Penguin68

I'm sorry, Earl but you are confusing objectives with means. ULEZ and CPZ and LTN actions are all means. By endorsing any stated objectives you do not have to, or indeed need to, endorse the means. One way of achieving many objectives around climate issues would be to massively reduce the numbers of people globally - that's a means to an end, but not one I might wish to pursue. Similarly you can ease a housing crisis by building more homes, or having fewer people. These are reductio ad absurdam's of course, but you must not confuse means with ends - I can support any aspiration I like, without therefore and necessarily agreeing with or endorsing anyone's particular solution - and especially where that solution is not listed with the objective.

Apologies - in the past Southwark Council has used the excuse of 'commuters' to try to impose CPZs on people, implicitly suggesting that we would agree that those sort of people aren't wanted here. So when I see parkers described as 'commuters' I read this as part-and-parcel of the 'keep nasty 'foreigners' out of our streets' rhetoric. The 'ED streets for ED people' mindset. Apologies again if you weren't thinking that.

And all I'm saying is that commuters aren't evil, and if they are parking, so what? Many will be doing so in order to undertake employment in ED. The ones that aren't will be gainfully employed, and paying taxes, elsewhere.

I see every problem in 'alerting' the public to an event that's not, as described, taken place. Announcing a fatal accident (that wasn't) outside a school is like shouting 'fire' when there isn't one, in a crowded disco. It causes wholly unnecessary fear and distress.

No, I'm sorry, a poll (market or social research) will be conducted to ensure that the relevant population is properly sampled, so that results (within confidence limits) can be determined statistically. A consultation as undertaken by a council will be self selecting within a population and where the response numbers are low analysis may be limited, even where full demographics are collected. Additionally the questions used in a 'consultation' will not be constructed so as to avoid confusion or bias, indeed may well effectively be rigged. Southwark asked questions on a CPZ proposal, for instance, which did not allow respondents to indicate no CPZ, just a choice of different days and times for a CPZ. I write as a (now retired) former member of the Market Research Society.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work this way. The majority of residents who have expressed an opinion have opposed the scheme. That is the only thing that you can say about this poll. It may be that those who didn't participate had no feelings about the matter, but then what you can say is that 'the majority of those who had and expressed an opinion' were opposed. Being indifferent is not the same as supporting the scheme. In practice, and from my own position, the way that Southwark plays fast and loose with 'consultation' results, I can well imagine that those not very very opposed to the scheme may well feel that whatever they say 'against' it won't really matter. By saying 'but I do not believe, nor is there any evidence that the majority of local residents oppose the LTN.' you are clearly trying to imply that the majority of residents secretly support the scheme - but there is no evidence or logic to support this. Only if it had been properly conducted market research, with proper sampling and statistical analysis, could you draw or imply any position at all about those who did not participate. However common logic does suggest that if a majority of those who did choose to participate had one view, then it would be difficult to suggest that 'really' the opposite view prevailed, unless of course you were a Southwark councillor- based on my experience of Southwark Council (or probably, and in the case of West Dulwich, a Lambeth councillor).

As I have off street parking for 3 cars, bring it on! And please realise that commuters are the people who bring services to our own streets, or would you prefer we had no schools, no surgeries, no shops, no restaurants locally? Maybe close all these down so you can keep commuters away from you. (We are poorly served by anything other than North South public transport. And not well served by that.)

And of course, all commuters should be shot as being the scum of the earth. Can I remind you that to get to ED (if you live on an East West axis), you are almost bound to use a private vehicle, as east west commuting using public transport, where most routes run north to West End or City is a huge chore and time-waster. These filthy commuters are the people who teach our children, nurse, doctor or dentist us, serve in our shops and restaurants - or, even worse, travel further into town to earn salaries and pay tax. We certainly don't want those sort dirtying our pristine roads. Commuters are what keeps the local, and national economy afloat. Without people commuting in to serve us, and/ or to generate wealth, we would be in dire straights. We should have more parking to support commuters (or a great deal more public transport linking communities other than those directly north and south of us).

And dog fish is actually a small shark species. Very different taste and texture to the cod family. If you'd been expecting cod then the rock would have been disappointing. But it is what it is.

Outwith the communications failure were there any other mitigating circumstances - i.e. visibility at the time, confusing signage etc. which might have led him to accidently enter the wrong carriageway? Does he know how this might have occurred? Clearly when he realised he tried to take the right remedial action. But clearly also he was guilty of the offence, he was driving the wrong way down a dual carriageway, but anything that can be said in mitigation after a guilty plea may lessen the penalties involved. If he's a member of a motoring organisation (i.e. AA; RAC) then they I think have legal advisors who may assist (ideally you need experienced road traffic offences lawyers) and who may be able to present the mitigating case in the best possible light.

But there are more, bulky, profitable parcels to deliver, many tracked and requiring scanning etc. These take up the efforts of posties who would otherwise be walking much easier to deliver letter post. And the staffing and recruitment for the woefully misnamed Dulwich DO in Peckham is appalling and the management appears to be anecdotally inept and uncaring.

Travel patterns were severely disrupted post Covid as very many continued to work from home - I'm guessing where this was so parents who might have driven children to school pre-Covid on their way to work/ station etc. might not post Covid still be doing so - or might be able to accompany younger children to walk to school without then going on to work themselves. Clearly comparing like-with-like is always difficult with time series - but as regards travel; pre, during and post Covid were very different things. And we do know that locally the Village LTN has meant significant car diversions for East West travel such that what was an acceptable pre LTN car journey to school might now not be. Or pick-up from school. But I had not picked up that at least the School lock-down periods were excluded!

Children weren't going into schools during large parts of lock down as they were all closed!

But it's not cars versus bikes, is it? - it's specific drivers versus specific cyclists - it's about the people not the vehicles. And about policies which favour one group of people over another, and has views that, for instance, one individual who jumps the lights or drives on pavements should be entitled to, and another should be prosecuted (and I don't mean the cyclist!)

Well, in the overall area, resistance to Southwark has kept some roads open which were scheduled to close, have got Southwark to step away from universal borough-wide CPZs and have indeed excluded two wards from any proposals - and done so without needing an expensive court case or cases. Sometimes a good legal argument and threat of judicial review backed by that argument do have an effect,

Sainsbury's used (and may still) run their own food bank collection (for items) in store. Maybe that's why.

Are you saying that all those posters who are asking for pavements to be widened (implicity and sometime explicitly by removing parking), are not serious in their proposals? I had assumed that they weren't being satirical.

Only as regards 'unstable and unsafe' plane trees - which Southwark would also remove. This is ancillary anyway to removing a fountain to replace with an open retail space. Plane trees make a substantial contribution to air quality, not I notice a current argument for their retention in this debate.

Pollution levels (as regards car emissions) have already been substantially reduced through the ULEZ imposition locally (or the Mayor's claims are lies) - cars now having to drive longer will only add to short journey emission problems. Actually, pollution caused by private vehicles is substantially reduced anyway across London, and is far less in an area which might be considered an 'outer' suburb - as the old borough of Camberwell was compared to the old 'inner' borough of Southwark. South Lambeth is in the same position. The arguments about comparatively poor provision of public transport hold for West Dulwich as for other parts of Dulwich. And we know that locally LTN introduction has just forced traffic into other areas, as this almost certainly also will, simply shifting, and not alleviating whatever pollution issues remain. Note that LTNs in London have never, yet, exempted electric vehicles from their grasp.

The people who park in the 'shopping' part of Lordship Lane do so, I'm imagining (and it would be true of my experiences) because they are visiting the establishments there either to buy from them or to serve them. Removing what parking there is (taking into account length of stay and time to park restrictions) will be to undermine the shops and food outlets etc. scope to survive fiscally. Which, I'm sure, a proper socialist/ anti-capitalist regime would applaud. Keeping parking may be keeping establishments open, something which I would applaud, but hey - horses for courses.

All GP practices (primary care) are privately owned - either as a single practice (now very uncommon, post Shipman) owned and staffed by a single doctor; more commonly as a partnership, with a number (2+) of partners, together, sometimes, additionally with salaried GPs or as a limited company, either owned by one GP (or sometimes several, but not as a partnership) or by a trading company. Wealthy doctors can own more than one practice, in which case the majority of GPs will be salaried (and not often paid that much!). Ownership options are similar to dental practices and to vets! GP practices can also employ locums - who are not permanent staff members. Practices contract with the NHS who pay a capitation fee (for enrolled patients) together with extra payments e.g. for (some) vaccinations etc. to fulfil targets set by Government. [Actually, the payment structure for primary care is complex and ever-changing, as are the performance demands placed on practices] The BMA (Doctors' Union) negotiated this arrangement with Bevan right from the start - but the existence of private companies in the primary care market is a relatively recent phenomenon, it used just to be sole traders and partnerships. Staff working in practices will be employed by the practice, not directly by the NHS (but medical staff other than doctors will get, I believe, rates of pay agreed by the NHS with the unions).

If this is a response to my previous post then can I point out that I specifically condemned just the use of the word 'cyclist' to describe a con-merchant faking an accident (and indeed expressed some doubt that someone on a bicycle would/ could do so). I then did point out what a 'criminal cyclist' would look like - jumping red lights is a criminal offence and (some) cyclists do do this. Some cyclists, in their role as cyclists, do cycle criminally. Lots of people in different roles act criminally (a car driver jumping a red light is equally criminal). Your pathological need to defend anyone on a bicycle from any criticism is very noticeable - I would prefer just to defend the class of cyclists when they are associated, as a class, with non cycling offences - staging fake accidents, by whatever means, is not an offence specific to a type of vehicular use.

Actually I think, at least initially, that 'promise' only referred to areas within his own ward. Happy to stand corrected. The wider re-assurance (possibly not worth the paper etc.) was made following a serious foray into potential judicial review, when the apparent basis of any CPZ in Southwark was called into question based on the 'justification' offered in the borough-wide CPZ attempt, when it became clear that Southwark's stated rationale was not in line with actual legislation.

Admin, this might be a good moment to lock this thread. To avoid any sub judice contempt.

I would not describe a con merchant and criminal such as this as 'a cyclist', as I wouldn't describe a ram raider as 'a motorist'. They are, if they exist, 'criminals using bicycles'. As opposed to a cyclist jumping a red light who is a criminal cyclist.