Penguin68

The OP was concerned that he was being scammed, realised that this wasn't technically a scam and changed the title. However, whilst Thames was not actually scamming, I suggested that it nevertheless, with its drive for water meters, was not necessarily always acting in its customers best interests, if technically legally. Hence what might be seen as a diversion, particularly after the thread title was changed. I however make no apologies for riding a hobby horse, as others have also done.

Can I recommend, for those who are interested, the August 2024 DEMOS report on LTN's ( UK Policy Briefing: Democratic deficits, disinformation and low traffic neighbourhoods ) https://demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/LTNs-Policy-Briefing_UK.pdf. This is very interesting (to me at least) and an important conclusion (again to me) was:- Overall, this study challenged the assumptions that local rows over LTNs have been fuelled by wild conspiracy theories. Instead, it points to a failure of councils to properly understand and engage their communities; to national politicians stoking divisions for political gain; and to an absence of high quality local journalism. Here, we find a democratic chasm (my emphasis) at a local level between councils and communities in which disinformation has flourished. Although Dulwich was not chosen as a focus for the study (the locii were Rochdale, Enfield and Oxford) I think many of their findings would be locally applicable. Worth a read, at least I thought it was. Amended to add that Demos is very clear that they wish wide circulation of their study.

So I'm sure, Mal, you are 100% behind Thames' current bid to raise water bills by over 50%. After all, you obviously don't begrudge their current and former overseas investors loading the firm up with debt and siphoning off billions of pounds in 'dividends'. They are just modern day saints. And their gifts to us, constant leaks and filthy rivers. But they, like all your local heroes can do no wrong! They exercise their rights as commercial companies, but having myself worked for a very big one, I can assure that commercial companies do everything they can, within the law, to maximise their profits, and that is particularly true of public service monopolies with weak and ineffective regulators. Getting customers to choose suboptimal tariffs, coercing them when you can, is absolutely the name of the game.

We are policed 'by consent' and by a civilian force, seen as part of the community. Police need to be spending more time in the community, not less. We will never replace the 'beat copper'; sadly, this may be the closest we will now get.

It's not a survey, but it's not bad that local law enforcement talk informally with local people, who aren't either current victims of crime or current perpetrators. Remember their jobs don't normally involve ordinary joes.

Whilst not, technically, a scam, as such, the desires that Thames Water had to put us all on water meters, with the ability then to raise revenues on a household basis (whilst pretending that some houses would see charges fall) - they said this price rationing would 'save' almost as much water as if they actually repaired their own pipes which lose so much annually - combined with the inaccuracy of 'smart' meters in general - is as close to a corporate scam as it is possible to get without actually breaking the law! Indeed Thames Water is about as squeaky clean as the filth they pour into our rivers on a regular basis.

There have been incidences of real subsidence, of course, in East Dulwich, and building on a clay substrate clearly has issues, but I bought my house nearly 40 years ago with a 'crack' in one wall, which has subsequently pretty well closed and disappeared. Insurance companies (a) hate to pay out and (b) like to charge as much as they can; so supporting a 'history' of local subsidence is absolutely in their best interests. Of course get a proper, independent, survey done and take engineering advice. There are lots of good reasons for the appearance of cracks (the presence or recent absence of biggish trees for one), which are not indicators of significant topological movement which puts the structure in jeopardy. And with the absence of industry (particularly brewing) local water tables in the Thames basin have risen. But there is little evidence, which I have seen, for large scale engineering works locally to address subsidence issues (there was one a 100-200 yards or so away from me on a hill about 20 years ago). So don't worry unnecessarily. Oh, and some builders are still seeing signs of house movement as a consequence of war-time bomb damage following V weapon strikes. Which does need repair but which isn't, in any strict sense, subsidence.

No more than 4-5 at one time, for the ones I've been in, but people do leave and go as it's informal ('cuppa with a copper' is a good description). This is different from formal meetings where reports are made.

If a topic is raised, say concerns about street dealing, and everyone is engaged, interested and looks involved that tells you something, if everyone apart from the questioner looks bored or confused maybe it isn't a burning local issue. You can 'read' live meetings better than Zoom normally,when most people are just looking at their screen/ camera. And not actually at the speaker.

One of the benefits of the live meetings is being able to take one of the PCS aside for a quiet word, to mention something you'd prefer to be discrete about. That may be a neighbour issue, or something more concerning. Or maybe it's simply a question you might be embarrassed to ask too openly. Zoom meetings don't support that. PCs use these events as sources of local information and to get an informal look at people. Again more difficult in Zoom where you have less opportunity to 'read' body language. There are meetings where Zoom is a good addition to, or even substitute for live, but I don't think these are them.

I think a waist and chest measurement may be more helpful in finding a fit.

Actually, I'm not sure it's quite like that. I think that (many) people who cycle, in general, have normal respect for the law in general, it's just that I don't think they believe that it applies to them; they think of themselves as 'assisted pedestrians' and act - as regards usage of roads and pavements, just as if they were pedestrians. Pedestrians aren't that bothered about traffic lights - if they see their way is clear they cross and enter roads without regard. (Some) cyclists move from road to pavement without worrying - just as a pedestrian might. If you look at their actions, as filmed, they are treating roads and pavements exactly as a pedestrian might, and not as a car (or motorbike rider) would. Pedestrians aren't bothered about signalling their intentions, or about lights or wearing visible clothing, and neither are some cyclists. Motorists, and riders of heavy motor bikes have all had to demonstrate (and thus learn) road and traffic awareness - cyclists haven't. All they've been trained in, if at all, and by their parents, is being pedestrians. Which is why they act like pedestrians (some of them at least). It's just they are on bikes and travelling much faster than pedestrians. And just like a pedestrian caught behind slow moving pedestrians they will push their way through, move from one path to another willy nilly. That, I think, is the problem.

Most (if not all) Housing Associations own properties which they manage; some additionally provide management services to Local Councils who have chosen to retain freehold over their properties but engage social housing management experts to manage the properties day-to-day. The Local Authorities who do retain freehold will then also undertake (fund) additional capital works necessary for maintenance and repair purposes. Life becomes more complex when Local Authorities sell leaseholds within estates which also have renting tenants and which may otherwise be managed by Housing Associations on their behalf for the continuing 'social housing' element.

Mount Pleasant is the London Sorting Office (there is also one in Croydon but I think all London postcodes are handled by Mount Pleasant) . I don't however know how post box collections are organised or managed. There would be no logic however for that to be based out of Mount Pleasant.

Ah ha ha! These are students we're talking about.

It is the Delivery Office (DO) which is in Peckham - Sorting Offices (where mail goes when collected from Post Boxes) are entirely different - and there are now only one or two in London. Sorting does take place at Peckham - but it is for post waiting only to be sorted into 'walks'. Sorry, it's just a technicality but it does mean that issues we have with delivery locally are not mirrored into problems when we ourselves post locally - that doesn't go anywhere near Peckham when collected (unless it is later for local delivery, and then it comes back to Peckham from the Sorting Office). That's quite offensive. 'Late-in-the-day' deliveries are made by posties working overtime to clear the backlogs caused by local mismanagement - granted they will be working on overtime rates, but they will have been working for many hours. And will have walked many miles.

I'm sorry, but the very 'best' you might interpret 'a horrific and tragic accident' would be one causing life changing injuries, and in context probably of a child - but juxtaposed with 'under covers' - which most would interpret as fully covered (not tucked into a duvet) - then a fatal accident. To suggest anything else would be to stretch normal reporting conventions far too far. It was a mistake, and a mistake probably, but not certainly, encouraged by an agenda which wishes to attack motorised traffic as inherently and always dangerous and sinful. There is almost a sense of relish in the reporting. In the context of an accident close to a school it was sensationalist. The attempts by others to excuse or trivialise the impacts of this false reporting (given I am not suggesting it was, ab initio known to be false) are lamentable.

The money available from short-term lets is generally much better than long-term - student accommodation is by definition short-term - so you might imagine a scenario where high revenues are obtained from multiple short-term lets (not necessarily to students- I can't imagine who would police this). If I had a business serving ED customers I might prefer to have customers either from long-term lets of e.g. families or indeed short-term lets of wealthy people (relatively). Students tend neither to be high, nor consistent, spenders. However I would support accommodation e.g. for student nurses (at Kings etc.) or other health professionals - who would tend to be longer-term tenants and would also be filling a social need. But I do suspect hidden agendas here.

Why should One Dulwich be accountable to anyone? If it's just one person then his or her 'accountability' is no different from any private poster on these boards, that is, nil. If it is a group of people (as I believe it is, even if fronted by one individual) then it is accountable only to its members. It's not like a Council, which is accountable to the residents of the borough and its electorate, who are its paymasters via Council tax.

There are in fact two collecting bodies for crime statistics, the police (who record only what is reported to them) and a government survey of the general population, asking them of their recent experience of crime. Generally, and not surprisingly, higher figures come from this survey as crime can go unreported when there is little or no material gain to be had from reporting it, (e.g. damage or loss below a threshold for insurance pay out) and no anticipation that the police will act if it is reported. Virtually all shoplifting falls into this category.

I apologise for being party to discussing specifically LTN issues, the original point is well made however. By changing local circumstances there may have been unintended (I assume) consequences by making areas more susceptible to other issues, such as increased vulnerability to crime, if that is what is occurring. When changes are made to local 'topographies' (in the widest sense) there may be unplanned consequences. And these should be open for discussion and, possibly, amelioration. Such an unplanned consequence has been suggested here. It is not, per se, an attack on the concept of LTNs, but it may be something which needs addressing. In the same way as a removal or reduction in street lighting to save money or avoid light pollution might have (similar) consequences. It would be proper to examine this in detail, consider for instance changes, if any, in reported crime (at the least because some types of crime need to be reported to engage insurance claims, if not the dubious attention of the Met) and consider, if crime has increased, whether the link to the LTN introduction can be stood up. Comparing crime rate changes on otherwise similar roads in Dulwich would be a start.

Where LTNs do actually reduce emmissions overall, rather than simply shift traffic elsewhere, which includes extending journey times, and where they do actually encourage 'active' travel or travel via public transport I would not resist them, although I do not welcome nanny state interventions, but where overall emissions do not reduce but simply shift, where the actions are driven by politics not science, where alternative transport is unavailable or unusable then I am against them. I am particularly against them when all they are is virtue signalling.

And I'm sure that all those living in the peripheral roads which have had more traffic forced on them are so happy that the few in the Village, whether they wanted it or not, are relieved of fumes. They are so much more deserving than us peripheral peasants.

Seeing a man in the street whose actions you interpret as suspicious, whatever those were, and however wrong your interpretation maybe is apparent evidence of criminality (we are asked by the police to report suspicious behaviour) but I agree is not evidence of a crime wave - the extrapolation to that may or may not be justified but isn't in itself a wholly unreasonable consideration given recently changed circumstances (reduction of through traffic to observe and inhibit nefarious activity).

And would you, Mal, be openly doing this (petitioning for closing more roads) where you live, or just in Dulwich and ED, where I believe you don't. Have you, indeed, petitioned for closure of roads around your home, and if so, which? Just how happy are your neighbours with your position on this?