Jenijenjen

I?m happy for my council tax to pay for these portaloos as well if in fact they are being paid for by the council. I haven?t seen any confirmation this is actually the case, only assumptions. I?m far happier my council tax is used for that purpose than on legal fees to prevent the campsite or my taxes on the police clearing it.

Well, The Times would say that, wouldn?t it

"For goodness sake even the Green party says it is counter productive" As Waseley has pointed out, this is not a true reflection of Caroline Lucas' views quoted in the BBC article. The following are extracts from the article where she is directly quoted: "I am sorry that it has come to this and that this is the only way that people feel they can make their voices heard." ... "Personally for example, if you are going to try and stop Tube trains moving around I think that is counterproductive. "I think that being on the streets of London has been shown to be a way of capturing people's imaginations. "People have joined those protests who have never protested before. They are doing it because they know we have to leave new fossil fuels in the ground. "The International Energy Agency says that, the latest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report says that, and yet this government and this energy strategy... is foreseeing getting out even more oil and gas from the North Sea, that is frankly immoral and the UN general secretary said that is frankly both morally and economically mad." Note she only believes attempting to stop tube trains is counter productive.

The council has been accused of SO many things that anything more is likely to be water off a duck?s back. The Council?s letter states ?XR has given a number of assurances in relation to noise, behaviour and leaving the park as they find it? and at this stage we really can?t prejudge the outcome. Would a formal agreement really make any difference?

This year, due to flood alleviation works, Gala Festival will be taking place on the Common north of the cafe. The Common was purchased by the Camberwell Vestry when the Lord of the Manor threatened to sell it for building. This ownership has passed to Southwark Council over the different forms of local government. I for one am very grateful the Vestry took this action, imagine the Common built over with tiny houses. However, after this purchase took place ancient common rights no longer applied. For clarity this sets out the rights on common land from the Government website https://www.gov.uk/common-land-village-greens. "You cannot: camp on common land without the owner?s permission light a fire or have a barbecue hold a festival or other event without permission drive across it without permission unless you have the right to access your property" Southwark are in effect turning a blind eye which in my opinion is the right thing to do. The campsite is taking up a very small space on the Rye and I don't see how it can impede residents' enjoyment of the common.

A large reason why women were denied the vote for so long was Asquith, Liberal Prime Minister 1908 to 1916 was set against it as he reasoned that the women who would initially be awarded the vote, would be from the middle classes and more likely to vote Tory. Suffragettes gained a lot of sympathy through their actions not least for the cruel practice of force feeding and the horrifying health conditions that could result and the mental cruelty of the Cat and Mouse Act. So no, it wasn?t a case of the suffragists playing ball during WWI being given the vote as a reward though it was a huge opportunity for women to show how capable they are. I?m not sure the Court of Public Opinion are against X R, posts on this thread show otherwise.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If it is authorised then the council needs to > > explain why; XR are not a group they should be > > supporting or encouraging. > > Why, exactly? > > This is the most important issue of our time, and > so far as I can see the vast majority of people > are just hoping it will go away. > > We are actually on the brink of extinction, with a > very tiny window of opportunity left to do > something about it. > > The climate scientists' pleas are relegated to the > parts of the online news that nobody looks at. > > We should be grateful to XR for actually doing > something to make people realise what's going on, > instead of burying their heads in the sand. > > If I was younger and in better health, I would > join them. Well said Sue. The EDF demographic has really changed with people living in DV commenting negatively on events in ED. Bring back Louisa.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jenijenjen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Whoosh > > > I assume that's the sound of a packed bus passing > you at a stop 😉 Not possible because traffic has been so slowed down by the LTNs that it wouldn't be able to get up enough speed to make a whooshing sound.

Whoosh

Oh Waseley, you haven't been paying attention. It's all the Labour Southwark Council's fault and the Labour London Mayor's fault, any other point of view has become heresy on the Forum.

Used to be called a stealth tax not so long ago

Agreed, but much would depend on how they're selected. Would it be a government appointee (horrors), chosen by a committee made up of a cross section of people or someone who everyone, including children, would be able to vote for. While there are well dodgy members of the royal family, as there are in all walks of life, as an institution that provides the head of state I don't mind it and find it preferable to the alternatives. As for the privilege, there's always going to be people much, much, much better of than me and I don't let that eat into my life though perhaps DKHB has a point regarding jewels mined by slaves.

@dulwichhistory and @dulwichsociety alerted

I think that's right, Durlstone Manor Hotel itself is on the other leg of Champion Hill just around the corner. The building is still there and very secluded opposite the building, formerly The Plantanes, now part of Kings College Hospital. When does your map date from? I attach a screenshot from a map surveyed in 1949 which shows the South Lodge at some stage was renamed The Cottage.

This is why we need to know the individuals who are behind this campaign claiming political impartiality as only then can we decide whether they are indeed impartial. On another thread on the Forum they've made the most ludicrous of statements: "We're sticking to the single issue of LTNs (traffic, transport, road closures) because we believe this links directly to so many other issues relating to social equality, including housing, health, education, local business, protected characteristics, etc." So policies aren't important or necessary regarding housing, health, education, local business, protected characteristics, etc. because get rid of the LTNs and any issues will disappear.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We have multiple categories in Para sport and it > doesn't make it any less watchable or stop some > superb athletes being very well known. > > The sport issue shouldn't be used as a trojan to > take the T out of LGBT IMHO. I totally agree but equally the T issue should not be used to undermine the rights and lives of women

Besides, whining about the introduction of charges is not incompatible with acknowledging that Southwark charges are less than other councils charge. People do like a good whine regardless ?.

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is it like, to have an enhanced shopping > experience? Maybe it's like when you accept cookies on a website you have an enhanced visitor experience?

?? as you had indicated that you didn?t think people would be interested in a Friday night thing due to reduced commuters etc.? Just for the record, this wasn?t something I said.

I don?t know why you?re trying to convince me about a night time market, all I?ve said is it's not going to happen which isn?t the same as being against it. Also a bit strange you?re referring to a ?demand? for a night time market when as far as I know it?s just been suggested by one person!

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but in my case you're probably right. Seeing the Rolling Stones at the Ealing Club was much more my cup of tea

That?s fair enough, it is after all your opinion but it?s not backed up by the Southwark Plan as you implied.

See my post at 11.05 am today. Before the LTNs Traffic was joining the flow from LL from Derwent, Elsie and Melbourne. Now cars are unable to enter EDG from these roads, the traffic in the central section has decreased.

LA: Not what you said in your previous post, you quoted the section from the Southwark Plan which you interpreted as ?could be something like bars? which is not what the Southwark Plan points to. I have made absolutely no comment whether an evening market would be a good thing or a bad thing.

It could be loads of things. This is still pure conjecture that it might happen in Melbourne Grove and these frameworks do not constitute evidence. Other than granting licenses, whether a bar economy happens in Melbourne Grove is mostly outside of the Council's power. A night market may be interesting but it aint going to happen. There is a huge difference between North Southwark and suburban East Dulwich. ETA The part in the Southwark Plan you quote "Seek to protect East Dulwich?s retail offer and maintain a balance between shops and night time economy uses which protects the amenity of local residents." I take this to mean not to increase the night time economy but to ensure that as shops fall vacant that council priority should be given to regular shops rather than approve a change of use to become a bar or restaurant.