Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 29/05/2023 at 18:58, Andy P said:

The fire brigade came and put it out.

No, I don't know who started it.

Screenshot_20230529-185438.png

Surely it just needed a bucket of water? Assuming there was nothing burning which would have been made worse by water? 

Edited by Sue
Adding info

Great use of resource - couldn't someone find some water - there are lots of businesses around there. Fire extinguishers?

Don't people actually have any common sense at all?

 

And seriously - "War Torn"? Get over yourself. There are real problems in the world

  • Haha 1
1 hour ago, claresy said:

Whether I think it's funny or not isn't the point. It just seemed obvious that a photo of a tiny fire with a post heading about Dulwich being 'war torn' wasn't meant seriously!

But that is the point...and people are dying in WAR TORN Ukraine. So WHY SAY THAT ? ,is it that funny as you say it was a joke.....NICE JOKE

  • Confused 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Enforcement costs money which I doubt the fines actually pay for. Presumably it hasn't been a priority. 
    • Details here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/2025/dulwich-library-closing-refurbishment
    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...