Penguin68

Apologies for that confusion.

Nobody suggested this was what Southwark was doing or planned to do. I responded to a reference, possibly in jest, to the words 'social cleansing' but the almost MAGA like supporters of the council respond to any reference to Council actions as if it's some form of indefensible attack on the object of their passions.

Well, anyone interested in how Southwark is spending its limited resources, for instance - when pot holes in our roads still abound.

I very much hope 'social cleansing' is not on the cards - the great value of Peckham is its rich mix of people both living and visiting the areas. If you mean removal or discouragement of criminal activity (including vandalism) then I would agree of course - and I would be very much in favour of actual cleaning in the area - the fact that Peckham is 'mixed class' is a good thing, surely (which is what 'social cleansing' often refers to). Kings Cross (which stimulated this part of the debate) had a very significant prostitution and drugs culture - with some elements of rack-renting and significant criminality. It was also far more 'run-down' and over a wider area) than the area around our station - even if that could do with more investment.

Yes it is, coloquially and locally, although it's a very recent coinage (for marketing purposes) and is non specific as to what it actually means. Peckham is a real place on a map with clear boundaries. I was commenting on a comment which had suggested using Bellenden as a locator rather than the utilised 'Peckham'. The venue in question is in Rye Lane, not Bellenden Road, so saying Bellenden would be unhelpful. The OP appears to have recognised that, in a graceful way.

Was that one of the trees the council had always wanted to knock down, to make the work easier, if I remember correctly, but which was resisted by local people?

If it's a bumble bee nest they won't be interested. But they are an important part of the local ecology. I don't know whether bumbe bee nest can be transferred readily. But they shouldn't be destroyed.

Well, Peckham is a real place, whereas 'Bellenden Village' is an estate agent invention, and is topologically meaningless.

I would hope that the council is concentrating on necessary works only (of course we know, vide what's going on in Central Dulwich that's not true), but some are more time critical than others. Things which are broken and dangerous need fixing first, then things which would benefit from improvement rather than repair. These can and should be scheduled to be of as limited a disruption as possible, and particularly scheduled in the light of other works 'on the books'. There is no evidence whatsoever of such joined-up thinking in the planning department, or any liaison between boroughs on work which adjoins other boroughs.

My postal deliveries in Underhill have dropped back to less than once a week, from a quite regular 3 (should of course be six!) - is it just my walk or have others also recently deteriorated? Still getting the more remunerative parcels.

"Blighty" is a British slang term for Britain or England, ultimately derived from the Urdu word "vilāyatī," meaning "foreign" or "European," according to Wiki, and was mainly used in the 19th Century and then WWI. It is thus a non English loan word. But I'm sure you knew that.

These (like the work on the A205 junction with Lordship Lane) are planned and voluntary, in the sense that they are not a response to an emergency (for which rules are necessarily different). Of course the scale of work will necessarily be disruptive, the issue is how long that disruption continues. For voluntary works the council has, and should have, considerable influence on timings, and sequencing (with other planned works). And of course, even with planned works there will be some serious disruption - the issue is how much and more importantly how long. By choosing to work at their pace the contractors can avoid such things as overtime working or indeed at times any serious sequencing - so maybe you will find that here are down times when no work is being progressed because that suits the contractors to optimise the use of their workforce to minimise their costs - at the expense of disruption to us. The paltry charges imposed on them by the council may well be far less than the cost of employing more people to do the job. It won't matter to them. I have seen the speed at which works like this are completed in other countries, and it far surpasses that achieved by UK engineering forces.

Ah, that's the excuse then for the NHS being intermittently crap, but I had always assumed that unlimited free access was actually its USP. So if the gas company was to close completely your own road for a year to undertake remedial work, and actually only worked on one day of that year, you'd be OK with that then? A reductio ad absurdum of course, but the point I was making was that it should be done promptly and efficiently with our needs in mind and not those of shareholders.

I don't think the issue is about whether the work is necessary or beneficial (in the - very - long run) but rather any expectation that it will either be scheduled, or indeed delivered to the benefit of those living locally and using local roads; my experience has been that these sort of works are scheduled and delivered to the benefit solely of those undertaking the works, without any consideration of the disruption to those of us who live here. These are our roads, which we have paid for, and their use is being taken away from us by a private company set only for its own profitability, without regard to our loss of utility value. Had I any belief that the scheduling was planned around minimum disruption to road users I would be more relaxed, and indeed if I see significant work going on every day on site I will be slightly re-assured - but I'm not holding my breath. And I don't expect the council we have elected to give a damn!

Not really since the first world war, and mainly in the sense then of 'getting a Blighty one' meaning a wound so serious you had to be sent home. I seriously doubt if one school child in 100 now would know what Blighty meant if the word was presented on its own with no context.

It's a Microsoft . pub file, and it does open OK, but that's a discontinued program which used to be part of the full Office suite. I've got an old machine with old software and it's still on that. This is a .pdf version (I hope)April 2025 Dulwich Hill Newsletter.pdf

Dawson Heights

There are two things that annoy people about 'cyclists' (and of course they are not a homogeneous group) - (1) that a number very clearly ignore road traffic rules that do apply to them, such as stopping at red lights and pedestrian crossings - and insist that other rules that apply to everyone else using the roads with other vehicles, such as speed limits, should not apply to them and (2) that a number refuse to accept that cyclists are ever in the wrong and instead post themselves as an oppressed minority. I am additionally annoyed myself with the numbers of cyclists whose road habits (which include not wearing protective clothing, including helmets, not wearing visible clothing or using lights, not signalling turning intentions or observing traffic around them, wearing headphones which limit their understanding of road conditions, reading phones etc.) place themselves at considerable personal risk of injury or worse which will traumatise those involved in such accidents and additionally leave grieving families. Of course there are bad drivers out there - and of course their errors may have worse consequences for others than cycling errors - but this does not excuse cyclists. Owning and using a cycle isn't, and shouldn't be, a 'get out of jail free card' just because others also offend. Of course there are also good and careful cyclists out there, as there are good and careful drivers. Maybe those cyclists who form a vociferous cycling lobby should consider that their 'holier than thou' attitudes may themselves be driving the ire of others. Oh, and the attitude that cycling makes you morally superior to those who are not cycling absolutely sticks in my craw. It doesn't.

This is the second page which I failed to save properly. Sorry

New advice on these works

Nice to see you under your true colours then, Mal And that's the way call-off contracts work - a steady income stream...

I don't think anyone on this site has ever 'justified' fly tipping but rather expressed a lack of surprise when individuals selfishly do it once the council introduced charges for household 'large items'. I don't remember anyone arguing against council charges for disposal of commercial and business waste.

I would add to this that flouting the law (the laws about stopping for zebra crossings and at traffic lights do apply, even now, to all road users, even where speed limits apparently don't, as do laws about vehicles having lights at night) is a bad habit to get into - the more the law is flouted the less respect people have for it in general - it is to the long term benefit of society that abiding by the law in general should be ingrained. Some laws of course can be wrong (particularly in oppressive societies) - but fighting against those does, and should, have consequences.

Obviously, but they may be wrong. Not only are we coming up to another population renewal drop after the continuing effects of the baby bulge generation enter a trough, - secondary schools are closing across many boroughs - but birth rates in the UK continue to fall (not just absolute births which are also falling as a function of the bulge unwind, but births per head). And foreign student numbers are also falling. Additionally the costs of being a student are rising, which encourages more students to go to universities close enough that they don't need accommodation but can live at home. Bubbles burst, and this may be one of them.

About 5 people a year are killed by cows in the UK, many more are injured.