Dogkennelhillbilly

tomskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ban anyone from outside walking distance from > coming to school here. > > See how that goes down. Sounds good to me. Ban motorised deliveries from outside the postcode (except by Royal Mail once a day) and I think we'll have solved the whole problem.

P3girl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 2. They actively prompted cycling clubs to vote > support for road closures. Similarly they lectured > school pupils into voting for LTNs. They stuck > poster and placards on lamp posts promoting LTNs. > > 3. They issued massive volumes of leaflets and > other promotions in favour of LTNs... What's interesting is how vague the #SouthwarkDerangementSyndrome posters are: usually they simply assert that whatever they disagree with as an individual is necessarily undemocratic. When they do make specific claims, they are like the above - patent nonsense. Still no comment of course from P3girl (who might be one trip short of a P4) on whether these people genuinely believe they live in a dictatorship or whether they think they will overthrow Southwark Bleeding Council by force over a road closure. > Roll on May 2022! Where are the (thus far) interestingly well-funded OneDulwich and Dulwich Alliance getting their funds from? 🤔

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > peckhamside Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > Other workable suggestions? Key one is improving > public transport You mean like making buses faster and more reliable by reducing and timeshifting the volume of private car, minicab and delivery van traffic?

P3girl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >What it will take is > mass action in the form of protests and demos on > the streets of Southwark -particularly at Tooley > St and Southwark Town Hall....something along this modest attempt? You think you live in a dictatorship and you're going to overthrow a suburban traffic management scheme by seizing town hall?

TheCat Wrote: > > > Im the guy that those media > outlets call for an expert comment to write those > articles...Doesn't mean I'm right in what I say.. Well, quite.

teddyboy23 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Connect to my neighbours This winter, I shall mostly be burning wet sticks foraged from Dulwich Wood and spare tyres stolen off the tailgates of luxury SUVs.

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

The consumer price rises have nothing to do with capacity (baseload or aggregate) and nothing to do with increasing renewable capacity. They are a result of high global energy prices. Gas prices were rising months before the not-windy month, which has had only an incremental impact. Coal prices have also risen sharply for reasons that are obvious. We could have double the present baseload capacity but it wouldn't make gas or coal any cheaper for power generating companies. More nuclear power plants would insulate us from gas and coal price rises but the failure to maintain and expand atomic energy is not a result of the introduction of renewables - it's a total failure of government to articulate a sensible policy to the market. More renewable capacity would also dampen the impact of global fuel prices - but of course their output varies in this country.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it is telling that the council are saying > they will improve signage - is this an admission > that the current signage is not sufficient - could > someone challenge the ?3m worth of fines to date > on that basis? There is no way that will work. The blue signage is perfectly legal and as specified in law at national level. If drivers are driving through oblivious to the meaning of the signs then fundamentally the issue is lack of driver awareness of the Highway Code. If they're not seeing the signs then it's a lack of attention while driving. No-one likes being fined (including me, who got one in the last year) but using signage that doesn't comply with the Highway Code is going to make things worse, not better. There were already supplementary red signs on approach routes and new ones have gone up in the last month. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/traffic-signs

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > when you don't have enough > baseload generation...it leaves you vulnerable to things > like spikes in gas prices and failure of > interconnectors. > > So it has everything to do with reckless > acceleration of changes in the generation mix. You're mixing capacity and fuel mix issues here. The price rises are not to do with capacity - we have plenty of capacity. Neither would retaining dirty coal have been the answer - you know that the price of thermal coal has gone up 300% since September 2020 (from USD 48 per tonne to USD 177 per tonne)? Coal prices are 50% higher today than they have been at any time in the last decade.

Dimelda Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve already said (& won?t be repeating)... ...and yet there you go repeating it...

Yes.

Dimelda's contribution is oddly victim-blaming. Considering there are twice as many female victims of "snatch theft" as male, maybe the right question is "why do male offenders feel so relaxed about targeting women for crimes against the person?" rather than "why are birds such dizzy cows lol?"

I can imagine that there are some specialist applications for which it would make sense and it's interesting to hear it's out there, but for most normal consumers a ?6600 conversion would not be economical. TBF thirsty dirty diesel trucks are exactly the kind of cars targeted by the ULEZ.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Recklessa adoption of renewables has made this > situation an inevitability for some time unfort. > Don't get me wrong, IM all for the energy > transition/Paris Agreement etc etc, but it has to > be managed properly, or this is what you end up > with... Rubbish. It's certainly been less windy than usual in the last month, and that's meant renewables couldn't do much heavy lifting over the last few weeks - but that's against the background of: - high European demand for gas last year - high Asian demand for gas now - Russia getting aggro over gas pipeline to Germany - fire at UK-France interconnector - proliferation of thinly capitalised, small staffed energy intermediaries that operated on wafer thin margins and didn't hedge against price rises None of which was the result of "reckless adoption of renewables". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58090533

That's good news!

P3girl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ealing anti-LTN group mustered around 3,000 folk > to each of their (legal) protests. Dulwich > mustered only 150!... The operators were nameless and > uncontactable...> 5. They appeared to only want to raise funds. The > never said what money had been spent on. > 6. Comments are unattributed eg by "a local > resident" or by " a local business"... 9. Failed to dispel the view that they were just a > bunch of toffs from Dulwich Village. Have you considered the possibility that maybe the changes just weren't as unpopular in real life as they were among certain empty vessels on here? Are dark money and untraceable, anonymous leaders hallmarks of a movement with genuine popular aupoort?

"The quickest way to report a request for parking enforcement is by emailing [email protected]. We will need to know the location and what the issue is. Examples of parking enforcement issues may include vehicles parked on yellow lines, footway parking, double parking or vehicles obstructing your drive." https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/report-a-parking-enforcement-issue

That ?100m isn't going to Nissan - it's to be lent to the supply chain that should service Nissan. 100m quid of taxpayer money to "pick winners" in marginal seats - what could go wrong in a chumocracy?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > There are benefits - I expect predominantly from > subsidising markets, state aid and the like. > Aimed at overseas investment rather than the late > 70s of propping up failing British industry. > Throwing money at things was hardly a Tory thing > to do but times have changed. 1) the amount of subsidies you can pay is limited by your trade deals and desire to trade under WTO terms 2) throwing money at chums is a highly Tory thing to do. And these are the people we would trust to hand out subsidies to attract foreign investment in the UK?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The residents of Dulwich have spoken...Keeping the DV > measures on the basis of weak support on Court > Lane and Calton is another very dangerous > precedent for them to set. It's complete nonsense that "the residents of Dulwich" all want rid of the scheme and that there is only weak support only on Court Lane and Calton Ave. This thread is a echo chamber that is not representative of the outside world.

A 2005 Audi A5...? I thought they didn't start making them until 2007. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_A5

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The courts > are often very lenient on the young, so that - > without deterrent sentences - there is little > point. "Deterrent' sentences have little effect on adult prospective offenders. They're sod all use in preventing kids offending.

https://emdrassociation.org.uk/a-unique-and-powerful-therapy/emdr-the-basics/

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I > saw the cycle flotilla and heard the ringleader > calling out to people which way they needed to > turn at the bottom of Woodwarde. > > So putting two and two together would suggest, > would it not, that many of the cyclists were not > familiar with the area and had been (I won't say > bussed in) cycled in especially for the event that > got sold as Dulwich residents showing their > support? Absolute tin foil hat material. Can't wait to hear how it links to COVID, the TV licence and (((Soros))).