Jenijenjen

In what way have they ?negated any responsibility for vaccination??

?Some 600,000 were made for use across the UK. And with a surplus of them after the war, many were ingeniously used outside new housing estates after they fell out of use by Civil Defence in 1962.? ?Cllr Mark Williams? On the East Dulwich Estate for example, as part of improvement works, we have removed fencing where it was in a very poor state due to extensive rusting and disintegration, but have preserved four of the fences outside Badminton House.? https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/calls-protect-fences-throughout-south-london-used-stretchers-ww2/

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ok- hadn?t realised how deep the misunderstanding > was. > > There are no ?dulwich alliance candidates?. > > There are only Conservative candidates standing > for the Conservative party locally. > > This isn?t ?socialist pro LTN?, rather an attempt > to correct the frankly horrifying level of > misinformation / misunderstanding. > > 350m for the NHS anyone? > > > > > Bic Basher Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > There was someone else on Twitter who is clearly > a > > socialist who was plugging the Dulwich Alliance > > candidates are Tories mantra as well today. > > > > This seems to be the tactics used by either > anon > > Labour activists or members of the pro-LTN > groups > > who are suggesting that they're Tories in an > > attempt to put off voters who aren't in any way > > Conservative from voting against Labour. > > > > Why would two supposed Tory members put > themselves > > up for election and then reduce the Tory > > candidates chances of winning by splitting the > > anti-LTN vote? If anything, it may do Labour > a > > favour by using the core Labour vote with the > > pro-LTN lobby. Confusion may have arisen because one of the Tory candidates, Clive Rates, was a founder of Dulwich Alliance. Rockets made an interesting observation on 13th January: ?On the Tory candidates it is interesting, but not surprising, they are running on an anti-LTN agenda. One Dulwich has stated from the beginning that they were not politically motivated and I always wondered why Dulwich Alliance came to fruition and I wonder whether Clive wanted to launch a political career.? Never thought I?d agree with Rockets but it appears a miracle has happened.

They have been selected by the Tory party as their official candidates. I fail to see how this makes them independents. One was a co founder of Dulwich Alliance, demonstrating the link between the Tories and anti LTN campaigning. What is their prime motive - do they want to get rid of the LTNs or get voted in? I?m posting as someone who is ?clearly a socialist?

They will. It?s what they?re all about. The LTNs have just acted as a Trojan Horse.

Could be any points awarded might mean they lose their license and they're willing to try anything to prevent that?

I once remonstrated with a woman cycling on the pavement in Dulwich Village. I was told not to be rude!

LA - remember CPZ consultation 2012? This link should lead to just one comment regarding our erstwhile councillor?s behaviour /forum/read.php?5,772215,page=47 Scrolling back through the thread will give further context

CPR Dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello James > > Would you consider standing again in this year's > elections? This thread is a great reminder of all > the good work you did for our community. Blimey, you're really inviting the fox into the henhouse. You know he was chair of Southwark Cyclists for many years?

Is there a statue to Margaret Thatcher in a public space? A few years ago Westminster Council were ahead of the game when they refused permission for a statue to be erected to her in Parliament Square: ?? partly due to fears about possible vandalism. It was also felt that it could become a magnet for protesters.? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/23/plans-margaret-thatcher-statue-westminster-rejected?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I?d be interested to know how many of those urging people to vote tactically against Labour actually voted for Labour in the last council elections. And do they really believe this will either get rid of or modify the LTNs.

They are truly blessed

Of course, ED sorting office could have moved into Peckham purely as a temporary measure while a new fit for purpose sorting office was built on the Sylvester Road site. But the privatised RM preferred to acquire money by selling the site rather than spending money which would have benefitted both staff and customers.

Collection isn?t restricted to normal collection days either. The guys who drive around in the truck with a cage are on the look out for them and will pick them up. So if you?re on their regular route the tree will go sooner.

Wouldn?t data protection regulations preclude this?

You may want to go down the adjudication route https://www.rics.org/uk/products/dispute-resolution-service/drs-services/adjudication-services/

? I try to avoid posting letters and parcels with royal mail as much as possible because it is just not reliable.? And ordering goods online that use Royal Mail to deliver

..

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pots and kettles. Not at all, I don?t use emotive, diversionary rhetoric

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suppose that depends on which side of the fence > you stand on doesn't it? ;-) > > On one side you have a small group of people > lobbying for closures who got listened to and on > the other side a larger group who didn't want the > closures who didn't get listened to. > > If smaller groups of people are able to sway and > influence the democratic process is that a good > thing or a bad thing? Look at what happened in > Melbourne Grove, the council suggested changes and > did a U-turn following lobbying by people from > Melbourne Grove. > > Is that fair, especially when so many local > residents have had their views and input roundly > ignored by the council and have been treated as > some sort of annoyance? Here we go again, in a bit of a tight spot so pose an emotive question to divert attention. Fairness has nothing to do with yours and others? claims that Southwark have ignored the democratic process.

That is exactly what?s happened.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > > > > They consulted, got a response they didn't want > to > > hear and then made the decision they wanted > from > > the beginning by ignoring the majority. That's > why > > so many people are upset with them - that's not > > the democratic process they claimed they would > > follow at the outset of this. > > > Which democratic process was that ? > I don't ever recall the council saying here is a > vote for or against the LTN's and we will abide by > the result ? Exactly, to repeat, a consultation is not a referendum. And it?s posters who know that full well who keep bleating on about ?the democratic process? for political purposes. Anyway, I think Admin should give us all a Christmas present and send this thread to the Lounge.

Yes, it?s a barbers, advertises cuts for men and women. No use of smelly chemicals

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > East Dulwich Grove - exactly Rockets > > "The September 2021 figures have been set against > 2019 figures from ?a comparable location? (it?s > not stated where this is), and seem to have had an > enormous influence on Southwark?s thinking" and > "apparently this shows that traffic in the middle > of the road went down between 2019 and 2021, even > though traffic at either end (the Dulwich Village > end and the Goose Green end) went up" > > How does traffic in the middle of a road with > closed roads all around go down 20% when it is up > 26% at both ends with nowhere to go - this 20% > also being calculated by dubious pre-lockdown > figure. > > It would be good if this could be explained. It would also be good if you could answer the critique levelled at your views rather than change the subject.

dougiefreeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @rahx3 > You?re really not in any position to demand > apologies when you yourself refused point blank to > apologise for publicly insulting a group of > predominantly elderly and disabled folk? > #idiotsgate Can you point us in the direction of the post where he did this. Or did he just disagree with them.