Dogkennelhillbilly

6.45pm garden music might be perfectly reasonable or it might be pisstaking if it's blaring loud, been going for hours and accompanied by pissed-up adults. This is one of those cases where you'll never understand the story when you only get one version of what happened. 🤷‍♂️

Seems odd that this is your first ever post on the forum. The claimant did not "admit to causing a ton of mess". Things can take a long time to reach court especially due to lockdown.

A dog that's barking a lot is not a happy dog Nyway.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Another thread to discuss LTNs / opposition to > > LTNs? Really? > > > Maybe the number of threads reflects how strongly > people feel (either way) about the LTNs and how > the council are treating residents. Buzz on this forum (dominated by a few bad tempered cranks*) and Twitter (dominated by bots) bear only a loose relationship with the world. Most people in real life East Dulwich won't even be aware of this forum. * I certainly count myself as a bad-tempered crank.

Wouldn't that be about the same size and colour as the bus gate road signs people are saying aren't visible enough? 🤣

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The bottom line is that lots of posters are > appearing all over Dulwich The road opening lobby was initially vociferous (and vicious) in its opposition to the road closures because they claimed to be concerned about the impact on BAME communities and a conspiracy by a wealthy Dulwich elite. (Neither of these claims were ever substantiated). Now we've seen many of the super luxury homes along Dulwich Village displaying posters that repurposed the "all lives matter" slogan. 🤔

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks DKHB??you just illustrated my point > perfectly???.by default then are you suggesting > Labour MP Rupa Huq is a white supremacist? No. I'm also not suggesting that Dulwich Alliance are white supremacists - just that they're a bunch of self-centred twonks who don't consider the impact of their actions on others...in slogans as well as in policies.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whether the Dulwich Alliance were right or wrong > to use the phrase is a debate that could rage > forever Could it? They've admitted it was wrong, and claimed they're going to scrap it. Seems odd that Dulwich Alliance would explicitly need to be told that appropriating a slogan of white supremacists is a bad idea.

Despite other communications claiming that they really are terribly committed to reducing pollution and congestion, and their deep-seated interest in BAME communities, when it comes to actions it wants people to take: it's all about reopening roads to cars and opposing every aspect of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. With their Ulster Says No approach to compromise and their repurposing of "All Lives Matter" to "All Streets Matter", One Dulwich is not doing itself many favours.

You'd rather live next to a police station (neenaws and coming/going 24 hours) than a primary school (kids noise during playtime, weekday day time only, 40 weeks a year)??? Crikey. Primary school is about the best possible thing you could hope for to replace a building. I'd rather that than flats, chicken shops, petrol stations, cafes, substations...

I have nothing to add except my support for the OP.

notimpressed Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- If the youths weren't being a pain in the arse, there wouldn't be a significant number of people waking up in the middle of the night to call the cops about them. Children shouldn't be out late in parks drinking and doing drugs - adults shouldn't be being antisocial while doing it. I agree totally with the broader point that society has to provide somewhere for kids to hang out, and that it's been particularly rough in the last year where everything has been closed. > Or worse still, > they gather in more insalubrious areas sans > curtain twitchers/grasses, and get picked off by > kids with gang associations possibly carrying > knives. I'm having trouble decoding the subtext here. Can anyone decrypt it?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jazzer Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > bit of a trek from ED station too cox's walk > even > > for a rat!! > > They can get a bus up Lordship Lane Don't be silly, there's no way a rat would be able to get on a bus. How would they get credit on their Oyster cards?

Lynne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Life would be very awkward if every shop and cafe > in ED decided they owned the pavement too We have a limited amount of precious streetscape, and much of it is used for storing cars that spend 90% of their existence stationary. We could have plenty of space for pedestrians and street diners if we reduced the amount of parking spaces by just 10%. But that's "controversial", and it's better to have wheelchair users and cafes bicker over 6" of pavement width.

"it should be the councils responsibility to widen the pavement..." Gonna make it difficult for the bin lorries to get around the corner if the pavement around the corner has been widened to fit more tables in. Same result if tables are plonked along the double yellow lines, in fact. Fine by me if some car parking spaces are taken away though

They should reopen the road through the park too.

Nice to see the Dulwich Village motoring lobby promoting their cause with "All Streets Matter". After all, what could benefit your cause and your purported concern about BAME SSouthwarkers than appropriating the "All Lives Matter" slogan of white supremacists?

You can report this online via the Met website as well as through 101.

Good on you!

So what?

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Spartacus Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > heartblock Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Good public transport is key to reducing > car > > > > use...absolutely agree... > > > However this doesn't mean penalising cars to > > make > > > it run faster > > > > It is dreamland to imagine that bua transport > can > > improve without inconveniencing car drivers. > Buses > > need more dedicated street space, priority over > > cars, and fewer cars in the way. > > Thought they had this already with bus lanes and > red routes? Think of the P4 bus route. Think of how much of it has bus lanes and red routes. 🙄

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Correct dkhb, but removing the cars and not > providing alternatives is what the council are > proposing > > It's got to be joined up thinking, not just doing > it on a wing and a prayer without massive > investment in public transport. This is the epitome of concern trolling - "gosh, I'm just so passionate about investment in public transport that I don't think car drivers should be inconvenienced".

Perhaps Salmond is hoping more of that sweet Russian lucre can make its way into his party's coffers, just as anti-establishment parties in many European countries gave received cheques from Putin. Salmond is already a commentator on Russia Today.

Because April is the first month of the financial year.

I have no idea. Fix/clean the bogs and replace the carpets, and the Castle would be great.