EDguy89

lindylou Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm done with this forum. It's not open to discussion. > Every time someone has a differing opinion they're > shot I'm glad to hear that you're done with the forum. Your overtly racist post is really embarrassing.

Peckhampam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't understand why Sainsbury's can't employ > security to stand at the entrance and refuse > entrance to people who won't put on a mask, and > then more inside to enforce it. Is there > something I can't see? So here's the wording from the gov.uk regarding the enforcement of facemasks, particularly regarding shops: Shops, supermarkets and other premises where face coverings are required are encouraged to take reasonable steps to promote compliance with the law and could refuse entry to anyone who does not have a valid exemption. So, shops only need to encourage people to use masks. They can refuse entry to those without masks, but are not obligated to follow through on that. I'd imagine that national chains wouldn't take that step. You might see smaller, more independent shops make those sorts of calls. I think the cynical view would be that, based on the new regulations, all they gotta do is say "remember to wear a mask" and that's about it. Hiring additional staff to enforce a law that they're not legally obligated to enforce is probably not something they'd do.

bonaome Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In normal times, I would daily take the 07:50(ish) > from ED to LBG and would not only expect to get on > the train, but would expect to be able to get a > seat, and mostly without someone in the seat next > to me. This, however was due to an extremely > cunning strategy I developed, which almost no one > else seems to have alighted upon (excuse the pun) > of boarding at the back of the train - the last > couple of carriages rather than the first couple > of carriages! > > You'll be fine. Exactly this. I would go to the end of the platform. Not many people wander down that way and the train was pretty light on people on that ed.

squirrelmc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi EDguy89 tis a bit odd that you try to shut down > any answers from Ben/Tom when they came on here to > "dispel myths and untruths". Probably best to let > them speak. I appreciate the laugh so early in the morning. I haven't shut down anything. I'm just some guy giving my opinion on why I wouldn't respond if I were them.

thedukeofmonclar Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are right Abe, but I'm still interested to > hear if Ben feels these issues have been dealt > with. You're clearly invested in this development and have spent a good amount of time researching and thinking about the proposed development. That's commendable. From my perspective, I don't know what Tom/Ben would stand to gain from responding. The plans have been submitted to the council and the decision will be made by them. Ultimately, the council's decision would satisfy your query about whether the issues have or haven't been dealt with.

Ole Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If that makes me the class unpopular > girl.....well, I've dealt with bigger and > nastier..... I wouldn't worry about it. Outside of class they're probably not even thinking about you.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's so difficult to navigate the planning > application and the hundreds of associated > documents. Yeah for some reason most council's planning application portals are all stuck in 1995. It's awful. The links worked for a short amount of time. I would have attached the PDFs to the comment but the files are too large. Anyways, I took a snapshot of the two documents i was referencing earlier. With one you can see the proposed changes from a distance where you can see what aspects of Green Dale will change. The other is just a closer shot of the stadium's seating/club house/facilities and the resi properties.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @James McAsh - 'an estimated increase of 50 or so > journeys per day' - how many extra car parking > spaces are there going to be created please? Planning application seems to state 19 car parking spaces. here: https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/1FC901E7608249AD99623811998914E9/pdf/19_AP_1867-GROUND_FLOOR_PLAN_WITH_LANDSCAPE-889541.pdf Here's a more pulled-back view of the development: https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/DFD16C3D564419392D9AFD6383221242/pdf/19_AP_1867-SITE_PLAN_WITH_LANDSCAPE_-_GENERAL_ARRANGEMENT-846159.pdf If those links don't work, search 19/AP/1867 on Southwark's planning portal and review the documents specifically looking for site plans. Those will give the proposed end result.

lpool Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My wife witnessed what was very nearly a serious > accident today at the Nelbourne Grove blockade. As > per many drivers, only sees road block last minute > so slams on brakes and throws into reverse, only > just missing adult with child on a cycle coming > out of Ashbourne Grove. I will be contacting the > council. I inspected all the current signage > yesterday and it is woefully inadequate and in > contravention to minimum requirements. > > Ashbourne Grove appears to have become a race > track with vehicles desperate to make up for lost > time. It is only a matter of time before their is > an accident and the risk of someone being injured > or worse. I?m not sure this was something > supporters of the scheme envisaged. If it carries > on like this then we may see Ashbourne Grove > residents blocking the end of the road to force > vehicles to go back the way they came. I appreciate that people living on Ashbourne Grove have had a bit of a rough week with traffic being diverted down their road to get back onto Lordship Lane. I anticipate this will drop over the course of time because there isn't any time gained by switching off of LL, onto Melbourne Grove, down Ashbourne, then back onto LL. As someone whose been renting on Melbourne Grove for the last 4 years. Your recent experiences is what those who already live on the road have been dealing with, but at a lesser extent. My wife and I have noticed an almost immediate decrease in traffic with the barrier in place. I think the road still sees more usage than many other solely residential roads, but once sat nav tools update to reflect the closed road then I think usage will drop further. This isn't coming from a place of NIMBYism (literally because it's BEEN in our back yard the entire time), nor is this the position of someone who stands to benefit financially from the road closure. It's from someone who has been dealing with people using Melbourne Grove as a cut through excessively ever since moving here.

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How much has your house gone up now? I wouldn't know. I rent.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even Melbourne > Grove is showing red - is it as chaotic as it > seems? No it's not. I live on Melbourne Grove and the impact of this barrier is already being noticed. Noticed in that there's significantly less cars going up and down the street. I took a look at google to see how it's being reported, but the all red/orange suggests it's bumper to bumper, when in actuallity the road is empty. It's more likely that since it's inaccessible google just marks it red.

Thread of the year.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have they expanded the closures on Melbourne Grove > as they now refer to it as "a closure to all motor > traffic on Melbourne Grove, south of Tell Grove" - > which suggests no vehicles will be able to gain > access to the whole section of Melbourne Grove or > is it just badly worded? > > Also, the fact they have left the Healthy Streets > map in place does this mean that they will also be > pressing ahead with the closure of Eynella and the > expansion of the CPZ to areas B and C under this > plan too? > > The communication from the council has been > appalling - deliberately confusing and unclear - > and I am interested to see that Comrade McAsh is > keeping a very-low profile nowadays and now > seemingly applies a controversy-filter to anything > he responds to and avoids any questions he doesn't > see fit to answer. > > The sooner we get a chance to vote on whether we > want this rabble in control locally the better - > it seems the Labour party haven't learnt anything > from the election and the sooner Keir Starmer gets > to grips with rooting the far-left out of the > party at all levels the sooner they will have the > chance to start earning the respect of the > electorate once again. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/our-healthy-streets/our-healthy-streets-dulwich The hyperlink to the PDF file entitled "Melbourne Grove" has a map that shows exactly where the barrier will be placed. Looks like vehicles won't be able to get access to Melbourne Grove from East Dulwich Grove.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I Had Measles as 4-5 y/o in the early 1950's. > Millions died world wide at that time. > > I also had Whooping Cough at the same time. I was > Very poorly. > > I can still clearly remember lying on our settee > with my mum. I had a temp. of 105 F > Our G.P. made a home visit and my dad had to go > to Kembers, a late night Chemist at Camberwell > Green > to get some Medicine.. No Idea what that may of > been at the time. There was No Vaccine > > I did not die.. We went to the seaside at the > weekend and my dad took me out on a boat trip. > > The next day I had a miraculous recovery. > > Fresh air.. Get out and about. > > Not at all healthy to stay in doors.. > > In the 40's before I was born, my mum had T.B. > She was sent to Pinewoods Sanatorium. It was > Winter.. A foot of snow on the ground.. > They left the windows open. They went for walks > in the snow. It was Freezing. > She recovered... > > Fresh air. The best remedy for most illness. > > Fox. That high temp must have killed off some of your brain cells.

EDAus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Modelling has shown that traffic travelling north > will go via Ashbourne Grove, especially larger > trucks as Chesterfield Grove is too narrow for > such traffic. This was confirmed by the Thames > Water works over the last few years. Can you clarify what you mean here? The modelling the Council has proposed shows that the barrier would be set between Ashbourne and Tell Grove. A northbound truck wouldn't be able to skip Lordship Lane by going down Melbourne, Chesterfield, or Ashbourne Grove. They'd be cut off by the proposed barrier.

ED Bird Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Lots of "black lives matter" chants - they have > > the right to protest and what happened in the > > States was disgusting. > > > Except literally nobody is disagreeing with that. > We are all shaken by this - it's horrific & I am > furious. > > But pinning an evil act by one person on & against > an entire race is just reaching. > > I've yet to see any evidence that this was > race-driven. > Just a soulless scumbag exercising power he should > never have been given. It's not a black v white issue. It's an issue that black people, men specifically, in America are infinitely more likely to die in police custody. It's not "an evil act by one person". It's a systemic issue that police in US can kill black men extra judiciously and hardly face any jail time. They may get CHARGED with something, but being CONVICTED is another matter. Guess which one matters. "Yet to see any evidence that this was race-driven" then you're really not looking hard, if at all. https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2019-08-15/police-shootings-are-a-leading-cause-of-death-for-black-men Here's an article from the LA times regarding the likelihood of being killed by the police asa young black man. Here's one: the shooting of Michael Brown in Missouri:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown How about the very recent one where police in civilian clothing busted into the WRONG HOUSE, killed a woman, then arrested a man for attempted murder for defending himself: https://news.sky.com/story/breonna-taylor-police-killed-black-woman-after-storming-home-in-hunt-for-suspect-already-in-custody-lawsuit-says-11987302 Botham Jean, killed in his own home when a drunk cop off duty entered the flat thinking it was her own: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Botham_Jean - This officer was found guilty of murder. I can keep going. There's an endless supply of horrendous cases of black people being killed by the police in the US. This isn't the act of an evil individual, but rather a police force that is taught at some level that black men are inherently dangerous. Beyond that, police unions fight tooth and nail to protect their own. Many officers end up on administrative leave after their situations occur. Sometimes paid, sometimes unpaid. It's not "just" a soulless scumbag. It's a horrendous system that needs to be torn down top to bottom. Also, there 4 were cops who were present when Floyd died. So call that four soulless scumbag.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She might have needed to join the queue as number > 21 to do that. Unlikely. Users of the East Dulwich Forum have some semblance of skill with a PC/Smartphone. Why not try googling a phone number first?

I'm highly disappointed that someone decided to report this shop without making any effort to speak to the owners of the shop to get a better understanding. Just go ahead and cause as much trouble for the people trying to keep their business afloat, yeah? They're within their rights to remain open as they sell food. Whether or not you think the food is "essential" is irrelevant. I don't think that the cheese and alcohol shops on LL are essential, but what I think doesn't actually matter at all. The problem you're experiencing is with the people queueing. Edit: resolved some weird wording.

Pugwash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Am I classed as 'vulnerable'? I am in the > appropriate age bracket, of reasonable health but > walk with a stick due to arthritis in legs and > hips and prone to my legs giving away suddenly. I > could probably queue for around 15 minutes. Did LL > Sainsbury's today but need to go to DKH in the > next few days to get heavier items such as bleach, > disinfectant etc and a general stock up of stuff > not in Local. Will take the car as not able to > carry the items. > Should I go to front of queue ? I don't fall into the vulnerable category so I don't know the specific times or hours, but surely someone will. I believe the Sainburys opens to people who are vulnerable on Mon/Wed/Fri at 7am for people specifically like you. Can anyone else give confirmation on the times? I'd suggest going during those times as you'll be more likely to get in and out in a timely manner.

I went to Sainsburys this morning. Got there around 7:55am and got into the shop around 8:45. Shelves were full of most things. The queue outside is deceptive. It's not wildly busy inside the shop when you're in there as they're keeping the total numbers down. Bring a book, music, audio book, something to keep you busy while you wait to get in.

gromit3:16 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't get why people are panicking for toilet > rolls, why would your first thought be to > stockpile toilet roll. Self-isolation. Lots of companies up in the city have coronavirus plans in place and part of that is self-isolation and working from home if you've been in an impacted area or show symptoms. I figure people think "If i'm going to have to be locked in my house for 2 weeks i need 2 weeks worth of toilet roll". It's not a great reason, but one people might be using nonetheless. I think the coverage of the virus and the panic-inducing headlines are crazy. 3,500 deaths worldwide with 102,000 infected. so that's 3.4% deaths based off of those numbers. Then you gotta look at whose actually dying from this. It's mostly older folk in the 70+ range or a bit younger with pre-existing conditions. We're all much more likely to die of heart disease. However, it's not as sexy as some mysterious foreign virus that doesn't have a known vaccine yet. Spooky.

gromit3:16 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mabey there were no more seats in the park and he > wanted to sit down. ....Stretch armstrong over here.

I get that it's a public area and people have the right to be where they want to be......but if you're a 20 something man without a kid, WHY would you want to be in the playground? Furthermore, if you're only interested in watching the kids have fun and play, there is a bench directly outside the gated playground area. It attracts suspicion. Regardless of whether you're innocently there or not. You're inviting this sort of attention. As a very recently former 20 something childless guy...what reason do I have to be there? It solely being a public park is pretty weak at best. On the other hand. The original poster doesn't give enough for me to be convinced that this person may not have had a child somewhere in the playground. My biggest fear as a father is the inevitable day when someone assumes I'm not the parent of my child because of the way I look.