Jenijenjen

Because neither is it being added to with traffic from Melbourne, Elsie and Derwent as it was before they became LTNs so the amount of traffic along the central section of EDG has decreased.

"I think there is neighbourly bitterness - those whose roads are not closed due to the LTN appear to want those who do have their roads pedestrianised to suffer in some form, be it the annoyance of a market outside your home on a Saturday. am I wrong?" Perhaps not wrong but certainly exaggerated. If the market on Melbourne Grove goes ahead it will not be located outside the residential houses so will not cause that much inconvenience. In fact, living on North Cross Road, I can only suggest that it might make their street a little bit more interesting for residents than it is now.

Now I?ve had time to read the Bermondsey Street Report, it received 20 responses to the consultation. Half of these supported the scheme and there is only 1 (one) objection to the bars etc in the area.

No, you're not predicting, you are rumour spreading to stir up further feeling against Southwark Council, as do many of your posts. If you have any evidence that this is being proposed please supply proof other than the vague notion that Southwark Council supports a night time economy. In the case of the bars discussed in the Bermondsey Scheme, they have been there for a very long time. To compare the vibrancy of Bermondsey Street with Melbourne Grove is laughable.

Would it not be more appropriate to contact Thames Water?

Very strange. I?ve just called and those who are calling about a non urgent matter are invited to use the econsult online service.

Still misleading. There are options to indicate what your query is about e.g. ?comment or suggestion? ?complaint? which is quite common for online contact forms. To say there is a requirement to tick an option to say the email does not relate to a medical issue is just twisting the facts. I have to say though I find a couple of the other posts above concerning.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The only way to contact them online is via a form > where you had to sign to confirm you are not > seeking any information about a medical problem. This is a little misleading. There is a contact form which states it shouldn?t be used about a medical problem, nothing about ?signing.? I should imagine it?s so that those needing medical help don?t used a general contact form where there query may get overlooked.

Whoeveritis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jenijenjen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I submitted an econsult form to FHRGP, received > a > > phone call from them by the end of the day and > had > > an appointment at Tessa Jowell the next day > > Not any more , their econsult is no longer an > option Well, it?s working now. It doesn?t operate when the practice is closed. https://fhrgp.webgp.com/

I submitted an econsult form to FHRGP, received a phone call from them by the end of the day and had an appointment at Tessa Jowell the next day

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?