zerkalo

I went on Saturday to see a friend who was playing there. It was a sold out day so very busy. Mostly young people in their 20s. Lots of bars and plenty of staff so no queues to buy a drink. There were water fountains too to refill water bottles. A bit confusing to figure out the different areas as they were not all signposted though some were obvious (eg the dome). Music was loud enough down the front, less so at the back. Stopped at 22:30 sharp, then a very long queue to get out from the common side of the park. That could have been managed better. I hope they do a good job cleaning up, no doubt an event like this has a big impact on the local environment. One weekend is fine, but no more than that I think.

Saturday and Sunday standard tickets are £67.5 plus booking fee. Friday seems cheaper. Resident ticlets (or 'community' as Gala like to spin them) are about half price. https://ra.co/events/1616039

Yeah, I was reading that just now. Really like his analysis and writing style. He's got a new book out about politics which is available from Southwark libraries. Need to go and collect my reserved copy.

Bregret reaches new highs! “Brexit has failed… we’ve not delivered on Brexit and the Tories have let us down very, very badly.”.....guess who said that! https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/05/22/most-britons-say-brexit-has-been-more-failure

Your occasional reminder that the famously ‘oven-ready’ Brexit deal has been unravelling spectacularly fast. Although no one is talking seriously about ‘re-joining’ or anything like that yet - the trauma is still too fresh for most - I wouldn’t be surprised if the argument reopens in a few years’ time. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65612295

Would the Southwark council's pollution data be similar or the same to the data published on the Londonair website? They seem to have very up to date information published there. https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicbulletin.asp?region=&bulletin=daily&site=SKC&bulletindate=15/05/2023&Maptype=Google&la_id=28&zoom=11&lat=51.4742&lon=-0.0740344&laEdge=&Species=All&WhoBulletin=N&VenueCode=

This begs two questions. Car use, in and of itself, is not bad. Driving polluting vehicles may be - but the definition of 'polluting' is an interesting one. CO2 is not a 'pollutant', indeed without it we would all be dead, as it is the basis of food production. In so far as it is also a greenhouse gas (but by no means the only one - the largest contributor is water vapour, and methane on a volume basis is far more damaging) it may be contributing to global warming which will put pressure on human habitation until remedies are discovered - as they may well be. The auto-pollutant which impacts immediate health is NOx2 (and particulates from some types of wood burning). EVs in their use are not (to any great extent) polluting, so EV car use would actually fit the stated intent of LTNs, which is to address local air pollution (inter alia). 'Supporting alternatives' does not mean, in LTN speak, public transport, but walking and cycling - which again may be positive for individual health (for those young and fit enough to benefit) but do not contribute to general health, nor do they offer any mitigation in themselves to air quality. I also dislike the intrusion of not being able to decide for myself my own exercise regime, but have one forced on me by politicians. So I would actually challenge the statement 'the big issue...' It isn't. The issue may be about individual health, and may be about air quality - but it's not about two proposed solutions to these 'issues'. You may just as well suggest that the 'big issue' is the availability of runners with cleft sticks when the actual problem may be about communication. I highly disagree with the essence of the arguments presented here. 1. Car use in cities is inherently bad for the society as a whole as it has benefits only for the individuals using those cars and costs for everyone else (hours lost in traffic, increased health care costs, road space occupied etc). You may argue whether there is such a thing as a ‘society’ at all depending on your political inclinations (I certainly think there is) but driving around in an urban environment is a choice that comes with big costs for many, not just drivers. 2. Pollution from vehicles must not be downplayed. It’s been 10 years since the death of 9 year old Ella because of acute asthma caused by air pollution. We should all know better by now. Clean air should be a human right for everyone. Hopefully a future Labour government will take decisive action on this. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/17/labour-plans-to-make-clean-air-a-human-right-with-new-legislation 3. Active transport (walking and cycling) not only have clear health benefits for the individual but also for everyone else in the form of reduced healthcare costs during a time when NHS is crumbling under years of underinvestment. 4. You are free to decide your own exercise regime as you see fit, no politician is imposing anything on you about this.. But others still have to breath the pollution from your vehicle. I see that as an intrusion of my rights to clean air.

This is the proposed schedule for the extended event with the dates the area of the park will be unavailable (as per the title of this thread). I have registered my objections even if I think the lineup for the first weekend of the festival that has been already announced is really good. Such a long period of time with restricted access to a vital public space is not really of any benefit to the local community.

Where is this mentioned as a formal Southwark Labour policy please? Labour-led Southwark borough are calling the shot because presumably they have been voted in to implement their policies. Banning private vehicles from driving in East Dulwich isn't one of them though, is it?

I have refrained from posting anything on this thread yet seeing as it is heavily politicised and taken over, with very few exceptions, by those opposing the LTNs and cycling in general. So let me just add my voice (for what it’s worth) as someone who lives in ED, doesn’t own a car and doesn’t live in a LTN area. I cycle, walk and use public transport everywhere I go. I don’t have a strong view as to whether LTNs have achieved their goal in reducing car traffic within their boundary areas or just pushed it outside. What is clear to me though is that there is a massive issue with the amount of car traffic in the area which is not really a problem caused by the LTNs. If anything, the aim of LTNs is to address this by changing people’s behaviour away from the car and onto other, more active modes of transport. The fact that there is hardly any cycling infrastructure in ED doesn’t help matters much. I have started avoiding cycling down Underhill RD ad CPR because car traffic there is so bad. How many cars have just one passenger? So rather than blaming LTNs as a proxy for yet another culture war that we don't need, I’d rather see more done to tackle the issue of car use in an area that was never designed to hold as much traffic as it currently does.

I find the argument that the government's migration policy isn't particularly hostile to immigrants and refugees rather disingenuous. To be more precise, it is the government’s arguments I have an issue with despite the recent High Court ruling about the Rwanda deportations. Being legal doesn’t mean it’s also the right thing to do. I would like to see more safe routes opened for refugees and asylum seekers. That is, in my view, the proper way to address the perilous Channel boat crossings and avoid future tragedies which is what the government claims is its aim. As long as those safe routes are not available, people will always try to find ways to reach safety. Perhaps the UK government could spend more time and effort trying to deport those who have genuinely failed in their asylum applications (very few have been deported) rather than putting the lives of those actually in need in danger. Some good analysis of the ruling on the Rwanda plan here https://freemovement.org.uk/high-court-rules-rwanda-plan-is-lawful/

https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2022/l-December-22/By-the-end-of-2021-Brexit-had-already-cost-UK-households-a-total-of-5.8-billion-in-higher-food-bills-%E2%80%93-new-LSE-research The Tory press might have not have reported on this yet, another clear Brexit dividend. Note that this analysis is for the period before the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine so that caveat does not apply here.

This wouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention but then 'Brexit hasn't been a complete catastrophic failure' so it must be OK for some.

Exactly that. If the winning point during the 2016 referendum was the fact that Brexit was so ambiguous, undefined and that it meant anything to anyone it is going to be precisely the same thing that will prove in time to be the cause of its great unravelling.