Penguin68

Are you talking about Timothy grass - which is terrible for hay fever? In which case it's wind dispersed and a nightmare.

But this is one of those 'my journey is unnecessary to you', or rather 'your journey is unnecessary to me' moments isn't it? You have no rights whatsoever to judge the necessity of my, or indeed anyone other's journey, only your own. It is this totalitarian arrogance of the council and it's cheeleaders which annoys others. We already have laws which restrict us, often quite properly. But these are actions which further restrict us no doubt in your mind 'for our own good'. Well hang that. The council is using powers to pursue an agenda that very many did not sign up to, and don't give me nonsense about 'we elected them'. They were only once overt in their declared hatred of private motorists, and that was several elections ago. Oh, and local electors in a local election very stupidly used their vote most recently to attack a national government they didn't like. More fool them.

I think more likely is that people keep a car for journeys that public transport doesn't offer, or at a price they are not prepared to pay, and use their cars possibly just at weekends or for special trips. The idea that car traders are using all our streets for stock is simply wishful thinking for those who hate car owners.

... Or cyclists. I do not believe 'the active travel lobby' are particularly made up of proselytising walkers, the mode of active travel most common, it would appear, in Dulwich.

Actually work has been done on that. People accept taxation as necessary for a modern state to work. However if you allow people to choose what the tax would be spent on you do get different aportionments from those HMG (of whatever nature) chooses. You can even get people to opt in as it were for tax rises if they get the opportunity to allocate that rise. People are not actually against taxation per se. So, all work done that I know of says the answer wouldn't be no. Except yours, apparently.

Wrong - firstly that they in fact are implementing schemes that, in the main, a majority of those impacted by the scheme have indicated being against, and have then gerrymandered the results to suggest the opposite, but secondly that, whereas they, and you, pray-in-aid fictions about active travel - and then claim they have some right to coerce people into making health initiative decisions, rather than persuading them, in fact you and the other council cheerleaders know full well that this is all (well 99.99%) about driving income streams through fines and charges. And one final thing, the cycling lobby cheerleaders would like you to think that cycling is the window to active travel and fitness - whereas the vast majority of active travel (and particularly in the broad Dulwich area) has been by walking. Sealing off the parks to monetise them is hardly encouraging this. Nor is allowing TfL to reduce bus frequencies (by allowing I mean of course not publicly resisting, or not much) And neither is making hugely available motorised bicycles, which rather subvert the active travel concept.

Any group that intends to implement policies around making people change their personal habits through coercion and not persuasion (nothing anyone does to avoid active travel is in any way illegal, or harms anyone other than themselves) is fascist in nature and wholly despicable. Glad to see who's running their flags up that particular flagpole.

It used to he that car badges were stolen just as trophies. Their value resided in their display value to demonstrate - well, something. Nerve perhaps.

If the 'silent majority' determine not to engage in civic discussion, pointless as it often seems when dealing with councils deaf to opposition, then it is impossible to determine what their views are. Their only commonality is that they are silent. To suggest that if, say, 40% of an eligible population 'votes' and of those 60% vote one way, then the others who have not voted but are silent are in fact of the opposite view is simply statistically mad.

I think robots offer two benefits. Firstly they do not tire, which means a competent surgeon can oversee them with far less physical exhaustion, allowing for a larger work load (and the surgeon can be remote). And secondly robots can operate key hole operations where the recovery time is much shorter, clearing beds and wards for reuse.

In a radio interview this morning it was pointed out that driverless cabs running successfully in the US were doing so in an environment where the towns were designed around motor traffic usage, with straight roads, common interchange (no roundabouts, though that wasn't mentioned) and anti Jay walking laws. We have narrow and non uniform streets, people (and bicycles) on our roads acting unpredictably and little uniformity of road design. The AI challenge to drive on our streets is far more complex and the risk profiles far higher. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Uber trials prove disastrous (not as regards accidents, hopefully, but as regards the system working at all). The trials will be conducted I believe with an expert driver in the car as a fail safe.

Whatever you do, you must never, never, criticise Southwark. You will face the ire of Mal. Who doesn't live or vote there (save in traffic based 'consultations').

I assume firstmate has the evidence of his own eyes. What was there, now isn't. Unless you can find this elusive document... and share it, please.

Do you have a pond? Did you have fish in it?

And yet, as I recall, when I complained of very long duration road works, when the actual lapsed time of working was far shorter than the time of traffic disruption, you were very dismissive of the economic impact being of any import. But then, that was a council doing it, not your hated private motorist.

But I pointed out that they are not even working 5 days a week 9 - 5. That's standard pay, they can't be paid less! If they were just employed for continuous working weeks the jobs would be completed faster. And there is a real cost to the economy as a whole when traffic is disrupted unnecessarily long. Amended to say - I do understand that blockages may continue when no work is being undertaken when, for instance, tarmac is being allowed to set - although I also note that once it's rolled traffic is often allowed on to it quite quickly. Concrete will take longer. But the work-free delays are rarely of this nature.

There was a lot in Camberwell Old Cemetery.

Generally wild flowers which are indigenous to the UK are more likely to be supporting more wild life than introduced species, more commonly found in gardens, simply because wild life hasn't had time to adapt to it. Although of course many introductions which flower will be supporting pollinators more generally. (This would also be true of native as opposed to introduced tree and scrub species). And I suspect plants which are flowering over public space, even if rooted on private property, are being removed to stop them setting seed in public space. [Although many might see that as a good thing if the plants have merits of their own].

My problem with (all) the works is that the period of disruption is generally far longer than the lapsed time of actual work being done. Teams are not even being scheduled 9-5 five days a week, let alone late working or weekends. So the actual period of disruption to road users is much longer than it need be. Nobody suggests that work doesn't need to be done (although scheduled works could be better planned) - it's the complete disregard for the actual lapsed time of disruption which is so annoying.

... So job done. And the possibility of fines (rubs hands together) and a CPZ!

Because Health, like Defence, are not Council responsibilities. Just a reduction ad absurdum.

You can't load on double yellows, you'd be booked

And these costs are not funded by Councils, in the main. We also have issues to do with Defence responsibilities - should the Council be picking those up to? And the day that Lambeth or Southwark council picks up the responsibility for managing and funding the NHS I will agree that this too becomes their issue. Because you are cycling mavens (but many people can't cycle for perfectly good reasons, including inclination) you are delighted by such Council mission creep. Yet you resist so strongly any attempts to control cyclists as regards speed or responsibilities to other road users arguing your personal choice and those of other cyclists trump the concerns of others... hey ho!

Actually, I don't think this is the job of a council. That's up to, (should be up to) personal choice. I would agree that removing impediments to active travel, should there be any, may be a nice to, but not a need to, option - but let's not be naive about this - the council is interested primarily in revenue generation, and the £1m of fines here would certainly support this hypothesis. The disruption to bus services which shifting traffic on to only a few routes is clear evidence, in my mind, that the council has little actually interest in active travel, save maybe that which the bike lobby shouts about, but for very many of us walking to use public transport is our only option, if we are elderly or frail. Make the public transport less accessible or slower and it decreases its value. And TFL trying to withdraw routes doesn't help! 'Active travel' is simply a dog whistle here - and has no relevance to what councils are actually doing or their motivations to do it.

The Post Office and Royal Mail are separate companies. In my end of Underhill we are down to one postal delivery a week now, and have been for several months. More parcels of course, but they're better earners.