Dogkennelhillbilly

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?

Oh interesting. I'd noticed a few more around recently. I see that quite a few of them are still being left in the "red zone" where you're not supposed to leave them so the hirers will be charged extra.

malumbu Wrote: ---------------------------------------------- > Later under Brown there was again threats of fuel > protests (funny how it doesn't happen under a Tory > government) > > https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dri > vers-panic-fuels-shortages-petrol-pumps-5347824.ht > ml Not really that strange tbf - Lib Dems and Tories abandoned the fuel duty escalator. https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/fuel-duties/

Interesting: https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2021/09/28/fire-suppression-systems-cause-channel-outage-from-red-bee-media-playout-centre-in-london/

Yikes - sounds pretty serious and potentially criminal if there was dishonest intent in "failing to declare" the ?25 million.

There's no good reason why Rye Lane should be any less clean or safe than Lordship Lane or Bond Street for that matter. Deadbeat landlords, inconsiderate traders and an underperforming Council have had their way for long enough.

oooOOOOOoooohhhh!!!

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Low traffic schemes benefit the most deprived > Londoners, study finds > https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2 > 021/mar/02/low-traffic-schemes-benefit-most-depriv > ed-londoners-study-finds?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other Yeah well you can prove anything with facts and evidence, can't you? It doesn't make it more true than anything my friend Alfred says down the golf club. > do find it strange that Socialists support LTNs "I support councils, of all parties, which are trying to promote cycling and bus use. And if you are going to oppose these schemes, you must tell us what your alternative is, because trying to squeeze more cars and delivery vans on the same roads and hoping for the best is not going to work. As the benefits of schemes increase over time, what opposition there is falls further. That is why schemes must be in place long enough for their benefits and disbenefits to be properly evidenced. ?Almost exactly six years ago, in east London, we began the first of the transformational low-traffic neighbourhood schemes... There was intense controversy: hundreds of protestors carried a golden coffin to symbolise the ?death? we were supposedly causing to the local shops. But the council stuck it out, thank goodness. Now, the local shops and cafes have never been busier, air quality is up, opposition to the LTN has evaporated, and so has some of the traffic.? More typical high-handed socialist bullshit. What kind of Trotskyist clique has been funding this nightmare? https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/evolution/news/69526/removing-active-travel-schemes-could-cost-councils-funding-warns-dft

slarti b2 Wrote: ---------------------------------------------- > About 30-35 adults plus kids who they are > manipulating to try and support their cause. I > recognised a few of thes minority activists from > the online postings they do, looks like Mums for > Lungs and Clean Air for Dulwich Village and all > their supporters were there. Not a very > impressive turnout but explains reflects how > little support there is for these measures in the > local community. Are we applying normal Demo Attendance Calculation Protocol to this ie divide organiser's estimates by 10 and multiply police/critic estimates by 10?

I have no idea who you are or what you're on about. IainJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the Paris Metro and New > York subway found that graffiti made users feel > unsafe and set about removing it. Oh I'm not a fan of the graffiti. 99% of it is complete crap, and sends the message that this is a place where anyone can do what they want and about which no-one cares.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You wouldn't imagine that a haulage firm in the UK > would go out of business, but this one has: > > https://twitter.com/hallrjh55/status/1442106712434 > 020353 I'm as remoaner as they come but none of us know the company's commercial contracts or borrowing arrangements. Its sister haulage companies all seem fine. It might be that it's "flexible" and casualised workforce have all buggered off to somewhere that will offer them better conditions. Who knows?

IainJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The closure of Rye Lane has also had negative > consequences for the public realm as the explosion > of graffiti will attest without the passive > surveillance from bus users. Shops have closed for > lack of trade. I don't think much of the "passive surveillance from bus users" claim, not least because there's always been tons of graffiti and flyposting on Rye Lane. The (still opwn) bus stop outside the kebab shop/Tesco is the epicentre of flyposting afaics The lack of trade may also have had something to do with the global pandemic that meant many people stopped commuting and working. I'm sure it's true that worse access to bus stops didn't help tho. TBH more wrecking ball traffic and more roadsweeper traffic are probably just as important for Rye Lane in the long term. It's a dirty, ugly spooky street.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not that I am an economist but I know something > about this. Increasing costs of private car use > does not necessarily equate with reduced use - so > increased fuel price at a time of shortage may not > quell panic buying. The type of panic buying of petrol we have seen is discretionary and therefore highly price elastic - people are bringing forward their fuel purchases based on fear rather than actual consumption. The aggregate demand over the course of a month hasn't changed at all and in reality supply hadn't been reduced much either. A handful of petrol stations running a bit low on some types of fuel is what triggered this "crisis". A short term surcharge would soon shake out the people who really need fuel for today from the people panic buying - and that's all we need to even out turnaround at petrol stations. This is a 2-3 week problem. BTW that study is about the impact fuel prices (and other things) have on demand for roads. It's not about the impact fuel price have on demand for fuel. > fairest', by penalising those who can least afford to shoulder such a price increase - a wonderful if unintentional illustration of some of what is wrong in our society! Right now we have a situation in which the least wealthy who really need petrol for work either don't get it or wait hours unnecessarily because of the actions of a few. That's not fair either.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In the 80s if you were queuing for > bread in a Moscow shop would you say I'll just > have one loaf and hope they have some tomorrow or > would you buy a whole freezer's worth? You would not have been allowed to buy a freezerful of bread (and neither would it have been likely that you owned a freezer). There are only a handful of ways you can ration scarce goods: - by time - whoever has the most time to sit around in queues will get the goods. - by need - whoever needs it most should get it - but we have no time to build a system for working this out. - by money - by increasing the cost to reduce short term demand. There would be no queues if petrol was a tenner a litre! It's actually the last method that would probably be best, quickest and fairest in the short term: it could be done overnight. It would force the idiots to reconsider whether they actually need the petrol (in the toilet paper panic, people moaned about paying 10p extra for a nEcEsSiTy). It would increase the cost for people that really need fuel but at least they would be guaranteed of supply without waiting for hours. In fact what will actually happen is that idiots will disrupt everyone else for a short period by bringing their normal purchases forward a couple of weeks, and then in a couple of weeks there will be a dip in demand as people consume their stockpile - exactly like the toilet paper affair. Just because everyone buys 3 pints in the 10 minutes before closing time, it doesn't mean there's a shortage of beer...

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I could label those of you who voted > to leave the EU as idiots, but I don't. I mean, you just did, in a way!

There's not much money in selling petrol any more - not many other products where people pay attention to the price down to the penny and will drive half an hour out of their way to save peanuta. it's more a lure to get people through the door and sell people coffee, Red Bull and groceries. Place like Goose Green that has expensive property and not much store space? They'll need to charge a but extra just to keep afloat.

Yep alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So if car use switched to bikes in then > Bets we?re told how come the queues for petrol are > so long? Huh?

Grove Vale bus lane southbound currently blocked by cars queueing to get into petrol station. Occasional donkey trying to jump the queue by turning from the northbound lane (and therefore blocking the non-bus lane southbound) ain't helping either.

This is almost as bad as the great olive oil shortage of 2012. Anyone who was in Dulwich at that time will remember the scenes of devastation and panic

No need - if we have a CO2 supply interruption in the UK, we can just get a bunch trucked in from the EU. Oh...

Phil McCanister - always admired his work.

ed26 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Technically the bit in the middle is pavement, so > people shouldn't be cycling over there anyway. The > cycle gates are either side. Yeah but even when you ride through the cycle gate on the left, you've got to weave through the narrowed space between the white van and the blue BMW/the dickhead behind the blue BMW. Obviously BMW Driver would lose their mind if he got a scratch on their car.

Coach Beth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally, I think that one of the reasons > teenagers are the victims of crime so much is that > the criminals KNOW that crimes agains teens are > taken much less seriously. I'm not here to defend the police but around our way when there was a spate of after school teen on teen muggings, the Safer Neighbourhood Team did increase foot patrols after school. I have no idea whether it solved the problem or whether it continues today. > I feel there is > psychological mechansim that happens so we can > protect ourselves from feeling vulnerable ... if > we can find something that someone else MIGHT have > done that resulted in something terrible... > whether it be to become a victim of crime or to be > a victim of cancer ('well, if people just didn't > eat meat or drink milk, maybe their wouldn't have > gotton cancer), we can feel less vulnerable. There is a body of research (which tbf is not watertight and to which I can't now find the sodding link) that indicates that female jurors are more hostile to rape victims and believe the victims could have done more to protect themselves. The suggestion is that this is a form of psychological self-protection on the part of the jurors: "this awful thing won't happen to me because I know how to protect myself"...which is exactly what you're saying. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/16/rape-blame-victims-women

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought Rockets qualified his statement by > saying not a single petrol or diesel car > "launched". > > Is it the case petrol and diesel cars were > launched? You've just referred to cars "at" the > show...not the same thing. > > Anyhow, I guess the point is it may be more > accurate to say the majority of cars were > electric. I don't know, I wasn't there and do not > follow car events, but to incorrectly quote > Rockets and then on that basis accuse him of > talking cobblers is a bit much. The Dacia Jogger (discussed in the link and launched at the show) is a fossil fuel car. Dacia has only one electric vehicle (that's not even on sale in the UK), and all the rest of its range is petrol, diesel and LNG . The company has "hopes" for a hybrid in the future - but in the meantime like everyone else they're still making and selling plenty of fossil fuel vehicles and blocking legislation that would force them to act quicker. In any case, electric cars are no panacea. > The car industry has gone electric This greenwash and bullshit is exactly what Greenpeace and thousands of people were objecting to at the car show - a point that has evidently gone over some people's heads. https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/24136/these-12-car-companies-are-setting-the-world-on-fire/ I wasn't suggesting Rockets was talking cobblers. The totally real and definitely not invented "someone" who said there were no petrol or diesel cars launched was talking cobblers.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > someone > pointed out to them that there was not a single > petrol or diesel car launched at the show - > everything was electric. Too bad that "someone" was talking complete cobblers. It's just not true that there wasn't a single petrol or diesel car at the show, even if most new cars were electric or at least hybrid. Why do people just make stuff up? https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-munich-motor-show/munich-motor-show-2021-full-report-and-gallery