Penguin68

Penguin68 do you deny that Corbyn is an IRA sympathiser? This has not been an issue, I have made no comments either way on this; and it seems an irrelevance that a troll might find amusing to insert. Otherwise, no comment.

The only reference I can find showing Corbyn in any way sympathetic to the PLO is in his alleged attendance at a memorial service to commemorate the deaths of those responsible for the Munich massacres (the PLO when that was the only real Palestinian organisation in the game). In everything else it is Hamas whose meetings he has attended, whose members he has invited to address meetings (and with whom he has shared platforms) and whose proscription he has voted against. Hamas and Fatah are broadly at daggers drawn, you support one against the other. As Corbyn has done. He is also of the opinion that voicing and believing that a Jewish State should not exist in Palestine is not in and of itself antisemitic. Which is, at the least, debatable. But is the Hamas (but not the Fatah) view.

Corbyn racist? No. I'm not a fan of his policies by any stretch, but I think as a human, he's a good egg. Maybe he failed to understand the problem within the party, maybe he failed to take sufficiently strong action, but to call him a racist is insincere Corbyn unequivocally supports Hamas - whose clear aim is 'to sweep the Jews into the sea' - many of Hamas's main players are on record as being in favour of a 'final' solution' to the Israel problem and are unequivocal anti-semites. He does not therefore support Al Fatah (the political wing of the PLO, formerly led by Yasser Arafat, who reached the Oslo accords and who are in favour of a 2 state solution). I find it interesting that of the two Palestinian groups it is the one which wishes to remove Jews from the Middle East which gets his support. 'Removing Jews' has a bit of history behind it. I am sure many Jews are his best friends (but probably not ones who believe in a Jewish State or the rights of Jews to live in one).

When people describe racists or indeed racism as "petty" then I'm afraid they're part of the problem. That grafitto was petty - there are examples of racism that are far worse - by taking the view that there is no gradation of racism - that any racism is by definition 'the worst sort' you give license to the truly racist in society, by being able to claim that there are so many more like them. I have seen far worse racist slogans painted or scrawled on walls than what was illustrated, and read of far worse racist acts. You may consider that that slogan and the Mississippi lynchings are on the same curve (I might argue even about that), but to imply they are the same thing...! I do realise that nuance is no longer an acceptable part of social-networking mob-speak - but when I compare society now to what it was like in the 1950s, when I was a child, I can assure you that, particularly in London, but in fact almost across the country, we are not a racist society - even though most of us are still aware of superficial racial/ cultural differences. Young people have written slogans on walls to offend however since they were able to write, without necessarily believing or understanding fully what they write. I would also say that accusing all those (a majority of those who voted in the Referendum) of being racist is simply naive. You only have to see just how well (of course, badly) Farage's two parties have done in Parliamentary elections (let alone any of the far right proto-fascist parties) to realise that these are not attitudes which actually chime with the electorate. And the PM is quite clearly a social liberal, if you look at any of his actions or read his speeches and writings. It is only by defining being anti EU as being inherently fascist and racist that you make him so. And I would remind you that Jeremy Corbyn and the Marxist left have been anti-EU since the first EEC referendum. Does that make them inherently fascist and racist?

The inevitable fallout from bloody Brexit. That's ridiculous - petty racists have been with us from long before (and continuing through) our membership of the EU and its predecessors. One grafitto, soundly mocked, is evidence of nothing. As the vast majority of local people were remainers I do not see ED as a hotbed of Brexit racism - quite a small part of why those who voted for Brexit did so. Or are you suggesting travelling graffitti artists from Brexit hotbeds? Brexit may have been caused by racism (at least in part, perhaps, ish) but to see it as a cause of racism ('inevitable fallout', i.e. a consequence of...) is simply unsupported.

Sadly many of the younger knockers are run (or have been in the past) by gang-masters - who work out of a van and send them out in droves to 'hit' local streets. So the scammers don't even get to keep most of the proceeds of their scam. They can also certainly be aggressive and threatening. They will have no trading licences to allow them to act as door-to-door salesmen (they are not connected with any charity, whatever they may claim) so the police can move them on, or even arrest them.

That's heartening - I'd heard others had much dustier responses.

Proper (and visible) street lighting is surely a good thing? - sodium (yellow) lights give false colours - the issue is light leakage - one 'up' as this contributes to night-sky light pollution and secondly 'sideways' into bedrooms. Shielding can deal with both issues, whilst ensuring roads and pavements are visible - this will also discourage those whose intents are nefarious - being bathed in white light can be sufficiently disconcerting to discourage wrong doing (and gives better shots for security cameras). If these lights can give reduced running costs this should be a win-win. Better and cheaper is surely good? But the council must listen to (and deal with) legitimate complaints of intrusive light pollution. And not tell residents they are 'wrong' because Tooley St. deems what is 'right'. In the end we (and they) should remember that the council are our servants, not our masters. Amended to add - and yes, I do live in Underhill, and near a street light, so, for once, I do have a dog in this fight.

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/man-with-knife-tasered-and-detained-on-peckham-train/

I had assumed the question about 'slight build' was to confirm identity. Someone clearly suffering mental distress (as reported) was stopped and taken into custody by police (using a taser 'for his own protection - he had a knife') in Peckham yesterday or the day before. Maybe the same person?

I used to live in Eynella and my kids went to Dulwich Hamlet on foot in less than 20 minutes ...my next door neighbour used to drive her kids to the same school nearly every day! Often such journey's are dependent on what the next stage is - if you have to drive to your next appointment/ place of work (or to a station to get... etc.) then dropping the kid(s) off on the way may be the most time efficient way of doing this. To walk to school, (20 minutes), walk back home again (another 20 minutes) and then go on may be too much time wasted when morning times may be time critical...

I'm afraid you have wholly misunderstood what 'Healthy Streets' means, to Tooley St. It means 'car free' (whether those cars be petrol, diesel or electric). We are talking political health here, cars are the tools and signs of capitalist society, of individuals and individualism. Stamping out car ownership (save where it can be monetised with parking fees) is the stated aim and object of the party - under the spurious banner of health if necessary (electric cars are of course, as regards air quality, entirely healthy, but not as regards the body politic). People in cars cannot be controlled, on public transport, even on cycles where they can be channelled into cycle lanes, they can be. Hence the council can happily ignore any claims that their moves will cause problems as regards transport and movement of peoples. As long as car ownership can be punished (this thread shows that car owners are already considered to be inherently selfish and anti-social by many of those who elected these people) everything is OK. The only argument to be put against which might work with the apparat is that these moves will increase car ownership (but I can't see how that would be possible).

Our three councillors have been beyoond hopeless on the CPZ They have done precisely and exactly what was required of them by the apparat. Your mistake is in the use of the word 'our' - unless you happen to be the leader of the council in Tooley St. They are party ciphers, no more, no less. Their only independence of thought is their independence from what their constituents (hollow laugh) want or believe.

Is it possible, no comfort of course if it is, that your car is being targeted in mistake for another? Is a similar car ever parked near yours? Whose owner might have upset someone.

Plusnet is a BT owned company and the network it uses is BT's. Broadband and telephony are likely separated in your delivery, so having broadband and not having telephony is entirely possible. The fault may lie in overhead distribution, in a cabinet or an underground chamber (which could be flooded) - and may well be storm associated. BT Openreach will need to check where the fault lies in the network, which they do as an 'arm's length' wholesale supplier to Plusnet (the same relationship they also have with BT Retail and any other wholesale customer). Depending on the scale of any local storm damage this may take time. You should be able to make (a lot of) voice calls over your WiFi/ broadband network using an appropriate ap and your mobile.

If there is a large response then they will do something. Evidence?

be operating off some guidelines which suggest they are acceptable. These would be the guidelines which suggest that they should happily ignore the needs or wishes of residents. The apparat are always right, we are always wrong. Live with it. It turns out our 'representatives' represent Tooley St. - their job is to tell us why the apparat is right.

a distance which can easily be walked or cycled by most. I am assuming your are possibly young, able bodied, without small children. Or without the need to port large and heavy/ awkward objects. And probably living in the parts of the area without steep hills, whilst not being young, able bodied or with small children. Or having to take children one way to school and then in an entirely different direction to get to public transport to get to work. Or needing to travel broadly east: west where most public transport is optimised north: south (i.e. into and out of Central London).

Even the council's favourite paper (well, other than the Morning Star) doesn't hold up much hope of the anti car policies delivering... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/how-london-got-rid-of-private-cars-and-grew-more-congested-than-ever

Around 70% of traffic going over Blackfriars bridge during rush hour is now people travelling on bikes, as a result of re-allocating a small amount of space for a segregated bike lane for example. Routes into town are dramatically well served by public transport anyway - certainly during working hours. East: West routes in hilly SE London dramatically less well so. By virtually cutting off East Dulwich from areas West of it Southwark will be impacting the lives of pensioners and those with children for whom bikes may not be a real solution. If we are to rely solely on the South Circular (which can frequently be blocked and where traffic is regularly at a stand still locally) then many of our lives will be diminished and worsened. To keep traffic out of Oxford it created Park and Ride schemes - this is the same, but without the Park and Ride element of course.

Sorry all, I'm being lazy, but have the costs of what is being proposed (actual cost to the council of the building works, I'm sure there is no attempt to cost the economic impact on the community of extended journey times and wear and tear on the roads carrying the diverted traffic, nor medical costs to those now to be breathing in more stationary traffic fumes in LL etc.) been included in this proposal - or indeed what the opportunity costs are - i.e. what other schemes now won't be funded to pay for this?

I am assuming that the few existing shops and restaurants in Dulwich will be able to continue to survive with only Dulwich resident custom, because the chance of visitors to Dulwich is being extinguished by these proposals.

Storm related i guess. Can't see why - Virgin Media (NTL as was) is all underground delivery around there. I don't think they have any overhead.

I have already said, somewhere above, but I will say it again - the ULEZ is about to impact Dulwich (inside the S Circular) - either this will have an impact on the 'healthiness' of the streets - in which case might it not be worthwhile actually measuring that impact - or it won't, in which case why is it being imposed on us? The actual air quality in London has actually improved in the last few years anyway (despite more diesel vehicles) - whilst it isn't yet good, the trajectory (and this is before ULEZ implementation) is broadly positive https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/news?view=238. And the regular breaching of air quality standards, whilst deplorable, should perhaps be understood in the context of standards being (quite properly) raised. This action by the council is far more about their war being waged on the use and ownership of private vehicles - which they think is politically wrong - than it is about improving the air quality for anyone - as it clearly won't for all those living and walking in the areas which will have far more queuing and slow moving traffic imposed on them from just one leafy suburb than before. Can I just say that there is nothing morally wrong with having a private vehicle - particularly in a hilly area with little effective public transport - just look at the threads about advice in getting anywhere once the few train lines or down. As TFL hits more financial troubles it will cut services to us in SE London further - and we can be clear that our council has neither the clout, nor the interest, to object. And the 'permits to move' around Dulwich, once a right to London Citizens, will not come free, or, over time, cheap.

Unless you have a lot of high value items, or collections, that (?400) does appear high - try a comparison web site to look for a lower premium. You should easily find one.