Green Goose

SRS sent a message around on 27th Feb saying...... """Time is absolutely critical now for the proposed changes to Townley Road Junction. This is our very last chance. Any work must be carried out this summer, as funding will expire in the next financial year. """ Also, Southwark Cllrs are desperate to get this rushed through for reasons mentioned in this thread before. On the other hand, some of us still have questions unanswered and there are only 9 days to go before the consultation ends. I certainly have questions awaiting answers from their nominated contact ie Mr Mascord. If any questions remain unanswered then there is a case to be made that the consultation was not performed in an adequate manner and hence is invalid. Might I suggest we all get our questions in before it is too late. Mr Mascord can be contacted on [email protected]

Looking at the supporting documentation on Southwark's ReConsultation, top of the list is SRS original case for making the junction safer. It gives the opinion that the junction is unsafe but fails to give any supporting statistics or information. Here's the link.... http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4025/townley_road-_previous_junction_safety_reviews_and_background_information Based on that, Southwark and TFL were persuaded to throw ?220,000 at the "problem". It beggars belief.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi Goose Green, > Do you really expect 9 councillors to hang around > for at this public exhibition for several hours > probably ohgging the officer time asking questions > that will be documented in the report that comes > to us anyway? > This exhibition si about residents having a chance > to ask questions. > I pesnally think a publci meeting would have been > better where everyone hears the answers to other > questions. But the council administration prefer > lots of 121 conversations. Hi James, Looking at your typos, I apologise if I touched a tender spot but no one is expecting all 9 DCC members to be there at one time but having one accountable Southwark Councillor would seem to be constructive. Similarly, many of us are not happy that the two nominated representatives are consultants employed by AECOM and I will use a quote from an earlier post........ """Conway AECOM - Often referred to (by themselves and others) as AECOM. A joint venture between the traffic consultancy AECOM and FM Conway. FM Conway are the in-house contractors used by Southwark for road building and maintenance work [www.fmconway.co.uk] see [www.conwayaecom.com] """ As they did the research and designed the proposal they are hardly likely to be totally objective and pass on any/all negative issues raised by the public. Bear in mind also that Conway most probably would be awarded the contract for the works -just a they were on all the other works on East Dulwich Grove last year - e.g. pavement buildouts, raised platforms etc etc. They only just finished the works at the junction of Hillsboro Rd/EDG about 8 weeks ago and it would appear that this will have to be modified if this proposal goes through. It stinks!

Mark Williams, Cabinet Member for Southwark, has just confirmed that the so-called "drop in" session will be held on Saturday 28th February 2015 from 11am ? 2pm at St. Barnabas Hall. What's the guess that there will be no Councillors present and that they will keep below the radar because they do not want to face a vocal bunch of local residents who disagree with the proposal - like at the last meeting? Expect another appearance from un-elected representatives like Tim Warin.

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What about Tessa Jowell? Worth writing to her? Naah, Jowell has said she is stepping down at the end of this parliament and will get a seat on the gravy train aka the House of Lords. (The same career path was planned out for Jack Straw but it seems he might have got tripped up a few days ago.) Don't you just love politicians? One way to fight this is to let these Labour Southwark Councillors know that they will be held accountable come the next election. Labour holds every cabinet portfolio in the Southwark assembly so we hold them accountable if they force this through. The only way to oppose this proposal is to respond to the on-line consultation but it is useful also to email objections directly to:- [email protected] Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Transport and [email protected] - Leader of Southwark Council. [email protected] - Chairman of Dulwich Community Council GG

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If there are things about the re-consultation we > object to, will local councillors back us up? Or > do they support the scheme the way it is now? 1.The Labour-dominated Southwark Council will get this through no matter what we say. They are more determined than ever since the first scheme met resistance. Cabinet Minster & Cllr Mark Williams will force this through the system regardless. 2. They didnt give us any choice out of all the various options ie they have only put up for consultation their preferred choice. 3.Funding comes from a Government pro-cycling budget so we are going to get a mish-mash of cycling dominated features that give no practical benefits. Show me a Council that will pass up the chance of spending "free" money. 4. Cllr Mark Williams has ruled out all the "B" options to give this scheme a deliberate pro-cycling bias at the expense of vehicle traffic. Narrowing the road and having single lane approaches to the lights will only delay traffic. 5. If Cllr Mark Williams (Lab Bruswich Park) forces this proposal through then just remember how you vote the next time there are local govt elections! GG

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ummm yep when people get to spend other peoples > money that's the ?hit that happens. Spot on frazer71. This is what Cllr Mark Williams said in his email of 18 February.... ""Given the funding constraints and the need to avoid the risk of losing external grant funding and the risk in delaying any further action at this junction for a further year, we are now consulting on this amended scheme."" Yes, he is desperate not to lose the external funding and appears willing to disregard common sense. As far as I am concerned he totally discredited himself earlier with his tactics over the banned right turn issue. Now he is becoming even more ridiculous by ruling out all the "B" options. But then he is a politician - Labour Cllr for Brunswick Park Ward. Our problem is he is also the chair of the Dulwich Community Council and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Transport. Even worse, he will be making the final decision on the project.

bawdy-nan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > GooseGreen, presumably you are a pedestrian and a > car driver? Lots of people who use bicycles also > use cars and are pedestrians. Wrong presumption. This Goose uses his most treasured possession (Freedom Pass) most of the time and when the weather is amenable, uses his trusty blue 1970'a Triumph with 3 speed Sturmey Archer. And of course there's a bit of Shank's pony. But driving? - less than 20 miles a month. GG

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hence the "pro-bike bias" you mention. > > Should they have been pro-HGV then? Townley Green - Looking at your previous posts there are other members of the community apart from you cyclists. The world is not yours alone. In other words, don't be a complete pratt. GG

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cllr Simmons said that he understood that the > decision to introduce the right turn ban came down > to the act of a single Southwark official. I > wonder whether the guilty man/woman will be named > and whether they will be present at the 28 Jan > meeting to justify their stance. Why not submit a FOI request for an answer or even better ask for:- 1.Minutes of all the council meetings on the issue? 2.Email exchanges between Sustrans and the Council 3.Copy docos sent by Southwark Cyclists to Southwark on this issue

From Tim's Twitter page... I work as Sustrans BikeIt+ Officer in Southwark. So, I guess, he's really impartial then.

For those of you who were unable to attend the meeting today at St. Barnabas Parish Hall on this subject, here is my take on the event. The initial debate on ?the process? and funding of the proposed changes to the junction were very skillfully handled by the chairman Mr Andy Simmons. During questioning, it was revealed that the funding for this scheme was related to safety and cycling. Andy Simmons then introduced ?Tim? who turns out to be Mr Tim Warin from an organisation called Sustrans . Tim said Sustrans was a charity appointed by Southwark as ?Delivery Agents? on certain proposals. A quick search shows that Sustrans is short for ?Sustainable Transport? which is a lobby group for cyclists! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustrans Sustrans has also closely associated itself with Safe Routes to School to gain additional leverage. Mr Warin, under pressure from the floor, eventually took up the issue of the No Right Turn but seemed to down play the implications. He also subsequently went on to present graphics which, in his opinion, demonstrated the benefits of NRT?s in other locations in London! He did not take on board the message from the people of Dulwich. ?Nuf said! Edited to make corrections

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mmmm..... Yet another grand scheme which makes > politicians look and feel good but IMHO have > serious flaws. > Another excellent post slarti b. I had a look at the entire route for this Quietway and there are no less than 47 junctions and features that require costly modification. With the EDG/Townley Road junction alone costing ?220,000, one can only be horrified at the overall cost! Millions!! Southwark will say it will be funded by Central Govt, but Govt have to fund it by borrowing which, as you will have realised, will be added to the fiscal deficit and paid for by taxes. It is a TOTAL nonsense that will only please a tiny minority.

Make sure it's diluted next time!

The whole thing stinks. These bl00dy cyclists are so selfish. Let's all let the air out of their tyres! GG

Ice Age Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Am I the only one to find the title of this thread > annoyingly ignorant? > > The cuckoo is a remarkable creature and perfectly > entitled to take its place in the natural world. > The secret to its success is, of course, brilliant > mimicry. > > To take its name and use it as a slur against > private schools is really quite inappropriate from > a logical perspective. Well done Ice Age, up until now this thread was getting really boring. Hopefully, you have put it to bed. GG

>>>messageThe Dulwich estate ? modern day reverse Robin Hood ? >>>Posted by DadOf4 September 22, 10:49AM >>>But they?re a charity right ? ? they?ll take that income and redistribute it to the poor scholors (sic) and brothers? That's where you started to go wrong. Then your let your bigoted socialist ideas merge with the politics of envy. Better to accept that we don't live in a socialist ideal where everyone has to conform to the lowest common denominator. That died in Berlin in 1998. Why not also consider that in a meritocracy everyone benefits by virtue of the increased competitiveness of the nation as a whole and the trickle down factor. Also an old chestnut of a thread (Is Alleyn's a cuckoo?) was resurrected recently. Was it you that did it by any chance? ....................... Aside- Isn't it amazing that these themes of inequality and injustice seem to crop up around the time our Socialist brothers have their annual party conference? ....................... GG

lbsmith73 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am a deputy head teacher in a state school in a selective borough with grammar > schools. We have a truly comprehensive intake from A* students to students with complex needs. I am > proud to serve our local community and if we really want to create a level playing field then > why not get rid of private and selective schools and let all children go to their local schools? > > Regards the comments that private schools do so much to help their poorer state school friends, > well I have experienced this first hand and quite frankly the co-opted governors from one elite > private school that I experienced had no idea about the challenges and issues we faced and I > found it rather patronising. As for their teachers supporting state schools, all I can say the > teachers I work with have a much higher level of understanding of how to maximise the potential of > all their students not just those who are easy to work with (and they have to be qualified!) > > Regards opening their facilities to the local community, yes they do have clubs but these are > not subsidised. I have children who attend clubs at these schools and we pay a considerable amount > in fees, which if I am not mistaken, the majority of which goes to the private schools. Their > facilities, which have been built with tax payers money (in directly through their joke of a > charitable status), act as an important revenue stream and generate vast sums of income. I am sure > they do some worth while activities in the local community but I hardly think they are really > reaching out to all parts of the community. > > I understand we live in a free market economy and if people wish to pay for services then so be it. > What I can't understand is when the private sector (in this case independent schools) think all they > have to do is help a few old ladies, allow the local primary school to see how the other half > live and have a few middle class sports clubs use their facilities on a weekend is reason to justify > it's charitable existence. I would prefer they keep themselves separate and let them survive on > the fees they charge. Other private businesses do not get the luxuries afforded to private schools > and if they don't generate the income they go to the wall. > > It's seems these schools can certainly have their cake and eat it, but one day they might just > choke! I feel very sad that you as a Deputy Head is spouting the classic socialist politics of envy. You bang on about a level playing field. The reality is we all live in a competitive world where meritocracy rules and rightly so too. In this world, meritocracy extends beyond individuals into competition between nations. Look at the success of these nations where meritocracy in the educational system has brought immense success eg Singapore, USA etc etc Look back at the relative decline of the UK during the last 5 decades and you can see it is due, in part, to the introduction of the comprehensive education system. I grew up with the state education but, if I had the choice, I know what I would have chosen. I suggest you get the socialist chips off your shoulders and study what Edward Alleyn did for the poor of London.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > We skimped, skivvied and saved for 20 years to > pay > > for our kids to go to Alleyns. When they get on > > the career ladder I will consider it money well > > spent. > > > So no pressure, then. Plenty pressure but we look on it as an investment in our children for their benefit and all investments involve risk. Reward comes when the risk pays off. GG

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They contribute an education to those that can > afford it. Life's not fair sometimes. Yes, it's not fair cos these parents who pay the fees (out of their after-tax incomes) don't get a tax credit in respect of their kids not being in State education and hence not be a cost burden on the State. I guess anyone would pay for private education if they could afford it ( eg Clegg and Dionne Abbott et al) so I hazard a guess you are actually saying it's unfair because your income doesn't cover this on top of all the things you want including holidays, car, fashion, mobiles, meals out etc etc. We skimped, skivvied and saved for 20 years to pay for our kids to go to Alleyns. When they get on the career ladder I will consider it money well spent. GG

>>>Does Alleyn's allow local schools to use the Michael Croft theatre? Why don't you ask Alleyn's direct rather than get information from third parties? GG

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nope. Ukip has come to prominence because people > like you can look at that party, talk about how > poor the other parties are, not mention the odious > stench of racism, homophobia and basic > incompetence coming from ukip and decide you like > them > > This is on you That's pure knee jerk. I didn't say I liked them and didn't say I supported their policies. I just made an objective analysis as to why UKIP has emerged as a force in today's political environment. That apart, the labels of racism and homophobia you attach to UKIP are unjustified and just another example of smearing by the two established political parties. Only two you ask? Yes, the LidDems are yesterdays protest party. Gone and irrelevant.

We have to face it..... UKIP has only come to prominence as a result of changes undergone by other political parties and their failure to respond to the feelings of the silent (or is it silenced?) majority. Labour was highly Euro-sceptic not too many years ago. The Conservative leadership got rid of Euro-scepticism when they got rid of Thatcher. Only the Libtards have been consistently pro Europe and anyway they dont count. They change their policies more often that Miliband changes his socks. They are Pick & Mix. Both Labour and Conservatives promised referenda on Europe but failed to deliver again and again. Both Labour and Conservatives promised to do something about rampant immigration and did nothing. Hence the rise of UKIP and the fact that it is being attacked vociferously by all three parties. All three are sh*t scared of the erosion of their voter base by the new kid on the block. What is more worrying about UK politics is that all the leaders in the Labs, Cons and Libs are career politicos. They started off as SPADs and none of them have ever had a real job in Industry or Commerce. They have never managed anything related to business or economics. How can one expect them to be able to manage the country! They are all in it for themselves and will do anything to stay in office. Hence appeasement on issues like immigration and failed promises on Europe. Their abuses of expenses and allowances go unchecked. Their personal tax returns are handled by a dedicated and secretive HMRC department in Cardiff. And some of you attack UKIP! Vote for UKIP and give these despicable career/establishment politicians a bloody nose!

If the moustache idea was new it might be funny but this is pathetically boring and juvenile. What's worse is the Council have to waste money and time to clear up the mess. Pathetic. GG

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Speed bumps cost around ?1,800 each. > James, I guess these are the small square ones that are usually lumped together in twos and threes across the road. The ones that cost a whole lot more are those full width raised "platforms" made of small pavers that are laid by hand in what is a very labour intensive process. They often appear at T junctions eh where Townley road meets L.L. I seem to recall these cost around ?30,000 each. They seem to be a whole waste of money. Out of interest, could you kindly advise us what the cost of the works is that is nearing completion at the end of Glengarry Road at the junction with East Dulwich Grove. Thanks GG