Dogkennelhillbilly

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do feel vitriolic towards people who NIMBY their lives away [against...] those less able to afford an expensive nursery You're worried about how expensive nurseries are so you oppose new ones opening? You're obviously very angry but it's not clear why or how stopping a nursery opening would help.

Neighbours just got one - they ordered one day and took delivery the next.

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who are they owned and provided by? Council (via Veolia, presumably).

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What an abysmal idea which will ruin the lovely > nursery next door. This one is posh and expensive > apparently. There is already so much traffic and > queues in the area and this will add to the rush > hour problems as parents arrive for drop off and > collection. > Hope all those NIMBY people in the roads closed > off opposite will enjoy a constant stream of quick > parking then u-turning drivers who will use your > gorgeous quiet roads. > Serves you right if you don't like it. Your road > systems have created the queues and pollution we > and all the schoolchildren have to endure, time to > re-open all the side roads currently closed off, > and look at the possibilities properly. This is a weirdly vitriolic post. Not sure how the second nursery would "ruin" the first. Nurseries around here are wildly oversubscribed, and the people that run the first nursery are businesspeople too.

I'm a police sceptic but the last two times I've reported something (burglary in progress and suspicious men in car refusing to leave private land) the police responded very effectively. Other people's experiences may differ.

It was really good. Can't wait to eat in the restaurant so I can have the stuff right from the kitchen!

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >> The signs to which Cora refers do say No Through Route Yes, quite so. "No Through Road" has a specific meaning in the Highway Code. "No Through Route" doesn't. I was pointing this out (unintentionally curtly - I went back to edit but the forum has been offline) because understanding what "No Through Road" means won't actually help, because it's not what the signs say.

I thought they say "no through route" and "restricted access ahead"...but obviously I haven't done an audit! College Road isn't "No Through Road" - there are no new restrictions there. Dulwich Village isn't No Through Road either.

Where is there a No Through Road sign, specifically?

"whilst acknowledging the urgent need to do something, oppose these measures. It seems an anti-car lobby has been allowed to manipulate and dictate the terms of the measures being put in..." The urgent need to do something, but not anything that causes anyone to use their cars less, apparently.

When, though?

Was in there the other day - I've ordered a khachipuri for Christmas Eve. The people seem really nice. I'll report back when ive actually eaten the stuff.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is entirely on the council... instead they've > embarked on some ridiculous ant car campaign It is absolutely crazy that the council is wasting taxpayers' money on buying cars for ants. Why isn't this scandal ever discussed?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We live on parallel universes DKH but enjoyed the > insult (econazi) so have asked for the t-shirt for > Xmas. Dogooders have banned Christmas for health and safety reasons because it offends the vegans! 😡😡😡

Agreed. Naughty owners.

"I shouldn't worry about noise from Palmerston clients, as it attracts sensible clientele." 🤮 Speaking as someone who used to live opposite a bar - all bar patrons (present company included) are a complete pain in the arse at kicking out time. Social class doesn't come into it. When I was in my 20s I lived on a street that was busier than Lordship Lane. Now I'm old and grumpy, I wouldn't do it again.

No no no, you're wrong. Driving around Dulwich before this year was effortless, safe and speedy before econazi cyclists ruined it and literally throttled kittens. "my view the signage was not clear at all. If no cars why not a sign with a red circle? " A blue sign means "only these things may go down here". A red sign means "these things may not go down here". Drivers are supposed to know the difference - however, I admit that the signage wasn't immediately intuitive to me and I was glad the council put in more red advisory signs.

"They are potentially lethal though, much like living is." Living is invariably lethal (with one possible exception). "Before we queue up to demonise all e-scooters, perhaps we should have a go on one." I regularly ride scooters - electric and manual. It's the small front wheel, poor brakes and hard tyres that makes them a much riskier proposition than bikes.

And to be fair, day to day management of the council is supposed to be the job of council managers. Councillors are supposed to set policy and it's not (supposed to be) a full time job by any means.

The place at the Plough is doing them again this year. We got ours there last year and were happy with it, this year's is looking good so far too. Edit: never mind, looks like they've already mentioned it above! Didn't read the thread properly.

"The Test to Release scheme is for people coming from countries not in the safe corridor area therefore likely arriving from high covid areas" True BUT the infection rate is generally lower in the "high risk" countries than it is in the UK.

You could sue them. They could also get a ticket from the police but that doesn't help you. It doesn't help that most early adopters of these things have been kids and dimwits, both groups know for acting inconsiderately.

Isn't a critical difference between the two scenarios is that people who are self-isolating "domestically" are doing so because they've had contact with a COVID positive person while people who were self-isolating due to travel have not had contact with such people (and are usually coming from places with lower rates of infection than England)?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The people who mock the fact that we are being > taken-over by an alien lizard race which controls > Covid19, 5G, and other things (like the tides and > fossils) need to take a serious reality check. I would like to clarify my earlier statement. Although I am in favour of being ruled by lizards, I am also highly xenophobic and therefore HATE alien lizards coming down here, taking our British lizards' overlord jobs.

"The (completely mad) suggestion that it is in any way related to Covid-19 is promulgated by the same people who believe we are ruled by lizards" If 5G spread lizards, I would be strongly in favour.