Gimme

Perhaps people these days think that as everyone else is going to be rude they might as well too. I often find that people have their guard up in London in a way that doesn't exist in other places I go regularly. Every time I go to Edinburgh, my whole outlook changes as I assume that everyone will be friendly until proven otherwise. In London it's the opposite - I'm often guilty of assuming that people are going to be unfriendly until proven otherwise. And that's probably the way a lot of people are, which is why a lot of people come across as rude and arrogant, when they are probably not deep down. Perhaps everyone reading this thread should try an experiment - catch the eye of people as you pass them in Lordship Lane and say hello and see what the reaction is. It will confuse the life out of a lot of people who will look at you with suspicion but you might get a few pleasantly surprised looks Or an even more radical experiment - out of the blue say excuse me to an ED mum, tell her you are thinking of buying a Bugaboo and would she recommend it and see if the hard exterior breaks out into the light of friendliness. It probably will.

Big thanks to Councillor Barber! The council have finally taken away the sign directing A-road traffic down our narrow residential street thanks to his intervention!. Well done Councillor Barber. We just need to get the council to take the other steps needed to eliminate the street as a rat run. Good start though.

The article is hilarious because it is totally true. My mate who doesn't have kids refers to the mums who swarm ED as Lactating Brood Mares (LBMs) and he goes to Lucas to avoid them as it apparently isn't big enough for buggies. The funny thing for us is that we're due to become parents in next two weeks and we're totally going to become LBM / buggie mom and papoose pop whether we like it or not (although we'll try not to nip ankles with buggies the way some people seem to). Our only fear is that we won't be welcome in the club because we have not got a bugaboo. I'll need to ask my mate if he wrote the article....

:)) I'm away this weekend.

Yeah, probably... Just doing the usual EDF thing of defending myself over several posts against people who make pointless accusations or chippy comments for no good reason at all. Surely this is a tradition on EDF! ;-) Nonetheless, it's keeping this thread near the top of the page which can only be good for publicity. Moos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gimme, you raised a reasonable point in your first > post on this thread, but it feels as though you're > taking it a little off topic now.

"even in Nico's opening post on this thread he mentions a previous thread he'd started" Where? I've re-read it twice and no mention of a previous thread springs out... "Ive started a new thread" could imply this if you saw a previous thread but given that the option for starting a thread on the menu bar is called "Start New Thread in this section", every thread is a new one, whether there was a previous one or not. So I must be missing something - which is exactly what your mail implies - or else, it just isn't clear at all. Clarity, my dear Buggie, clarity! It's all I seek!

Will you be encouraging the East Dulwich Safer Neighbourhood team (Sgt Jackson et al) to come and introduce themselves on EDF? Well done to you guys for getting the 'Police' user name first though!

How did you "remember" that it was a women's clothes shop, RosieH? The first thread didn't mention the words 'women' or 'clothes' once!!! You must have remembered it from a conversation in the pub or when you were getting your nails done ;-) I was trying to be helpful and nudge Nico1 into revealing the vital piece of information missing from the original post... Of course, now I've found out it's a women's clothes shop, I've no interest whatsoever :)) RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > nico1 - I am very excited about this, and did > remember (unlike Gimme) that it's women's clothes. > Hurrah - have shuftied at and joined facebook > page and I want me one of those wolf t-shirts

You obviously weren't sitting directly under the buzzing drone of the plane passing directly overhead every 5 minutes while trying to read the Sunday papers in the garden. The jumbos are annoying but on Sunday they had started going elsewhere, affording the potential for a moments peace. Then this prat started his trips back and forth, back and forth. At least helicopters usually run out of fuel after 20 minutes chasing crims and burger off somewhere else. This guy was obviously refuelling in midair and had no crims to distract him from his flightpath over our garden. Lets hope he's got what he needs around my house and has a route over your garden planned for next weekend Domitianus. Domitianus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gimme Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Was just about to post the same question. > > But also - does anyone know how to stop him? > > Yeah, imagine a small airplane flying overhead in > London. The noise must just be an intolerable > intrusion in the tranquility and calm of our urban > oasis. Bring back the soothing nature sounds of > the helicopters, jumbo jets and emergency service > vehicles.

"I also think that the Council should put weight restrictions on all side roads that are residential only." You think that fat people should be banned from residential roads Fred? I like it. What would be your cut-off point? 20 stone? 30 stone? Surely not less than 20 stone? And would you give residents radar-guns that calculate weight to allow the streets to police themselves?

Was just about to post the same question. But also - does anyone know how to stop him?

The train also stops at Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye stations.... Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Another problem - most of us live nowhere near > Nunhead station!

Councillor Barber, There is a small plane flying back and forth across East Dulwich and quite frankly causing unacceptable levels of noise and disruption to those of us trying to enjoy the sunshine in our gardens. We already have a Heathrow flightpath and a City Airport flight path overhead and have to deal with that noise pollution on a daily basis. This isn't the first time it has happened but I don't know if it was the same plane as previous occasions. How do you stop these inconsiderate idiots in the small plane from adding to the aviation noise pollution? Or who do you complain to to stop this from happening? And do you know whether anyone is doing anything to persuade City Airport to route their flights elsewhere?

Not wishing to do the Councillors work for him Sian, but....he did reply to you at 1.38pm today. You maybe want to read up a bit...

Train from Nunhead to Lewisham takes about 5 minutes and is always half empty (plenty of seats). DLR to Canary Wharf is 15 minutes. Again, there's usually seats on the DLR. So all very relaxed and only 20 minutes travel time. Nice. The only small issue is that there's only one train that gets you in before 9.30am and it leaves Nunhead at about 8.40am, getting you into Canary Wharf at about 9.05am. On the way back it is better (trains from Lewisham at 5.54pm, 6.41pm or 7.06pm). I like this route because it is very slightly quicker than going to London Bridge and then Jubilee line but more importantly is much much lower stress.

Hi Councillor Barber, I'm cynical about the use of signs alone to slow traffic as I cycle on 20 mile an hour routes all the time (often at about 18mph) and see cars and buses flying along at much higher speeds. I think speed humps certainly slow traffic down. I'm all for traffic calming in our street but you haven't recognised the point I've been making that the main problem in our street isn't necessarily speed, it is volume. We live on a rat run created by council planning. The council has had this identified to them a year ago and hasn't done anything. It needs not just to slow the traffic on a rat run but look to eliminate the causes of that rat run (as per Southwark Road Safety report). So no, I've not had a change of heart and any measures will be welcome but think that there's probably a bit more thinking involved in this specific problem. And I do still think that just putting a sign up, giving residents speed guns and thinking the problem is solved, is not the right answer. Speed signs plus speed bumps would however make a difference. JBARBER Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Gimme, > I'm sorry to see you being so cynical about the > work we've been undertaking to bring 20mph speed > limites to East dulwich streets that want it. This > work is likely to result in your street having > this limit and potentially speed humps etc that > you've been pressing me for for some time. > > If you no longer want this and have had a change > of heart please do tell me.

Sorry to hear that 2Sheds. As you guessed, I live further up that road and never see anyone urinating there (as per my point, I never see any issues other than litter and flytipping). Maybe that's the difference that 80 metres makes. However, we chose to live near Lordship Lane to take advantage of its vibrancy and have to suffer the consequences (which for us is appalling parking). You are also in the same boat I'm afraid. If you choose to live next to a road with a thriving nightlife, you will need to accept the disadvantages as well as the advantages. I'm pretty sure that despite you witnessing a bit of anti-social behaviour, you do not feel like you live in a fall-out zone or that your life is blighted. Therefore my point was correct in spirit. You need to complain to Boho if you feel that they are the cause of this issue.

huncamunca Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "it would seem Southwark is unwilling to take in > hand the real and persistant problem of businesses > that have utter disregard for the lives of those > who have to live within the fallout zone of their > destructive money making trade" Lets not get too excited... We live less than 100 metres from Lordship Lane, at the end with most of the "vibrant" bars and never see any problems beyond a bit of litter. You seem to have a valid point about the ridiculousness of fining people for having a quiet beer on Peckham Rye Common but don't ruin your point by using phrases such as "disregard for the lives" and "fallout zone". If you have a problem with late night noise outside a specific pub that you live very close to you are able to put in a complaint to the council and this will probably be taken quite seriously. You could also complain to the pub who will probably take action to avoid any issues regarding their licence.

Do you mean car-pound or dog-pound?

Well done! Very short. The proposal isn't to put 20 mile an hour signs between Elephant and Castle and ED. It is to put them in residential streets. So instead let's have speed bumps in residential streets not signs and Dads Army speed traps. The road from E&C to ED has traffic calming measures ensuring the slowest of speeds for all road users. They are called buses.

Steady Eddy - Why don't you volunteer for civilian installation of speed bumps on residential streets instead of this absolute nonsense of having random punters wandering around with speed-guns? (oh and try to keep any reply a bit shorter than the last ones...please!)

So no animal acts at all then? When does it finish?

There are about 20 ways you could improve road safety that would be more logical than putting up signs and providing curtain twitchers with radar guns. Unfortunately they all cost money. Things like speed bumps, chicanes, putting in crossing points as required, putting chevrons on the road to warn drivers that they are approaching a zebra crossing (like the one on East Dulwich Grove where I almost get run over every time I try to use it), speed limiters on buses, someone taking time to identify accident hotspots or dangerous junctions and adjusting the layout or putting in traffic lights... This suggestion about signs and radar guns is a total gimmick and should be crushed as an idea before time and money is wasted on it. You'd probably save money in the long run by avoiding the radar gun idea as the court fees for every successfully contested charge of being caught by a civilian with a radar gun will soon mount up. If the council is allowed to get away with nonsense like this, it just postpones their needing to think about proper traffic calming and road safety measures.

Less pollution Less congestion Thinner kids More feeling of community as people walked to school together Less irate local residents Lower carbon emissions I'm sure there are other social benefits too that I cant think of. Silverfox - you aren't one for spotting the blindingly obvious are you...

SteveT - see ComputedShorty's mail - translation is there... For further reading see poem "Dulce et decorum est" by Wilfred Owen. Welcome to the Forum Star13uk. If you have a look at the thread on St Anthony's School... this could be the first thing for you to try your hand at. Sounds like big complaints about inconsiderate (and possibly illegal) parking.