Penguin68

There is a carved memorial stone to her in the floor of the Dulwich Picture Gallery outer hallway, plus they had a memorial event for her, but it would be nice to have a Street Art memorial mural out in the community and ED Station would be the perfect location. I absolutely agree that a memorial in the street (as well as in the Gallery) would be a great idea - but ideally a mural which took forward her particular vision with a plaque which referred out to her work in the community (and not just on street art). The 'problem' about the Gallery memorial is that, at the moment, it's reaching out to the already converted. A new mural consistent with her themes however, particularly in such a good site, would in and of itself be a fitting tribute to a living contribution to Dulwich's built environment.

I don't think Ingrid would have been at all happy with a mural about her - but I am convinced that a mural consistent with her vision of celebrating the Picture Gallery collection through street-art interpretation would absolutely hit the spot. Dulwich has a unique collection of street art driven by an unique vision - which should be celebrated and continued. I think that a plaque in memory of Ingrid's contribution would be a good thing (she'd have probably hated that as well!), but walls are for the murals she dreamed of, one art culture saluting another. Perhaps the choice of artist should be aided by that artist's interest in taking forward Ingrid's vision, and hence blending in to the local street art zeitgeist.

If you use slug pellets then things that eat the poisoned slugs (toads, frogs, hedgehogs) may also perish. Better to harden things off in a cold frame surrounded by grit etc. which slugs don't like crossing and then planting them out when the lowest leaves etc. are less tasty. Or planting things that slugs are known to dislike. Making slug traps (containers sunk into the ground and baited with e.g. beer - like Brexit the slugs may check out but they'll never leave) can also work - and slug predators are less impacted by beery as opposed to poisoned slugs. And putting fine grit around your newly planted seedlings will also discourage slugs, that don't like crossing it much.

I think the point is that (1) there was minimal damage and it should readily be recovered (at the expense of the event organisers) and (2) that this should be a learning opportunity for the future - the parks people are now aware of the type of damage that can be caused and can require the organisers to plan against that, by for instance bringing in temporary roadway to support vehicles (a rollable mesh, often). The weather was peculiarly damp this year (more so than is often the case) making the area more vulnerable - I have known times when you could have put tanks over the ground without much churning! Damage should not be prayed in aid against future events, but the potential for damage (and the type of damage) should be taken into account in future event planning and oversight by the Council. Reports suggest a lot of people (many I am sure local) got a lot of pleasure from the event. At no cost to the Council. That's positive.

Surely, it's PARTY - ends at midnight LATE NIGHT PARTY - ends at 2:00am ALL NIGHT PARTY - ends at 5:00am ? Simples

The councillors have plenty of evidence, but just as with Adys/Nutbrook/Maxted there doesn't seem to be any political will to tackle these issues. Agreed there is plenty of evidence, but is it sufficient to convince those with an 'interest' in Barry Road (TfL, DoT)? - possibly the evidence in the past has not been sufficient for the council to impose draconian traffic calming measures. As I have said, I suspect only deaths or serious injury may be sufficient, evidence of speeding in and of itself may not be. I don't agree with this attitude, I have seen too many close calls. Much of what the council is doing (clearing parked cars from junctions etc. by extending double yellows) in fact may increase the chances of speeding - obstructions tend to slow things down.

We need proper enforcement of speed limits across the borough, preferably by average speed cameras, rather than activities that allow politicians to give the appearance of something being done in their newsletters. To be fair, this is also about information building - this route is difficult to deal with, as it's both a numbered road and a bus route. Any significant speed limiting has to get the nod from TFL amongst others. Without information this won't be available. Complaints about both speeding and dangerous/ thoughtless driving leading to accidents (and about vision obstruction for those trying to drive across Barry) have been rife over the last 10-15 years (and probably longer). All councillors can do is collect information (real, not hearsay) to make a case. My fear is that we will have to wait for more deaths or serious injury before the case becomes compelling enough.

nxjen is absolutely right - the 'damage' - bad as it may appear, is superficial. If the event organisers are obliged to make good (as I believe they are) this will be relatively simple.

That's only 4.5 posts a day - probs no more than 15 minutes, often less. With no travel time involved.

Renata Do you know what the spend priorities are for The Rye and Peckham Rye Park? I would have guessed H&S issues (like dangerous trees); routine maintenance (keeping it in a decent state) and then improvements (such as carved trees and granite areas)? But I'm not sure there aren't different budget heads - so that 'improvements' may be done whilst routine maintenance is ignored. Also - do hire fees etc. go back into park budgets, or are they taken off to other funds? That whole area is one hell of an amenity - but it won't manage itself and the cost of 'recovering it' (if left to rack and ruin) will be far higher than routinely maintaining it. We are very lucky in ED and its surrounds with our green spaces - be it parks, woodland, common land or cemeteries. It almost compensates for the lack of public transport (compared with much of the rest of London). We cannot afford for any part of that benefit to degrade.

Having lived on Underhill for close to 30 years I noted when the humps were introduced a significant reduction in speeds, and a significant reduction in accidents within 50 yards of my house - nowadays it's just wing mirrors that get knocked, not entire cars. Yes, of course there are still loonies who speed - or who tailgate me and hoot when I'm going at 20 or less, which I do, (why sh1t on your own doorstep?) - but in general things have calmed down - which may be a reflection on just how wild west it used to be. Speedsters are unusual nowadays, rather than the norm. And the road is so narrowed often with parked cars far wider than in my youth - and oncoming traffic, that speeding is frankly more difficult than it used to be anyway, humps or no.

It only became illegal (and then not for all wild birds) in 1954 - I certainly remember when collecting eggs was still legal - and like many young people learned to blow eggs, although I never collected any of my own. Blowing hen's eggs is still a valuable skill if you like to decorate Easter Eggs to keep.

This has been the subject of discussion on this forum for a number of years, as I recall too few people are being killed or maimed on the road for the Council to bother - as it is both a bus route and a numbered road. A number of 'good ideas' have been floated, including speed cameras (which would catch speeding buses, so that's not on), speeding warning lights and other things - even mirrors to allow crossing traffic to see passed the parked-up white vans - the 'best' solution apparently is to narrow all the minor cross roads at their junctions, causing traffic to 'hang' in Barry because it can't get through and cross - which I would have thought was more likely to cause accidents - but what do I know?

I have posted on another thread that using hiring fees for the park to then maintain it would be a cost effective way to go - those closest to the park both being those most to suffer from a weekend or two's disruption - but then to benefit from having a well maintained park close to them to enjoy. Most pain: most gain.

It would be nice to think that revenues from hiring out the park could then be used to actually maintain it. That would be, to my mind, a good trade-off, particularly for those living close, for a weekend's disruption. Indeed, if the park could be made to pay for itself that would be of benefit to all living around, especially those paying local taxes which otherwise would have to be used for such a benefit (or not used, allowing the park to fall into disrepair, as it apparently has this year).

As far as nimbyism is concerned - although this event wasn't to my taste there are many 'park' events around London which I would be very happy to be on my doorstep - even though I accept they are also disruptive (slightly) to local residents. And I would be happy because I would like to, indeed do, go to them, and if they were on my doorstep it would simply be more convenient. Do remember that such events are not only an imposition on your locale, but also, to some people living there, a boon. Frankly I would like more of them (The Horniman does have some events I have happily gone to) around here. I prefer living in party to living in a morgue.

This seems, in the end, to have been a well organised event; very possibly helped (probably?) by the clear restrictions placed on the organisers by the council, following discussions between them and the organisers. Our elected representatives' interest may also have helped to keep them on the straight and narrow. Good things don't just happen, they need organisation, clear 'rules' and proper oversight. The initial concerns were not unreasonable here, but I think those concerns were effectively addressed. Luckily the hysteria on this thread didn't spread further than this thread. I hope if this event returns it will have the same oversight and care, rather than assuming that if it went right this time, it will again without having to worry about it.

I don?t think the questionnaire is that bad, the ?how was it for you? questions give greater scope for a more detailed, nuanced answer than a question such as ?On a scale of 1 to 10, how clean did you find the facility? which gives no scope for the ?yes but ...? answer. Had I ever attended at Lister, I would welcome the opportunity of answering the more open ended questions. Agreed that open-ended questions can elucidate a richer response - but please note (I speak as a former member of the MRS) (1) This is normally done in the context of a framework of more directed questions, either using a Likert scale (i.e. 1-5) or simple binary questions or other analysis context, and (2) proper data analysis of open ended questions, which, for a piece of quantitative research requires post coding (rather than pre-coding, this isn't about postcodes!) is difficult and expensive. I'm willing to bet that this group have neither the skill nor the money to use this information in any sensible way. Without demographic information on e.g. age (although apparently my response will be analysed on the basis of whether I'm a lesbian or not) and particularly, in this context, disability this 'research' isn't frankly, worth a candle. Nor is the self selecting nature of the research sample capable of supplying information of any statistical significance. Not that there are any opposition councillors anymore, but someone should challenge the 'local NHS' if they make any claims whatsoever as a 'result' of this exercise - which I suspect has the clear fingerprints of those wanting to make these changes in Southwark come what may - which is all about re-use of public property within our bit of SE London. That may actually be just the NHS - but I have my doubts.

Or so you think...

This asks 2 questions only (really) - have you ever been referred to the Lister and would you mind being seen by a nurse instead of a doctor? There are some 'how was it for you' questions if you have been referred to The Lister, but no probing questions to steer answers into useful areas (waiting times, cleanliness, ease of access, effect and so on). Most of the questionnaire is taken by demographics, but whilst it asks race and sexuality it doesn't ask age or any disability - both of which are relevant, I would have thought, to access issues, nor does it use any form of postcode check to see comparative proximity to The Lister or Dulwich Hospital. Or, in other words, it's a pretty useless questionnaire, designed to show consultation has taken place without really undertaking any meaningful information collection. If the NHS has actually pad a consultant to derive useful information for them, then they've been robbed! This is, at best, a weak PR exercise.

Seriously, you moved house just to get away from paying a few quid a week for parking? It is possible that they moved house not to avoid a few quid to park in their 'own' road, but to know (1) if their own road was parked up they could try to park in an adjacent road without being fined and (2) that they could park across the area where they lived, including adjacent to shops and other amenities without having to worry about parking restrictions. Because, you must remember, the council will sell more 'rights' to park than there are necessarily places to park. The whole area is solid with cars, skips and vans Because you sure as hell (for skips and vans) don't want to live in a road where tradesman can easily park-up to repair anything that has gone wrong, or householders have alterations and work done on their houses. We live in a city (in an inner suburb of a city) where lots of people live and where public transport is a joke. Expect there to be people who need to have and use cars. That's why it's parked up. The number of commuters not commuting to ED (i.e. to work for us living in ED) is far less than you would like to think. But let's look forward to having no teachers or dentists or nurses in the area, so long as you can park outside your house (not that you'll be able to, probably, as there will have been more permits than spaces sold anyway).

So does the Plant shop next to North Dulwich Station, I believe Oops, cross-post with above!

I cut the tops off - ideally when the shoots are young and spray the chemicals inside - it is effective but you have to be on it. Actually, the stems are rather like bamboo - they are jointed so that the poison won't trickle through easily to the root system. I would spray the leaves, when they are young, wait for them and the top of the stem to die back (you may have to spray two or 3 times over a coupe of weeks, but that means the weedkiller has been taken down into the system) and then pour poison down the stem, using a thin metal rod to break through the joints so the poison goes well down the stem. The problem is that until the stems are reasonably wide that's quite difficult. It can take 2-4 seasons of hitting the growth whenever it appears to get rid of it. Commercially they will dig down to the roots, remove as much as possible and poison the rest. Hence the cost of removal. If you do cut growth down it MUST be burned - don't add it to compost or put it in the brown-bin recycling (for Southwark readers). The sad thing is that if only it wasn't so invasive it would be a quite interesting plant for the back of a border. It's quick growing and decorative.

If you want to pick up on (some of) the things happening in your neck of the woods, and peoples' concerns then this forum (and particularly this set of threads) will give you some quick insights. It's not representative, of course - I suspect that it under-represents younger people for instance - but it's good for day-to-day local issues. Even if something isn't happening in Dulwich Hill itself the chances are it will have knock-on effects on your constituents, or is symptomatic of their concerns too. And it's a good sounding board for you as well. James Barber's significant personal following (which, in part at least couldn't follow him into the new ward structure) stemmed at least in part from his evidenced commitment to his old ED Ward on this forum, and not just on strictly party political lines either. You will find that 'seeing to be done' can be as important as 'doing' in local politics. And being prepared to stand up to robust political debate more frequently that just once every 3 years. And remember (as I have also said to your colleagues in the other bit of the old ED ward), you are our representatives, not the representatives of the council officers. They didn't elect you, we did.

The train companies get away with this be re-designating the morning 'peak' as being up to 10.00am. Despite the fact that most workplaces expect people to get into work by 9:00 or 9:30 - whatever they say about 'flexible' working. So they can argue there are the same or indeed more 'peak time' trains. B***a*ds.