Penguin68

That is frequently a function of the innumerable road works into and around Peckham and little to do with specific road issues other than they could be wider, which they actually probably can't unless you 'stole' carriageway from the Rye, which I am not advocating.

This, Peckham Rye being closed off with its buses, the tube strike... and we're told we should be using public transport and not our cars. Not even have cars in case they're needed. Because our masters tell us they're not needed.

Any sign of work going on do you know? It's been three days now and counting and it's hardly the first time that section has been a problem recently.

I'm sorry? Choose a good councillor appears a very unpolitical view. Another thread makes very clear what a bad councillor looks like, party notwithstanding. A good councillor listens and responds to their constituents. A recent lib dem councillor, sadly missed, and frequently on these pages was very clear that if his constituents' views were different from his, (as they were on traffic issues) those are still the ones he championed,as an example of a good councillor. And he always responded and promptly.

So thank god there are no blind or poorly sighted people about.

The only possible response to this is, well, bollards

Presumably because she's carrying the whole load of her ward (and her fellow counsellor!)

That would be non crime hate speech

No it isn't. Pub drinking age is set by law, nobody is suggesting that an advisory statement about drug tolerances has any legal bearing.

Depending on the size and shape of a vehicle some portion may be over a pavement when the wheels are still firmly on the road. The low height and bell shape of these bollards make them almost invisible without cameras. I've certainly backed into them when doing a '3 point turn' on a narrow road.

18 isn't a magical age for growth, I'm guessing that it is at least size related. Some bodies will be more 'mature' at 16 than others.

But I thought you said that this was a new brand for him, as his regular brand wasn't available - in which case shouldn't your answer have been 'no'?

Done the polling have you?

And I'm sure that if Reform is elected to whichever council is yours (is it Southwark?) you will steadfastly support anything that they propose on the basis that this is their mandate and that they are a representative democracy which, by your definition is anything they chose to do, whether specifically in their manifestor or not. 'Representative democracy' I suspect in your case, means a dictatorship which might be changed every 3 years or so, but is not required to consult or, if they do, to follow the results of that consultation. You seem relatively unsure, IMHO of the actual meanings of the words 'representative' and 'democracy'. Or indeed what a mandate actually refers to (and it doesn't refer to anything not specifically in your programme - and is not covered by the broad motherhood statements you seem to think it is).

No they do not. Local government, of whatever ilk, has a requirement to manage local roads, that's part of the job they sign up to. No local election has asked voters to choose which of the statutory requirements they wish their chosen candidate to be responsible for. A mandate would reflect very specific sets of actions put forward as part of a programme of governance. They offered nothing specific apart from listening to their constituents desires and needs which they have specifically ignored.

My post was specifically about the pressures now being felt by hospices and why St Christopher's, whom I much admire and support and who cared wonderfully for friends might be under pressure to leverage their shops as much as possible. And the word suicide is used to describe any self killing, whether wholly legal and admired in societies such as ancient Rome or medieval Japan or as a term in the UK. Prisoners are put on 'suicide watch', not 'taking their own life watch' for instance.

Sorry, but suicide does exist, it is not, as you've noted, any longer a crime, but it does, very sadly, exist. Or do you have another word to describe someone killing themselves?

Does this remotely matter? If they are politically motivated - then so is the council, and they are being funded by all of us whether we want to or not. It's not as if they could be some hidden commercial interest trying to leverage profit. And there would be no point in a political party secretly campaigning - that's not how political parties work. Frankly, it doesn't matter. Either people (including the significant majorities locally who have expressed an opinion when they are able to) are against what the council is doing, or they aren't. There is no reason why anyone, or any group, should not campaign against the council. Or do you believe that if 'the people' suddenly realised that it was Tories behind this (I've no idea) they would suddenly change their minds about their opposition. Most unlikely. Oh, and what funding do you think 'they' need? As far as I can see the updates are sent out on an e-mail post (i.e. for free). I'm guessing that like most of the voluntary bodies locally (Dulwich Society, Dulwich Arts Society) the officers and committee members (should it be more than a one person band) operate pro-bono - the fees charged members for the Dulwich Society and for Dulwich Arts are for e.g. costs of meetings, printed newsletters and - for the Dulwich Society - funded donations to local causes - there is, on that basis, no regular need for 'funding'. I know it sounds more suspicious to ask who is funding anything, but, other than personal time, I'd suggest that nothing on a day-to-day basis needs funding. They have, as have other similar protest bodies, asked for funds to take up legal issues, but that funding has been quite clear and transparent as regards the fund raising process.

Hospices are coming under increasing pressure at the moment. Not only have their costs been forced up by the increase in employers NI and possibly the minimum wage for some workers, but the recent assisted dying legislation, which forces doctors faced with patients likely to die to offer suicide as a way out means that numbers of hospice doctors will withdraw as they don't ethically hold with the legislation. Additionally we might anticipate a reduction in research on end-of-life care and pain alleviation where the government is supporting an alternative (and one far cheaper than proper end-of-life care). This all brings pressure on the hospice movement as the assisted dying philosophy runs counter to it. It is hardly surprising then that they are looking to gain as much benefit as they can from higher prices.

Too much effort; it's cheaper for them to agree the claim and then recover their payouts through raising insurance charges, for everyone of course but particularly for their insured customer.

Because we pay them and elect their political masters. Because they should be accountable to the electors and tax payers.

... Oh, just the council then?

To be honest, that sort of blanket condemnation (if that's what it is) is more typical of a religious than a political bent. I have actually seen no evidence of this in OneDulwich, which appears more concerned about the specific actions, failure to consult properly and fully, and acting to an agenda which is not (just) about issues of health as regards LTN and CPZ activity in the three Labour satrap councils around us, our own (Southwark for those not living in this borough) Lambeth and Lewisham. Most of us opposed to the general actions of these three councils are happy to consider that some traffic and parking management activities of some councils match the stated needs and desires of local people and actually deliver against those needs. Some, but not many, perhaps. And we are aware that monetisation of the road infrastructure is a key driver for those councils, which does not meet the stated and statutory aims of introducing these particular measures.

No it really won't, It's already had to pay to argue a defense, which it lost, in Court. It is most unlikely, unless the contractor error was very egregious that the council will receive full costs of all their actions - the contractor will have been acting as their agents, which means that they (the Council) are the principal - I suspect that unless the contractor could be shown to have acted criminally then it's most unlikely that full costs, including those of the earlier action, would be awarded them when they sue the contractor, who is most likely to put forward a defence. Remember the contractor (I believe) was never in final receipt of those fines, which were levied by and paid to the Council - with the contractor possibly, and again, acting as the Council's agent. I am sure the Council would want to get the full cost of the refunds from the Contractor, but I'm by no means as sure as some of the council cheerleaders on this thread that they will. Or even perhaps partial recompense. And certainly not immediately. Remember it was the Council, as principal, that was found at fault in this.

No, it clearly says that Southwark will attempt to recover the costs from the contractor, but it is Southwark which will initially repay those people it has wrongly fined. I suspect there will be more lawyers and costs before that is all resolved.