DulwichLondoner

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are both Overground and Southwestern > services (West Dulwich)- both more reliable. > Dulwich, even East Dulwich, isn't made or broken > by Southern alone. This very much depends on your commute. I had a colleague who moved to West Dulwich about a year ago, and he kept sending emails to the team: "in late, trains cancelled"; "working from home, no trains till 11" etc. In SOME cases, yes, it is broken by Southern alone. But of course many Dulwich residents cannot acknowledge it, because it would mean acknowledging that they chose to live in a far-from-perfect location, right?

What I found works best for me when (luckily not too often) I have to travel by public transport towards Victoria, Mayfair, Marylebone is a Southeastern train from Denmark Hill to Victoria, and then a bus. I am lucky enough that I can walk to DH in 10-12 minutes; if I lived, say, near the cinema or the butcher on Lordhsip Lane it would take much longer, because most buses to DH are so packed they don't even stop. Still, this doesn't sweeten the pill that much. The situation remains unacceptable. I am not aware of anything even remotely similar dragging on for such a prolonged period of time anywhere in the developed world. It has a huge impact on quality of life; there are times when, if I miss a train from Victoria, I have to wait 30 minutes for the next one, and my door to door commute can easily be more than 1 hour. Not acceptable. I am now seriously considering moving elsewhere. I am lucky enough that my child has not started school yet, otherwise I'd feel trapped. If I had been renting I'd have moved long ago. What beggars belief is how come house prices have not been affected. 5 years ago areas of SW London like Balham Clapham etc, with much better connections, cost substantially more - and understandably so. The price gap seems to have now reduced substantially. One more reason to get the hell out of Dulwichshire and go somewhere with decent public transport; I mean, if I really wanted my commute to be > 1 hour, I'd move outside the M25...

Unless you have young kids, that is. Btw, Southern has just been fined ?13.4 MM. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40591938 Sounds like a slap on the wrist, if you ask me. I honestly believe the only solution is to move somewhere that is either not served by SouthernFail, or served by very frequent Southern trains (e.g. commuting from Clapham Junction to Victoria has always been fine). But this cannot be said here on the EDF, because it would mean betraying Dulwich yadda yadda ya...

Still no proof that there is any kind of crime epidemic wrt to EU nationals here. Anyway, let's try to see what could possibly be different post Brexit, shall we? Let's start from criminals who arrive here. If they are convicted criminals, they can already be stopped at the border. If they are not convicted, what would be different? Post Brexit, will our Border Agency have specific mind-reading machines to assess who will commit crimes? Oh, but post Brexit we'll be able to deny visas to those who don't have a job. True, but you can already kick out Europeans who can't support themselves. The FT had a story on Belgium being very aggressive with this. Also, Europeans will still be able to come here on tourist visas and overstay (illegally). Requiring visas even for tourism and business travel is not feasible, nor would it be in the UK's interest. If Europeans are caught doing something bad, we can already kick them out. Maybe post Brexit it will be easier to deny entry to those who had been arrested but not convicted? This I genuinely don't know; what about the presumption of innocence? The story on chocolate is very different from what you implied. There are two sides to every story, aren't there? France Italy Belgium and a number of other countries wanted to distinguish between purer chocolate and inferior products, like the British chocolate , which did not use cocoa butter. They wanted these inferior products to be called something other than chocolate, but the EU told them mo. They wanted the label with the ingredients to be more visible in the front of the package, and again the EU said no. This is more debatable, because now consumers used to a certain product will not realise as clearly that what they are buying as 'chocolate' is not the 'chocolate' they were used to. Sure, there's still the label at the back, but not everyone reads it. Anyway, it's a moot point because local tastes are too different anyway. It's no coincidence that Cadbury never really made a dent in the Belgian and Italian markets, and that the Italian Ferrero has a much much lower market share in the UK than in Italy. Like most (if not all) Brexiters, you present isolated incidents, but fail to make the case that they are in any way representative. On the matter of euro clearing, the ECJ ruled in favour of the UK. And so in a number of other cases.

So, all these impositions by the EU are so many, so self-evident and so outrageous that you still have no time to explain what they are. The benefits that Brexit will bring to crime reduction in the UK are again so many and so clear that you cannot name one. How different the story about Lithuanian gangsters would have been post Brexit is so clear that you don't see the need to explain it to the rest of us. Etc etc etc... Do you realise that you cannot substantiate a single point you raised, yes or no? Oh, and by the way, the whole things about bananas is a moot point; surely you have read it and you realise that bendy bananas are not forbidden. Surely you realise the point is simply to allow buyers and sellers to classify produce into specific categories. Surely you are a sensible person and I am not wasting my time debating with someone who has miserably failed to substantiate a single point he has raised so far...

@keano77, I agree this is getting tiresome. Surely you know the difference between a single case, however tragic, and a pattern or epidemic, right? Surely you appreciate that single cases, however tragic, are not necessarily representative? Leaving aside the reliability of the sources, the article about the Lithuanian gangsters talks about cooperation between the UK and the Lithuanian police forces. I ask you again: what would have been different with Brexit, and why? Nothing in the current EU regulations prevents us from kicking these gentlemen out of this country if they are convicted here. Did they have a criminal record before arriving here? If they did, was this information shared between Lithuania and the UK? Neither point is clear from the article. Sharing data on criminal records shouldn?t be any better or worse after Brexit. We can already stop convicted criminals from entering the country. Can we realistically prevent non-convicts from coming here and committing crime? Methinks not, but if you have a crystal ball or mind-reading machine, please, do elaborate on the point. Also, note that requiring visas even for short tourist or business trips for citizens of the richer EU countries is in no one?s interest. Requiring them only for citizens of the poorer EU countries, like Lithuania, is something the EU will never accept. So, again: what would be different with Brexit and why? I shall be looking forward to your detailed and exhaustive answers. As others pointed out, where did you take the ?10 times? figure (about trade deals)? Surely not from thin air, right? So, again , I shall be looking forward to your detailed and exhaustive answers. Also, do you have any idea of how long and complicated it is to agree a trade deal? Will it take us much less than it takes the rest of the world? And what happens till we actually agree those deals, or, OMG, if we don?t? Oh, and finally, what are these insane impositions by the EU that you?ll be so anxious to get rid of? Again, anxiously awaiting details?

I should also add that, when a country complains about EU regulations, in many cases it complains about regulations it had the power to stop - it simply "forgot" to. Have you been following the news about the failed Italian banks? Well, where on Earth were the Italian politicians when bail-in rules were approved? Is it the EU's fault if Italian politicians were too asleep to notice and speak up? Also, it's always been quite common, since the dawn of time, to concentrate the anger of a population towards external targets. It's not our fault, it's those nasty neighbours of ours! Aren't Venezuela's problems due to the economic war waged by tha fascist capitalist right? And I could go on and on and on with similar examples. Channeling populist anger towards the EU is no different.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Keano > > You've been asked over and over and over and over > again about ECJ/EU impositions on us, and the ONLY > things you've come back with are apples and > bananas. Exactly! I reiterate what I said earlier: it beggars belief that Brexiters foam at the mouth about the terrible impositions of the EU, yet when you ask them what these are and why, what piece of dreaded legislation they'll be most anxious to get rid of, their silence is deafening. Mmm, I wonder why that is?? Brexit in the UK is a bit like gun control laws in the US: a topic on which, to the utter disbelief of the rest of the civilised world, it is simply impossible to get the population to think through logically. Sad. @keano77, you have still not answered about the European scumbags. Yes, there are European criminals, just like there are British ones, but EU citizens in the UK are less likely to be criminals than natives! Any proof of a crime epidemic by Europeans in the UK? What would Brexit change and why? Convicted criminals can already be stopped at the border; people who become criminals here can already be kicked out. Nothing can prevent a non-convict from coming here and committing a crime here, by the way... Why is it that you cannot substantiate your accusations with a modicum of facts and evidence? Maybe because they're just prejudices based on ideology and not facts? Just a thought...

@keano77 No, your argument that Gina Miller would have voted leave had she cared about parliamentary sovereignty is ridiculous; unless you believe that 48% of voters wanted to subvert the democratic order, you should accept that one can be in favor of the EU without wanting to subvert parliament. In fact, I asked you very specific questions about the terrible impositions of the EU, yet you have miserably failed to answer. You just mentioned the ECJ. What about it? You didn't elaborate. Please do. What's so terrible about it? What has it done that is so unfortunate? And don't come back with the usual guff about the number of cases the UK loses - that number is utterly irrelevant because the European Commission only defends cases it thinks it can win. Of course you know that the ECJ also decided in favour of the UK in a number of cases, like on euro-clearing, or against the French when they wanted to limit the imports of dairy products from the UK after I-don't-remember-what disease (not the mad cow). This is something which really makes me foam at my mouth. Everyone banging about sovereignty and the EU's terrible impositions, yet when I ask what those terrible impositions are, very, very few are capable of articulating an answer. It beggars belief. You have similarly failed to answer about the "European scum bags", as you called them. Can I have the honour of an answer on these points, or shall I conclude that it's pointless to debate with you because you throw accusations around as though they were rice grains at a wedding, but then are not interested in backing them up with facts? Incidentally, this is an excellent example of why I am against referendums. Very rarely is a simple yes or a simple no the right answer; it is almost always some variation of "it depends", yet referendums don't give you that choice. Also, direct democracy doesn't work because not everyone has the maturity, intelligence and competence to make informed decisions on complex matters - that's one of the reasons why we, as voters, delegate. I fully appreciate it is a slippery slope, very dangerous territory, that taking this argument to the extreme is what dictatorships do to justify their very existence - yet this doesn't make this any less true. It's not a coincidence, for example, that many countries with a written constitution explicitly prohibit referendums on matters of international diplomacy (things like international treaties etc) or taxes. Can you imagine a referendum on taxes? Do you want a 3% tax rate? Yeeees! Do you want to build 5000 new schools and 3000 new hospitals? Yeees! And how are we going to pay for all of this?? :) PS @rendelharris, you and I agreeing on something? It's now 2 pints I owe you :)

@keano77: On immigration: you basically don?t know much about the current system, don?t know much about how it will develop for EU citizens, yet you are confident it will be fair and in the UK?s best interest. Sounds like an opinion based on not much hard evidence? On majorities: calling a snap election requires a 2/3 majority in the Commons. The Brexit referendum required a 50% + 1 majority. This difference is crazy, because Brexit produces more profound and irreversible changes than a new government (most laws can, after all be reversed, but we cannot realistically join the EU after leaving). This is the reason why, for example, most countries with written constitutions tend to require a majority greater than 50% for fundamental changes to the constitution itself or to certain laws. On the lies of the leave campaign: your silence is deafening. Are you OK with the lies on the NHS buses? Farage admitted they were lies. Or do you think those promises are true? On sovereignty: can you please explain what was so unacceptable that the EU has been imposing on the poor British people? If you are so keen on this point, you will no doubt be able to quickly elaborate on the unacceptable EU impositions which you will be glad to get rid of, and why. No nation is ever entirely sovereign in the sense of being able to do whatever it feels like, not even insular North Korea. Were the French forcing you to carry baguettes under your elbows? Did the Italians make it illegal to put cheese on spaghetti with clams? Were the Germans and Czechs prohibiting warm British ale in favour of cold lager? On democracy: I echo what JoeLeg said. If anything, the behaviour of certain right-wing pro-Brexit press has been disgusting. The Daily Express came out with a title asking if EU regulations had contributed to the Grenfell fire. Do these people have no decency? Most pro-Brexit press depicted Gina Miller as a tyrant who tried to subvert the will of the people. Excuse me? Wasn?t this about taking back sovereignty? Aren?t we a parliamentary democracy? Shouldn?t parliament then have the final say? What?s so undemocratic about that? Especially because the people voted to leave the EU, but didn?t vote on the hows ? all the more reason to involve parliament.

No, you do need to elaborate on your point about Europe scams, because you cannot just throw such accusations without substantiating them. I mean, you can, but then people will realise it's a waste of time to debate with you... Do you have any proof that: there has been any kind of crime epidemic due to EU citizens? that we cannot expel EU criminals, or block them at the border? there is a wave of EU criminals all arriving in this country illegally, e.g. hiding in trucks at Calais or travelling by dinghy from France? Do you yes or not? If you do, please share them.If you don't, what were you basing those accusations on?

keano77 Wrote: > EU officials plan ?50,000 staff party with 700 > bottles of wine > > "European Union officials are looking forward to a > massive eight-hour end of year party, which will > boast 700 bottles of wine and a dinner with 26 > different dishes at a cost of up to ?48,600. > > ... The bill will be paid from the council budget, > which is money from EU member states including > Britain..." > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/11/eu-offi > cials-plan-50000-staff-party-700-bottles-wine/ If you want to talk about EU's illogical expenses, the folly of the travelling circus between Brussels and Strasbourg would be a much better example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10565686/The-farce-of-the-EU-travelling-circus.html However, these examples miss the point entirely. The real question shouldn't be: are these expenses justified? The real question should be: OK, the EU isn't perfect, and these examples prove it. However, what will change by leaving? Will we really be better off? The folly is that the leave campaign was based on a number of lies (NHS bus, anyone?) but, most importantly, didn't present any kind of clear explanation on what Brexit would mean. Tautologies don't help, Theresa. The vote was effectively on the status quo vs total uncertainty. I have met people who despise the EU deeply, but voted remain because they didn't want to provide an unknown government with a blank cheque on Brexit.

keano77 Wrote: > You're rightly concerned about shortages in your > area. No problem, under selective immigration let > more people you need in but say no to hundreds of > thousands of others with no beneficial skills that > the EU insists we must let in. You are assuming that the process to do this will be fair, efficient, and not too costly. That's a BIG assumption to make. May I ask WHY you are making this assumption, and based on what exactly? This country loves to make fun of EU bureaucracy (the fake news of straight bananas is a favourite, thank you Boris) but our own bureaucracy is no better. How much do you know about the current immigration system? Have you read in the press those stories about, say, the EU couple who naturalised, but their children didn't, because they failed to provide proof that their children live with them? What evidence were they supposed to provide? Banking statements and driving licence for minors? After all the publicity, the Home Office backtracked, but, still... Have you ever spoken to non-EU migrants about the UK visa process? I have. I'm talking about highly qualified PhD students or PhD graduates, i.e. people for whom neither the skills nor their shortage is in question. They all talk about the nightmare that the immigration system is. If you are, say, Chinese, and would need to go through a somewhat similar process in pretty much the rest of the world, fine, but if you are European and can have very good opportunities in the rest of the continent, then you will need a pretty strong incentive to come here. Also, even if the system will be fair, efficient, etc., right now there is no certainty whatsoever, so who can blame Europeans who are less inclined to come here now? > > Some of the scum of Europe has been allowed onto > to our shores, gangsters, drug dealers, people > traffickers and so on. We don't need people like > that. Could you be so kind as to elaborate on that? The fact that Great Britain is an island, and that neither the UK nor Ireland are in Schengen, helps massively in controlling immigration. It is perfectly within a member state's right to forbid entry to convicted rapists and other criminals, or to expel Europeans who cannot support themselves and/or have committed serious crimes. Geography makes border checks much easier here than in the rest of the continent. A convicted, say, German rapist has many, many ways to travel to France Austria Italy etc without his documents being checked and without his identity being verified. He'd have no way, AFAIK, of travelling to the UK without his identity being verified at the border, other than possibly hiding in a van at Calais or travelling by dinghy from France. As the Financial Times pointed out recently, Belgium is one of the most aggressive EU countries in expelling European citizens who cannot support themselves - and it does so in perfect compliance with EU laws and rules. So, let me ask you again: would you be so kind as to elaborate? It doesn't help that the UK doesn't have a population register, like most (if not all) of continental Europe. And please refrain from the usual song and dance about privacy: GCHQ's spying activity are way more pervasive than those of other intelligence agencies in countries which do have a population register! Finally, am I the only one who thinks it's crazy that early elections require a majority of > 60% (66% maybe? Don't remember exactly) whereas something as fundamentally important, life-changing and irreversible like Brexit can be decided on a simple 52% majority???

Well, when I opened a thread http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1797543,page=1 asking if anyone else was considering leaving East Dulwich because of how poor transport links have become, quite a few people had a go at me. "It's a common complaint but it doesn't hold much water" "The situation has improved" "It's not as bad as you're saying" "Leave home earlier" (and what about kids/nurseries/schools etc?) "Use alternative routes" (what alternative routes??) Someone even accused me of something crazy like not being committed to Dulwich (I am married to my wife, not to Dulwich!) It's hard to have honest discussions about these topics because most people want to convince themselves and others that wherever they live is the best place on earth, that they chose to buy there not because it was a reasonable compromise of budget desires and needs, but because their financial acumen has made them discover this area which is turning out to be the best investment ever, etc. It's for reasons like these that I hear things like Peckham is better than South Kensington (no, it's not), from Bromly to central London it takes only 10 minutes (by helicopter, maybe), Dulwch is very well connected and Southern is working OK, etc. I seem to be among the very few people to admit that the main reason I no longer live in zone 1, like I used to many moons ago when I was younger, is because I can no longer afford it. Everyone else could, but simply chose to live in Nowhereshire not because it's cheaper, but because it's "better"...

I am honestly surprised. Why do you think trains are not more packed? When trains used to run on time, I remember they were mostly OKish, i.e. not super-packed like on some other routes but never empty. Have people sort of given up and found alternative ways to get to work (eg buses, trains via Denmark Hill, etc?).

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.milanotoday.it%2Fcronaca%2Fincidente-stradale%2Fpedone-condannato.html&edit-text= This happened in Milan. A genius not only crossed the street despite the red man, but did so behind a bus which hid from the sight of oncoming traffic. A motorcyclist hit him, was thrown off his bike, hit a pole with his head, and died. The genius was found guilty, given a one-year suspended sentence, and sentenced to pay EUR 150k to the family of the deceased. This is why I ride defensively, i.e. assuming the road is full of idiots whose only mission in life is to kill themselves and me. Would the pro-pedestrian brigade like to comment?

We have it and love it! I think the main advantage is that it saves a lot of time with all the things that require continuous stirring or some kind of continuous "interaction", e.g. risottos, mashed potatoes, Bolognese ragu and similar sauces, soups, etc. Using it only to weigh ingredients, chop some vegetables or boil something would, of course, be overkill - big time.

Sorry to hear that! May I ask what lock it was? I think the best ones are the Almax and Pragmasis one (both British brands). If your bedroom is close to where you park your Vespa, a lock with a loud alarm might be useful (but it can be muffled), or, better yet, one which causes a remote in your room to go off (they can't muffle that). I posted about it in another thread, but can't remember the name of the product now. I also have a GPS tracker (Alltrac), but, depending on the battery of your Vespa, that might drain a scooter's battery too quickly.

Relying extensively on overtime was an arrangement that suited both parties well: SouthernFail found it cheaper than hiring more staff, and the unions were happy that its members would get paid more. 8am to 9am can easily be overtime; rail workers, like nurses, don't work 9-5 5 days a week, but have different shifts! Basically Southern couldn't guarantee all services, and decided to prioritise some lines over others.

Not local to Dulwich (Wimbledon), but I can highly recommend Belinda: http://www.sw19lawyers.co.uk/sw19-our-team/

Why do I get the feeling that these "consultations", which so few people ever learn about, are just a way to rubberstamp decisions which have already been taken?

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > traveler2 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 7.09 to LB cancelled. Will be late to > interview. > > Fantastic. I have no sympathy for the wan-ers. > > Maybe I was brought up differently...You should > always plan alternative travel for any possibility > AND allow for extra time to travel. > Why do people insist on running around at the last > minute for everything in life? You crack me up, mate. Really. Big time. This morning I passed by the East Dulwich train station at 8.05. The 8.30 was cancelled. The next train to London Bridge was the 9.30. Did your mum bring you up to anticipate an 85-minute wait for a train service that used to run every 10 minutes or so? Yes, extra time. Yes, the odd inconvenience. But 85 f****** minutes? Please, please name ONE example of a major city in the developed world where anything even only remotely comparable is allowed to happen for such a prolonged period of time. Not even in broke Athens, scandal-ridden Rome or strike-prone Paris! May I ask if you commute, where to, and if you have children? This may come as a shock to you, but those of us who have been so irresponsible to reproduce and are not rich enough to afford 24/7 "help" cannot really leave one hour earlier for work, because, you know, who would take our children to nursery or school?

I remember Southeastern or another company that served Denmark Hill had a problem with understaffing around 2008-9, but nothing even remotely comparable to this. However, as far as I understand it, resorting to overtime is an arrangement which suits both parties: the company finds it cheaper than hiring and training new staff, while unions are happy because its members get paid more. This point seems unregulated - it evidently shouldn't.

rendelharris Wrote: > You accuse the unions of having a > bewildering sense of self-entitlement for working > to rule to prevent what they see as detrimental > changes, so the only conclusion is that your sense > of self-entitlement leads you to believe that > nobody should ever go on strike if it > inconveniences you, doesn't it? I can't speak for KidKruger, but I'd just like to bring your attention to the fact that, AFAIK, over the last 10 years or so no 'industrial action' has come even remotely close to bringing the type of pain, chaos and misery caused by this Southern Fail mess. Tube workers have gone on strike many times. Other rail workers have gone on strike many times. Yet, other than possibly some journalists for the Daily Torigraph or the Express, I'm not aware anyone has ever proposed abolishing unions or the right to strike in those occasions. But enough is enough, this Southern thing has no comparison in the developed world. I don't think any one is saying that there should be no right to strike. The points are different: 1) the unions have miserably failed to substantiate the 'safety' point 2) If I remember correctly, Southern was willing to guarantee no job cuts but it wasn't enough 3) It's all very perverse because it causes minimal financial loss to the employer but huge disruption to society, including to lots of people who are substantially worse off than rail workers 4) It's also, if not primarily, about power. This doesn't mean the other parties are blameless, far from it.

rendelharris Wrote: > I find your sense of self-entitlement somewhat > bewildering, it appears your right to get to your > work in exactly the way you wish should have > supremacy over any right (and sorry, it is still a > right) a union has to take industrial action. I'm not too sure who you were replying to. As far as I am concerned, like I said, I don't know the first thing about rail safety. For all I know the unions could be right. What I know, though, is that they have utterly and miserably failed to explain their case. Driver-only trains have been around for a while, on a number of lines. If the unions are right, I'd expect it would have been very easy for them to put together a couple of leaflets bombarding the public with detailed information on how and why those lines are more dangerous. AFAIK they haven't; their material only mentions a couple of isolated incidents, with no additional colour whatsoever to understand if those single cases are in any way representative. Unfortunately we live in the era of fake news, Trump Le Pen Brexit etc, in which simply shouting something from the rooftops is way more important and effective than trying to prove it. Finally, I am lucky because I have the alternative of commuting by motorcycle, because with my job it's not the end of the world if I occasionally arrive late, and because my job has never been threatened by this mess. Many other people are not so lucky. There are rumours of employers rescinding job offers to, or refusing to consider those who commute on SouthernFail. If you are on a zero-hour contract and you show up late for a week in a row, you may be shown the door (with no notice nor anything). If you commute from Brighton into London Victoria you effectively have no alternatives. For you it's absolutely OK that rail workers have been causing so much pain to all these people, including all those who are way, way worse off than them? If you were one of those zero-hours workers who has been (don't make me swear) affected very negatively from a financial perspective, would your reaction still be the same? PS Don't know about ASLEF, but RTM did confirm Cordelia's point in one of its leaflets. They said the government was keen on driver-only trains because it would make it harder for strikers to disrupt the service.