DulwichLondoner

I need to move and arrange for a removal truck. I live in a road with no parking restrictions on one side of the road, and double yellow lines on the other. Most councils allow a temporary suspension of a parking bay, but AFAIK not in zones without controlled parking, so this is not an option. Southwark also lets you apply for a 'waiting restriction dispensation': https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/guide-to-parking/suspension-of-parking-bays Would this allow me to keep a removal truck there for loading and unloading? I must confess I have never fully understood the rules on loading and unloading on double yellow lines: some say it's 20 minutes, some say it's 40, some say it depends on the council?? Anyway, the loading will clearly take more than 40 minutes. Does any one know? Has any one gone through the same? Or is my only option to effectively butter up and pay the fine that the blood-thirsty traffic warden, riding his scooter on L plates because he doesn't have an A licence and with a flip-up helmet most likely not certified to be used in the flip-up position, will surely give me with gusto?

I wasn't asking for any confidential information. I am just curious how one proves citizenship without a passport. Does any one know?

I'm assuming you all had a passport? What would have happened if you were British but didn't have a passport to prove it?

Cewe. I have tried loads and they're the best IMHO. They are used by Jessops and others, but you can also order from Cewe's website directly.

Yes, Brexit is a great chance to pollute more. Let's take back control of our pollution, old chap! Plus I'm sure it will be easy to convince manufacturers that our islands are so significant they warrant the development of new models that meet our standards only. I mean, it's not like there is any cost saving in producing a model that meets the toughest requirements, rather than one for the tougher countries and one for the less-tough ones...

But the point is that we are de facto mandated to hold passports, otherwise proving citizenship becomes practically almost impossible. You may have not noticed if you got your job many years ago, but try getting a job now without a passport. Again, how do you prove citizenship?

But doesn't the V5 show whether a bike is euro 3 or not?

But what would this incompetent state have been able to do with ID cards that it cannot do now? You have not explained that, you have only pointed out that the government can be incompetent, underestimate costs and fritter money away. ID cards do not store much information which is not already held elsewhere. They are a convenient and cheap (should be much cheaper than a passport) way to prove citizenship and identity for those who can?t or don?t want to get a passport. And it?s not just about a teenager who doesn?t have a driving licence proving his age to get into a club (there are some cards for that, but every council has different rules on whether it will accept them). If you are against ID cards can you please explain how one is supposed to prove citizenship without a passport? And if the answer is ?shut up and get a passport?, then does this not make passports practically compulsory? So people are opposed to ID cards because they might become practically compulsory, but have no objection to the fact that getting a more expensive and supposedly non-compulsory passport is the easiest way to prove citizenship? Out of curiosity, I asked a person I know in an HR department how they?d check whether a candidate who does not have a passport is a citizen. He told me it?s never happened but they?d probably ask the candidate to go and get a passport otherwise it would be a legal nightmare! Don?t you think that stuff like the snooper charter, which has nothing whatsoever to do with ID cards, poses a much greater risk to our privacy? Yet that was not met with the same opposition as ID cards. I just don?t understand it. You say you fear an incompetent government handling our entire existence; well, that?s already the case, and it?s got nothing to do with ID cards. HMRC knows your salary history and receives data about your payslips before you do. The DVLA knows your address, your driving history, the vehicles registered to you. Credit reference agencies know pretty much everything about your financial affairs: how much you pay for your mortgage, how many credit cards you have, how much you paid last month, etc ? and of course this data is accessible to law enforcement. Thanks to the snooper charter, our browsing histories are stored for at least 12 months and law enforcement has unprecedented powers to hack into our PCs telephones etc. But no, let?s worry about ID cards.

I admit I am not too familiar with the ULEZ point. I'm all ears and open to being convinced. Maybe there are so few pre-2007 motorcycles around that it doesn't really make a difference?

PS As for government's records, there have been cases over the years where DVLA removed some entitlements from driving licences by mistake. You used to be able to drive a bus or ride a motorcycle, then changed your address, and, poof, the new licence sent by the DVLA was wrong! Many people had to retake the test because they couldn't prove that the DVLA was wrong. https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2009/december/dec0809-mcn-ends-lost-licence-chaos/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1538347/DVLA-blunders-mean-motorcycle-riders-may-be-on-the-road-illegally.html Surely this could have never happened, and surely this could never happen with immigration or citizenship records, right??

I must say I don't agree with the ULEZ point, at least not unless and until someone can elaborate on it in greater detail. After all, older bikes do pollute more. If I understand correctly, it's pre-euro 3 bikes, i.e. pre-2007 bikes, that would be affected. We are talking about bikes which are 11 years old, or more. ULEZ compliant used bikes and scooters start from ?500. I appreciate that for some poor underpaid worker, Deliveroo rider etc it may easily be much more money than it would be for me, but it doesn't seem totally unreasonable. Not to mention that replacing such an old scooter might actually be cheaper in the long run in terms of maintenance and servicing.

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They're unlikely to be British citizens. If they > were, the evidence would be clear. But they are > lawfully settled in the UK, Ehm, no, I understand that many of them actually were British citizens, but they couldn't quite prove it. I have often wondered: how do you prove British citizenship? In theory a passport is not compulsory. We do not have a population register or ID cards like most of the civilised world. The Home Office does issue certificates proving citizenship, but they cost multiples of what a passport costs! The short answer is that you should always have a passport for you and your children, as proving citizenship otherwise can be a huge nightmare! This fact alone totally demolishes the argument against ID cards that a voluntary scheme might de facto become compulsory - this is precisely what has been happening with passports! Those who disagree should please explain how on Earth one is supposed to prove citizenship otherwise! Let?s make a few practical examples. If you were born here from British parents, you are British. But if your parents have never had a passport, how do you prove they were British? How many generations do you need to track down? If you were born here from non-British parents who were legally settled, by law you are British. But how do you prove it? If your parents didn?t get you a passport straight away, you?ll need to prove their residency status at the time of your birth. Do you have FOUR pieces of evidence for every year spent in the country going back decades? This is what the Home Office has been asking. There are cases of children of EU citizens, born and brought up here, who can?t get the British passport they are technically entitled to because the Home Office is being difficult with the paperwork required. The Windrush cases are complicated by the fact that most of these people came to the UK or were born in the UK when their countries were not yet independent. Or maybe when they came, they were on their parents? passports, but with no picture, or maybe the passport got lost in the meanwhile. The Financial Times had an interesting story on how, when this country set up a scheme to attract qualified foreign workers, the Home Office wisely decided not to let Lunar House in Croydon run it, because the mindset at Lunar House is to assume you?re guilty until proven innocent. There have been cases of the Home Office denying permanent residence to children of EU citizens because they couldn?t prove that the children had been living with them as they didn?t have enough proofs of address in the children?s names!!! My child has a Junior ISA, which does not send paper statements, but certainly doesn?t have a utility bill or a mortgage or a bank account or car insurance in her name; do yours?? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-born-children-eu-couple-parents-dutch-spanish-denied-permanent-residency-brexit-a7682696.html ID cards do not ?reduce crime? or help much with illegal immigration; they simply make life easier for honest, law-abiding citizens, who were foolish enough to think they didn?t need a passport or an EU residence permit because it was supposedly not compulsory and because they thought the country they had been living in and paying taxes to for most of their lives would treat them reasonably and decently. Well, they have been proven wrong. Unfortunately, like Brexit here or gun control in the US, ID cards are one of those topics on which it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion, as it triggers well-engrained, atavistic yet totally unfounded fears against a police state ? unfounded because ID cards wouldn?t provide the state with much more information than it already holds (think of HMRC records, DVLA records, credit bureau data accessible by the police, GCHQ snooping, etc.)

I wondered the same. The website says they take pictures of your car - presumably to make sure they cannot be blamed for pre-existing scratches etc.

For those looking for some karma, this happened, too: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5637663/Pictured-Battered-moped-thief-tackled-rugby-playing-banker.html Petite scooter-riding scrote (is scrote an acceptable term?) vs ex-rugby player Mercedes owner: not a chance! A mate had his bike stolen while it was chained to a lammpost, near Forest Hill - Onor Oak. Grinder job. The truth is, not much can withstand an angle grinder attack. Bennets ran some tests, and even the toughest chains only take 30-50 seconds to be cut: https://www.bennetts.co.uk/bikesocial/reviews/products/security/motorcycle-chains-and-locks/how-to-choose-the-best-motorcycle-security The tests were with main-powered grinder; I am not sure if battery-powered take much longer. Hydraulic cutters are even quicker, but they are more expensive and bulkier, so they're more unlikely to be carried on a scooter. An anchor on the ground helps, like this one with cement, but, again, nothing withstands an angle grinder, it's just a matter of time. Some say that smarter thieves leave a bike somewhere for half a day or so in case it's got a tracker; if the bike is still there when they get back, it means it doesn't. This by the BBC was quite interesting (and sad): https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/eac0d5c6-86e1-417e-b52c-956c688829c4 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05x9kfp

The Daily Mash had a "story" on how, unless you are selling because you are moving to Nowhereshire where properties are much cheaper, house price inflation doesn't mean much as you still need to pay for a roof over your head: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/couple-makes-100k-selling-house-only-to-realise-they-have-to-buy-another-one-20170930136692 Like the realistic vendor above, I only care about the sale price of my property to the extent it allows me to buy another property in the area I want. Unfortunately, if you are in a chain, a single seller with unrealistic expectations is all that's needed for the whole chain to collapse... To be honest, I am not sure if much is propagating from the super top end of the market to places like ED; after all, ED is still a place where people buy properties to live in or to rent out. I dooubt there are many multimillion villas in ED bought simply to park and launder foreign money. Another interesting point, that applies to the whole of London, is what will happen when non-professional buy-to-let landlords will have to refinance; some of them will find that the economics no longer make much sense now that tax relief has been reduced substantially, and might be forced sellers. Does any one know if there is any evidence of more properties being offered in the rental market?

The fact that asking prices are coming down means very little it could simply be that vendors and estate agents have totally unrealistic expectations; what we should compare are volumes (how many sales) and actual transaction prices. My impressions are that actual transactions are plummeting (fewer properties being sold) but prices are not - coming down a little, but not crashing; the two are of course related: more and more buyers realise they can't get the price they want, so decide to simply stay put and not move, or to rent the property out if it's a second property. Of course, it's just impressions, not hard data. Also, the threshold beyond which the new stamp duty is more expensive than the old one is ca. ?950k. Not every property in ED is worth more than a million.

To be fair, I don't find it exactly shocking that a local politician might use data from a survey to contact potential voters. I don't see anything wrong with that. We can opt out. Or we can refuse to fill in the survey in the first place. I think we should also interpret things in context. James is a local councillor. AFAIK councillors typically do not receive a salary, only some allowances or expenses reimbursement. Being a councillor is certainly not a get-rich-quick scheme; for this very reason, many councillors do this out of a sense of duty and a motivation which is harder to find in countries where these positions are relatively well paid. Oh, and as far as I remember most of Southwark has historically been a Labour stronghold; it's not like a survey will propel James to who-knows-what levels of internal power within the Lib Dems. So I actually think that he is genuinely interested in East Dulwich, and that there are no sinister motives behind this survey.

Thanks for the clarification.

James, what would be the best way to collect some data on parking? I ask because different people will have different "impressions", and will tend to think their "impressions" are representative. Traffic flow can be measured by those cables installed on the roads, but parking spaces? There probably isn't much that can be done - I very much doubt it's feasible to get someone to monitor them reliably.

almost peckham Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm assuming you are able-bodied, Mab, but you > were in the habit of driving from HH to ED? > Really? Surely this is the sort of car use that > most agree we should be trying to discourage. 37 > bus? Walking? Can't answer for the other poster, but what I can say is that either I have been unrepresentatively unlucky, or the 37 is one of the worst bus services I have ever experienced in the whole capital. I'd never consider driving from ED to Dulwich park or to Forest Hill (unless I need to carry heavy loads) because there are many, frequent buses. Not so to Herne Hill / Brixton. The number of times I waited 20+ minutes... Oh, and if you're with a pram, and can't get on because there's no room for prams, you have to wait 15-20 more minutes. I do walk all the way from ED to Herne Hill and beyond when walking is what I want to do. But there are lots of situations where driving would make perfect sense, even if it would anger the tree-hugging, organic-kale-juice-drinking and cycling-friendly community, e.g. a trip to the meal/shops on Lordship lane + a big shopping at the Sainsbury's on Dog Kennel Hill. My experience as a pram-pushing parent is that most people who either have no children or have teenagers or grown ups have no idea, or forgot, how hard it can be to use public transport with a small kid.

The stories are behind a paywall, guess that's why

No, it means preventing motorised vehicles from entering an area, while still allowing cyclists and pedestrians through. This can be achieved in a number of ways: bollards, gates, etc. An issue is how to let emergency vehicles through - Lambeth royally messed this up and this was one of the reasons why their "experimental road closure" were an utter failure.

If anything, this shows the limits of reaching conclusions based on one's own limited, personal experiences / impressions. Unfortunately, evidence-based policy is a rare thing these days. I am, for example, not aware of any exhaustive study conducted on 20mph or on the cycle lanes, before it was decided that those would be rolled out throughout London. Rendel will remember our discussions on these points!

Interesting theory. However, is it a theory or a fact? Do you know for a fact that ?rat runs? are more dangerous, with more accidents, etc., or do you simply suspect there?s a chance but do not, in fact, know? If you don?t know, your is simply unsubstantiated speculation. Luckily, it?s not like we have hundreds of collisions on every road, so inferring conclusions from what is luckily a limited number of events is tough if not impossible. I don?t know how representative or not it is, but all I can report is that, in my experience of doing the rat-run I described almost every single day for about 2 years I did not notice any particularly outrageous behaviour; sure, there were idiots, but just like on any road. Oh, and that run-run is only 0.4 miles longer than the ?ordinary? route; the time needed to cover those 0.4 miles is more than offset by the time saved by going through fewer traffic lights and by having fewer suicidal phone-zombie pedestrians jumping in the middle of the road without looking, without the need to go at crazy speeds. It?s true that a number of roads are too small for two-way traffic, but this would suggest making them one-way, rather than preventing access to non-residents. ?Traffic which is nearly home has achieved some sort of peace?. Again, do you know or are you simply speculating? Studies of motorcycle accidents have shown that more accidents tend to happen near home than in unfamiliar areas; I don?t have the exact references at hand, but this was one of the potentially counterintuitive conclusions reached by a study done in California a while back and (yes, I know, California is very different) also by another one done in Europe and commissioned by the EU. I don?t know exactly about cars, but it?s food for thought.

Sally Eva Wrote: > The problem arises for us when the backstreets way > is made dangerous by car drivers going that bit > further in order to get there faster and taking > unsuitable roads to do it. I did for a while have > to cycle up Adys Road once a week and mighty > dangerous and unpleasant it was. Who decides whether they?re suitable for cars or not? Big lorries, HGVs, etc are one thing, but ordinary cars? Most of these arguments are typically rationalised by people, like cyclists or the residents of Camberwell Grove, who want the road to themselves. This is akin to saying that taxes are what other people should pay for because they are richer than us ? there?s always a reason to rationalise why something should inconvenience other people more than us! Practical example: to go from King?s College hospital to Oval, instead of driving along Denmark Hill and Camberwell new rd, you could do: Coldharbour lane, Denmark road, Calais street, Patmos rd, Elliott rd and Foxley rd: https://goo.gl/maps/StNYego8N132 Calais street was one of the roads closed in Lambeth?s catastrophic ?experimental road closures?; it?s now open to traffic, even if there?s still a red sign at the beginning of the road saying it?s closed, which is wrong. Is this one of the evil rat-runs that should be off-limits for everyone except cyclists? Isn?t it better if part of the traffic is directed towards alternative routes? I must have ridden there daily for 2 years, and never noticed any particularly stupid behaviour (not more than in any other road). alex_b Wrote: I don't think it's unreasonable for > residents to expect traffic to be kept on main > routes as much as possible. Not at any cost. If this doesn?t wreak havoc nearby, yes. So the Lambeth road closure were idiotic. The Streatham signs, no entrance at night except for access, are more sensible (but hard, if not impossible, to enforce).