hpsaucey

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think we've been royally trolled. I sure hope so! I wonder how the OP would feel if I started a post 'speculating' about the reasons for their behaviour? HP

You're still suggesting that the fact the library manager hasn't done this 'simple task' might be down to OCD or autism. Do you really think that's ok to say??? HP

Hi - appreiate that you're obviously frustrated, but I cannot see how such a personal attack here on someone is at all appropriate or indeed will solve anything. Reported the thread to admin. HP

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > thanks that's really useful. > > When I was a child our school trips were always to > places like food processing factories (and farms). > Do you know whether Veolia do school trips to > their recycling centre? I imagine that might be > quite educational. Hi legalalien - yes they do. My sons went from school around 3 year ago or so and had a great time. Suppose things might be different with Covid. HP

We've been a few times too but missed him. I wondered if he was just closing early? Ditto - hope he's OK. HP

Interesting initiative 'We transformed a London borough into a game to get fewer people travelling by car ? here?s what happened': https://theconversation.com/we-transformed-a-london-borough-into-a-game-to-get-fewer-people-travelling-by-car-heres-what-happened-171035?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20November%2016%202021%20-%202116520954&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20November%2016%202021%20-%202116520954+CID_280f8c9b460b484a2b13b80b41ea0805&utm_source=campaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=We%20transformed%20a%20London%20borough%20into%20a%20game%20to%20get%20fewer%20people%20travelling%20by%20car%20%20heres%20what%20happened

THanks for sharing - booked! HP

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?Children are a kind of indicator species. If we > can build a successful city for children, we will > have a successful city for everyone.? > > https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/28/chi > ld-friendly-city-indoors-playing-healthy-sociable- > outdoors Thanks for posting @Otto2. Really positive changes to cities/ infrastructure are absolutely possible and frankly essential. Brilliant to see some examples here. This summed it up for me: 'Society?s mistake, argues Gill, is that our planning systems are geared around cars, housebuilding and the economy ? rather than the environment, health and quality of life.'

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > hpsaucey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > DulwichCentral Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > For anyone new to this forum - just to > > summarise > > > 7,775 posts: > > > > > > Anti Low traffic measures: > > > - People who drive *always* need to drive > > because > > > they are poor, disabled, elderly, key workers > > or > > > single parents. > > > - People who cycle are privileged, smug, > > wealthy > > > because they have big houses with bike > storage > > > facilities. > > > - No more people will switch from driving to > > > active travel in Dulwich because they've all > > > already done so. > > > - The only people benefiting from the > filtered > > > roads are wealthy mates of the councillors > > > - The filtered roads never needed any changes > > in > > > the first place, and cycling is just a Covid > > > related fad > > > - Southwark Council are a totalitarian > > > dictatorship. > > > - The only way to stop people driving is > > improve > > > public transport and road pricing - which > will > > > take years so we may as well give up. > > > > > > Pro Low traffic measures: > > > - Safe routes enable people to switch from > > driving > > > to active travel > > > - More monitoring and assessment needs to be > > done > > > - More needs to be done to reduce > non-essential > > > car journeys > > > - More Safe routes needed to link up > throughout > > > the area - and London-wide > > > - 24/7 bus lanes - removing parking at pinch > > > points - would reduce congestion > > > - We're in a climate emergency so it's good > the > > > council have made a start - it needs > improving > > and > > > more done. > > > > Love it DC!!! Not just good for newbies - also > > pretty bloody useful for those who've doggedly > > ploughed through most of the thread. > > > > HP > > > *other, more balanced, perspectives may be > prevalent in a majority of Dulwich residents ;-) ** But not always on this thread ... exclusions apply HP

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For anyone new to this forum - just to summarise > 7,775 posts: > > Anti Low traffic measures: > - People who drive *always* need to drive because > they are poor, disabled, elderly, key workers or > single parents. > - People who cycle are privileged, smug, wealthy > because they have big houses with bike storage > facilities. > - No more people will switch from driving to > active travel in Dulwich because they've all > already done so. > - The only people benefiting from the filtered > roads are wealthy mates of the councillors > - The filtered roads never needed any changes in > the first place, and cycling is just a Covid > related fad > - Southwark Council are a totalitarian > dictatorship. > - The only way to stop people driving is improve > public transport and road pricing - which will > take years so we may as well give up. > > Pro Low traffic measures: > - Safe routes enable people to switch from driving > to active travel > - More monitoring and assessment needs to be done > - More needs to be done to reduce non-essential > car journeys > - More Safe routes needed to link up throughout > the area - and London-wide > - 24/7 bus lanes - removing parking at pinch > points - would reduce congestion > - We're in a climate emergency so it's good the > council have made a start - it needs improving and > more done. Love it DC!!! Not just good for newbies - also pretty bloody useful for those who've doggedly ploughed through most of the thread. HP

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you think that the posts I referred to stuck to > the brief (ie the thread)? Have a think about it. > Happy to hear your arguments that they did rather > than turn your attention to me. My reading was yet > another opportunity to have a cheap snipe at your > councilors. > > And just agreeing with a previous post..... > Please show a bit more independent thought. > > This is why I try not to post on this thread as it > is difficult to have rational debate. I see you > ganging up on others that don't agree with your > views, so it is not just me. 👍👍👍

Totally agree!

tedfudge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Probably the weekday cyclists that are the ones > filling up their cars .. ????? HP

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DKHB - why are electric cars not the panacea? > Surely they massively reduce pollution which is > the key issue we are trying to address, is it not? They displace that pollution. It might not be local anymore but plenty produced by the mineral extraction - lithium etc. - necessary for battery production for all these electric vehicles.And of course depends how rhe electricity is generated. HP

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On a marginally related note, if anyone is > interested in Brenchley Gardens there?s an > upcoming decision on traffic calming measures > there. > > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryH > ome.aspx?IId=50027350. > > Not that I was checking recent additions to the > website, or anything. Thanks for sharing HP

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Tsk, HP, you'll get hauled into master/mistress > Malumbu's study for rule-breaking if you are not > careful and you know he/she is in charge😉 > > > Glad to be of service. Perhaps reread my post. If > I posted something emotive and factual I am > accused of being a troll. If I am careful and > post something informative and make some sensible > suggestions about how we can have a rational > discussion I am accused of being patronising and a > troll. I can't win! 👍👍👍 this! It's a tactic unworthy even of the school playground. HP

👍

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tsk, HP, you'll get hauled into master/mistress > Malumbu's study for rule-breaking if you are not > careful and you know he/she is in charge😉 Fair do's. But there are just so many instances of 'tactical confection' to point out as they certainly do flavour the debate soup! 🤩

And yes - my post adds little to the debate... HP

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seems hpsaucy and northernmonkey, plus their mate > 3xrah are all getting hot under the collar. They > are probably on their whatsapp group every night, > along with other mates from MG, DG and maybe the > councillors, plotting the next response. > > "Your turn." > "No your turn." > "No it is your turn." > > Grow up for goodness sake and see the problems... ' > More 'tactical confection' it seems HP (chilled, with a very low stress level according to my Samsung Health app)

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well I have only said it once and not aware of > anyone other than you repeating it so doubt it is > a catch phrase...yet. You have used the 't' word > not me. > > Again, posters that are so outraged at alleged > 'danger' to a cyclist and their children seem to > have zero empathy with the many elderly and > disabled protestors. Why is that? > > hpsaucey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > first mate Wrote: > > ------------------------------- > > > > Calling this a 'tactical confection' - is this > the > > new catchphrase to replace alleged 'trolling'? > > HP Re: 'Again, posters that are so outraged at alleged 'danger' to a cyclist and their children seem to have zero empathy with the many elderly and disabled protestors. Why is that? Prime 'tactical confection'. HP

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Come on Northern, you can choose to continue on a > route or not. Aside from issues of inconvenience, > no one is forcing RRR and his/her children to > continue moving forward on their bicycles into > 'danger'. This whole point about 'danger' to > children is quite obviously a tactical > confection. > > > northernmonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > How was there a choice to turn up first mate? > Was > > the protest advertised in advance? So - what would you do if you were stuck with two kids in the middle of the road wondering whether to turn or not? Not a nice situation to be in. Calling this a 'tactical confection' - is this the new catchphrase to replace alleged 'trolling'? HP

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > More trolling from Malumbu . > > It's perfectly on point to note that the closed > roads in east Dulwich do not create a cycle > network or route and simply link up one > dangerously congested and polluted main road to > another. And to point that isn't safe or welcoming > for children. You're seriously calling Malumbu's comments trolling???? Cambridge Dictionary definition: 'the act of leaving an insulting message on the internet in order to annoy someone:' Seems to me 'trolling' is slung around far too often when someone disagrees with another's opinion. HP