because > everyone else in the world will have had the same > idea, driving up the cost of coal. And that is > exactly what has happened in reality, with the > price of coal going up 300% in the past year. > > Your argument doesn't work in theory and doesn't > work in practice. > > https://www.ft.com/content/b696720f-fed4-4f4b-acbd > -302f8935c73e > https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal Coal now up 400% year on year "due to spike in natural gas prices" while gas is up 220%ish year-on-year. Does our resident soi-disant "bit of a dick" banker still reckon domestic electricity price rises are because the UK has reduced coal-fired generation capacity? https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/natural-gas

How very dare you question the accuracy of my intel

Respected broadcast journalist Gordon Honeycombe meandering down Lordship Lane.

IainJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I cannot believe that this is to be put forward as > a serious option Permanent closure hasn't been put forward as a serious option. The council has not proposed permanent closure. You are assuming or imagining that Southwark will propose permanent closure. There is no evidence for that. In fact, the council's last move (to reopen Rye Lane to buses and taxis) indicates the exact opposite. The scenario with which you began the thread is entirely invented by you. I will not waste your time nor mine by discussing this further. #SouthwarkDerangementSyndrome

Very sorry to hear this. A person that's going equipped with an angle grinder may well be going equipped with a knife. I don't blame anyone for not trying to wrestle the scumbag to the ground.

It is completely correct that there will be consultations in 6 and 18 months. It is completely fictitious that there will be "yet more consultations after 6 and 18 months on permanent closure" and "the Council is about to consult on a serious proposal to deny these and all other users direct access to bus services permanently". This whole thread is predicated on a suggestion that is not true: that Southwark is proposing to permanently close Rye Lane.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've seen some of these poorly paid staff manage > the queues. They have a better work ethic than I do, then! And TBF they've been marshaling queues, not deciding who ought to have fuel and who ought not...

oimissus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That Southwark News article doesn?t back up what > your claiming, dogkennelhillbilly. The article > states quite clearly that there will be further > consultations after 6 and 18 months, Yes - that's totally correct. That's completely different from "the Council is consulting on total closure" and "the Council is proposing to totally close Rye Lane again", which is what OP claims.

This is West Dulwich, but I don't care, I'm a born anarchist: old Cafe Rouge site on Park Hall Rd is being renovated as Walter's, described as a "Neighbourhood restaurant from the team behind The Oystermen", which in turn looks like a Covent Garden seafood bar. That's encouraging that it's not just another coffee shop, so fingers crossed. www.waltersdulwich.co.uk https://oystermen.co.uk/

oimissus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I find it baffling. How can any council be against > public transport? It's not against public transport. Rye Lane will reopen to buses (and taxis) shortly. Rye Lane was only pedestrianised because you couldn't have social distancing on the pavements AND run vehicles down the road. The first post in this thread contains the completely fictitious claims that there will be "yet more consultations after 6 and 18 months on permanent closure" and "the Council is about to consult on a serious proposal to deny these and all other users direct access to bus services permanently". It's just not true. The council is not proposing to close Rye Lane to buses permanently. https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/mixed-reactions-as-rye-lane-is-reopens-to-buses-and-taxis/

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it is not beyond the wit of filling > stations to allow some to jump the queue. If I'm making less than a living wage in a petrol station, there's fuck all chance I'm going to wade into a queue of angry members of the public and start interrogating them about whether they deserve fuel or not. This'll all be over in a few days anyway.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sally Eva Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > BrandNewGuy Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Again with my mantra of 'follow the money', > > the > > > > council were bunged central government cash > > to > > > > close Rye Lane, but none to reopen it. > Hence > > > their > > > > reluctance. > > > > > > Was the Rye Lane closure funded by central > > > government? How much was received? How do you > > know > > > it did not contain funding for re-opening? > > > > > > The signs said it was funded by the EU to > enable > > social distancing > > Part of the ?1.3 million they received for > emergency Covid measures. There was no mention at > the time that their removal was covered by those > funds. So was it EU or UK funding? Do you have a source for that? I looked but couldn't see anything that identified an external source of funding for the Rye Lane works. Perhaps I'm using the wrong search terms. It's just some painted lines and Jersey barriers, isn't it? Wouldn't have thought it would be very expensive to remove. If anyone has any reliable estimates of the cost, I'm happy to be corrected.