Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Surely it’s not just me that finds the constant lack of a reliable train service at a weekend frustrating? Southern seem to use any excuse to axe weekend services despite the demand which puts more pressure on the roads through buses and cars. 

Wondered if in the past any particular forms of lobbying - petitions, councillors etc - have worked to exact change or is it a lost cause? 🙏🏻

  • Like 1
On 02/12/2023 at 07:01, JRDulwich said:

Surely it’s not just me that finds the constant lack of a reliable train service at a weekend frustrating? Southern seem to use any excuse to axe weekend services despite the demand which puts more pressure on the roads through buses and cars. 

Wondered if in the past any particular forms of lobbying - petitions, councillors etc - have worked to exact change or is it a lost cause? 🙏🏻

It is absolutely ridiculous, I agree.

  • 11 months later...

Even when the trains are supposed to be running  ..........  yesterday Sunday 10th Nov, two consecutive London Bridge trains were cancelled - 18:44 and 19:14.  Twice an hour is barely a service anyway, but then having to wait more than an hour! What are we supposed to do? Going out into central London has become less appealing over the past couple of years because of unreliable transport across London.

  • Agree 1

Moves against privately owned cars only work when public transport is available and dependable. And relatively frequent. Often at weekends trains effectively disappear for planned works, or for unplanned reasons as now. And buses offer tortuous and long east west travel for us (trains offer effectively none). I use public transport whenever I can, which seems increasingly infrequently! It's either not there or not going my way. 

I had a great bus and tube journey to and from central London on Saturday night.  Trains weren't running, but my connections were brilliant.  Friday to North Greenwich was also successful.

Conversely my bus journey to Sydenham yesterday was disrupted by road works and the fatal shooting.

London public transport is brilliant and no need to use a car for the majority of my journeys.

I did raise frequent engineering work on the Overground and a reduction in post COVID mainline with Ellie and feel she needs to make this a higher priority.

28 minutes ago, Forest Hill Climber said:

It's brilliant that that you had a brilliant experience and that TFL is brilliant. If it's all so brilliant, why did you need to write to our brilliant MP?  Has she agreed to do anything about anything?

If you read Malumbu's post properly, you will find out why he wrote to Ellie.

Oh, ooops, I mean Ellie Reeves. Just in case it wasn't clear who I meant 🙄

Edited by Sue
10 minutes ago, Moovart said:

  I think it undermines the importance of a role when we call our elected representatives by their first name only so I'm all for full names.

In which case she is actually The Lady Cryer, married to John, Baron Cryer. She chooses to use her maiden name for electoral purposes. 

The rail service is particularly poor and the weekend traveller seems to take the brunt of it. Whenever we are making plans for any given weekend we always check ahead for fear of the dreaded "Bus Replacement Service" and the frequency of trains not being available has increased markedly at weekends over the last few years.

1 hour ago, Forest Hill Climber said:

It's brilliant that that you had a brilliant experience and that TFL is brilliant. If it's all so brilliant, why did you need to write to our brilliant MP?  Has she agreed to do anything about anything?

bgf8f8f8-flat750x075f-pad750x1000f8f8f8.thumb.jpg.b335adf035e6b60247b262e9c6682cca.jpg

43 minutes ago, Insuflo said:

Pure ignorance on your part. She uses her given name. There is no requirement, legal or otherwise, for a woman to change her name on marriage. She is not an adjunct to John Cryer.

Personally, I think describing herself as Ellie is misleading.  

3 hours ago, Insuflo said:

She is not an adjunct to John Cryer.

She chooses not to use that name professionally, which is her right, but as the wife of a Baron the style I quoted is legally hers, even though she may not have made a legal change to her name on marriage. This is different from a wife choosing not to use her husband's name. Her legal style is The Lady Cryer, even though she doesn't choose to use it professionally. 

Edited by Penguin68

Should political representation be concentrated in families? Ellie and John are both MP's as is Ellie's sister Rachel. Both of John's parents were MP's.  Very cosy.

 

I Imagine Ellie couldn't care less about public transport as she uses the car park at work. I have previously written to Ellie but there was zero response.

Edited by Forest Hill Climber
Mixed up John with his dad Bob
49 minutes ago, Forest Hill Climber said:

Should political representation be concentrated in families? Ellie and John are both MP's as is Ellie's sister Rachel. Both of John's parents were MP's.  Very cosy.

 

I Imagine Ellie couldn't care less about public transport as she uses the car park at work. I have previously written to Ellie but there was zero response.

I got responses, just not very good.  I could have written a better one myself.  No doubt her team replied.  She has a good record of dealing with difficult family issues I'm reliably informed.

4 hours ago, Moovart said:

Can we call our MP by her full name Ellie Reeves even if she is our bezzy mate behind the scenes?  I think it undermines the importance of a role when we call our elected representatives by their first name only so I'm all for full names.

I go out my way to call elected representatives by formal names.  Mayor Khan and former Mayor and former PM Johnson.  Off this site I just called them by their surnames.  I detest the whole move to first names for politicians.  It started with Johnson, whose first name I won't use.  He is not my mate, he is not cuddly and funny.  He is a self serving  liar who was happy to screw the country up for political gain.  I asked the Beeb to not use his first name but they fobbed me off.

I use Ellie here for effect, to make out we are on close terms, which we aren't.  And for effect, ie complain through official channels before posting on social media.

I go threatened by my MP once, a long time ago, that anecdote is for the pub

  • 2 weeks later...

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

    • 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  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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