Penguin68

I think you'll find that if someone had told Chris Hitchens that they'd seen and experienced god - 'the evidence of his own eyes' he would perhaps have challenged the interpretation of the evidence - but he would not have said there was no evidence. An individual saw someone he believed was acting suspiciously - that individual may have been wrong in the interpretation, but that was interpretation of evidence. Chris, to my personal knowledge, was a much better thinker than that, and would not have challenged first hand experience as 'no evidence' but (if it was regarding the existence of god) as 'misinterpreted evidence'. Had the OP imagined, or reported other people's reporting, then your stolen aphorism might be appropriate, but not in this case.

The original LTNs were introduced under emergency legislation and without any means for anyone to object - they were acts of dictatorship, effectively. Since then the council has tried to extend the LTNs and has tried to introduce a universal CPZ across Southwark. Through local actions much of these attempts, which were not 'authorised' by emergency legislation have been effectively resisted, and One Dulwich, amongst others, can take the credit for this. Protesters have at least forced the council to act legally, something they had been resisting. For many (including all those cheerleading attacks on anti-LTN groups) the rest of the world evidently hasn't moved on, or you would not be so desperate to shout down your opposition.

On the other hand 'I saw a suspicious male' is a starting point for concern, and the fact is that the road changes have made roads that were quite well used now much less so - which is certainly an aid to those who have nefarious purposes. True 'gated communities' are just that, ones with gates. Maybe ours are now 'target communities' - indeed maybe this is Southwark's hidden move to achieve redistribution of wealth, from the 'haves' to the 'have not - yets' - thus placing them as true socialists!

If 'One Dulwich' is really just one person, and not a group of people, then I would suggest that those who spend their time attacking him (or her) should watch out - if just one person can achieve this 'against' the might of Southwark Council do you really want him, or her, going up against lonesome you (although of course the 'antis' are just as anonymous and 'non-representative' as they point out One Dulwich is).

This thread, and other recent ones on this board, are demonstrating the impossibility of squaring faith (or belief) and Knowledge/ science. I do hope that this will sink in soon so that the same pointless arguments (pointless because those espousing faith and those espousing knowledge will never agree) can cease. I have had a dog myself in this fight, but it's really getting quite tedious now. Could we move on until there's something actual novel to discuss.

Actually, our current MP, and particularly the one before, have substantial evidence of the Peckham DO's failures in mail delivery and they can be prayed in aid as regards any appeals. Although, in law, proof of posting is normally accepted as proof of receipt as regards the Royal Mail; the evidence of local and continuing Dulwich DO failures is clear and well recorded by our MPs. I would write letters to any issuing authorities citing known and continued failures of the Dulwich DO to deliver in a timely fashion, cite correspondence with local MPs and (visibly) copy your appeal to both Helen Hays and Ms Reeves.

Please, raptortruckman is clearly a troll, pretending to be the worst sort of petrol head either just to annoy, or possibly to bring anti LTN (and indeed CPZ) posters into disrepute. Either way nothing he or she says is a real contribution to this debate.

There is no evidence that a CPZ has any climate impact at all, other than cars driving around looking for somewhere to park, or driving round whilst someone they have driven shops in an area where there is now no parking. CPZs are designed to offer locals the chance to park locally, so actually to the benefit, where there is parking pressure, of those who live in the area. You confuse the LTN impact with a CPZ impact, as regards climate and air quality. It is true that a CPZ is costly, and Southwark wanted to use it to drive revenues, but costly is not such an issue in Dulwich Village, now is it?

At the Woodvale junction with Forest Hill Road I observed a cyclist who swerved out of my lane and into the oncoming lane and then turned right across the junction into Forest Hill Road (against a red light) without breaking his (considerable, for a cycle) pace. It was an immensely stupid action, but he got away with it, as drivers avoided him. One day he won't, and then he'll be another tragic statistic. And someone (the driver who hit him) will be traumatised by the event, forever (probably) blaming themselves for hitting him. As anyone would, whoever was 'to blame'.

There was no evidence from the manufactures of cladding used at Grenfell being flammable. Manufactures aren't going to boast of performance issues with their product. Problems with recording of traffic moving under 10mph being recorded accurately in traffic counts using pneumatic detectors is on record. Hence references above to different sensors not having that problem as an argument for their use.

I have noticed that some cyclists cleary consider themselves wheeled pedestrians, moving on and off pavements as they see fit; ignoring traffic signals, cycling across pedestrian crossings etc. They proceed just as a pedestrian would do, only faster. So I can imagine that they see pedestrian signalling as being relevant to them.

My daughter reported an assault (as it was happening) with a deadly weapon (car driven several times into a cyclist pinning him against another car - road rage) and I photographed a burglar actually burgling a house - the police wouldn't even come out for the first incident, and didn't charge anyone for the second as the value of goods stolen 'wasn't enough'. Both incidents in ED. The Met really can't be @rsed - turning up in a safe space to talk to the middle class over a cup of tea is as good as it gets.

That would be a reasonable attitude as regards the management, but my experience is that the posties are doing the best they can but are woefully understaffed (there's no cover for sickness or leave, and some walks have no regular postie assigned) and, despite denials, packages are prioritised over letter post. Posties can only physically carry parcels to far fewer addresses than letters, which means even on existing walks they don't take letters out wit them if they are carrying parcels. Because they cannot walk to the DO (in Peckham) they have to drive there and back, with two or 3 walks worth in each van. Making covering another postie's walk that much more difficult.

It's quite clear that this poster is posing as a mad super car driver to wind up, and indeed troll, the cycling lobby on this thread. And it seems to work! Indeed some suggest that the original targets are those who don't lobby for cyclists, by channeling a ridiculous driving character. Either way it's a troll and fits well with the procycling trolls on these threads.

The most recent figures are actually in Great Britain in 2023 there were an estimated: 1,645 fatalities, a decline of 4% compared to 2022 29,643 killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties, little change compared to 2022 132,063 casualties of all severities, a decline of 3% compared to 2022 Considering the different road user types and demographics, the statistics show: of the 4 main road user types, the road user type with the biggest estimated percentage change for 2023 compared to 2022 for fatalities was motorcyclists, which showed a decline of 12% of the 4 main road user types, pedal cyclists had the biggest estimated percentage change for 2023 compared to 2022 for all casualties, which showed a decline of 6% ....... In 2023, 46% of fatalities were car occupants, 25% were pedestrians, 19% were motorcyclists and 5% were pedal cyclists. Of these 4 road user types: the biggest percentage change compared to 2022 was for motorcyclists, which showed a decline of 12% car occupant fatalities showed a decline of 5% pedal cyclist fatalities showed a decline of 7% pedestrian fatalities showed an increase of 6% So, in general, the actual number of deaths was fewer than 2000 and casualty rates are falling for those using two wheels. And yes, some (if few) of the deaths and casualties are caused by cyclists. Considering that only 5.5% of those seriously injured or worse were fatalities, it's not helpful (if strictly accurate) to talk about 'tens of thousands of deaths and...' as if the fatalities were a substantial portion of those seriously injured. And nearly half of those killed were in cars, and a quarter were pedestrians, the only growing cohort and the ones cyclists are most likely to injure.

Before his Camberwell Antiques Market, with a number of traders (and, eventually, a restaurant), Rodney Franklin had an antique shop in Queenstown Road, Battersea. This would have been in the 1970s.

Do remember that SUV refers to Sports Utility Vehicles - that is Utility Vehicles (trucks, often used in e.g. construction etc.) with car bodies. The vast majority of SUV 'style' cars on the road are built on car, not truck, chassis and are certainly taller than a saloon, but very similar in profile to the people carriers we all became very familiar with in the past. Having an' SUV look' doesn't mean that the vehicle is built on a truck chassis. Just because it looks like an SUV it doesn't mean it is one. The Nissan Qashqai is a prime example of such a sheep in wolf's clothing.

But of course people in cars have to pass (increasingly stringent) tests, which include hazard awareness, road rules etc. People on bikes don't. So an increase in drivers is an increase in trained and tested people. Drivers have training to understand, and avoid 'bad behaviour'. And the penalties they face personally if they indulge in it are far more stringent than penalties (ha ha) faced by cyclists.

I had always thought a 'rat-run' was the diversion of traffic through residential streets, adding to pollution and increased dangers. Traffic through a park (and one with a far lower speed limit than the 30mph then prevailing in London residential streets) wasn't ever really, in that sense, a rat run. It tended, in rush hours, to take traffic further away from people than that actually using the streets. The two gates other than the one on the South Circular didn't really get you anywhere useful (unless it was your own street) - I think these were mainly used when e.g. the A205 was otherwise blocked - as frequently happened and still happens, but without that, or other remedies. And of course sealing this problem was no more costly or difficult than shutting the big gates that were already there and were shut when the park closed anyway.

Based on the thread's title I suspect it started as one

I'm not sure you could normally exit out onto the South Circular, even then (it would have been a bad idea if you could) - I think you could drive between The Court Lane and Old College Gate entrances. Which was convenient but never an obvious cut-through for traffic, just useful for locals

I'm guessing, with problems in Underhill and Horniman that it was an issue with the transformer/ sub station in Langton Rise.

Target Arms, which also sold genuine antique militaria, including a deactivated Lewis Gun, as I recall. Rather more antique militaria than air pistols and rifles and replicas in fact. Good quality and value for collectors.

You're right, I mis typed. 17:25: I'll correct above.

At about 17.25 this evening a local alarm started, my TV switched itself on and my computer crashed. Everything else in the house works fine. Did anyone else notice strange energy issues around then? Everything seems fine now.