Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, first mate said:

As for the unnecessary tone on your part (mush);

Proper south London lingo that, mush.

 

3 minutes ago, first mate said:

the forum supports difference of opinion and I will continue to state my views, including on this.

Absolutely and ditto.

 

4 minutes ago, first mate said:

n regard to Gala, no implication, Cllr rose has stated she wants to increase events in our parks, so probably not just Gala if she has her way, more the Brockwell Park model and you probably know what many local residents feel about that. If you don't believe me

Oh i do. I also know that many residents aren't fussed about Gala doing their thing. It's all about opinions isn't it!

Gala doing their thing for three days, what about when it becomes 6 and then yet more events are added to that? In earlier posts you said you were not aware about Gala extending as something that nearly happened and was withdrawn at a late stage.

James McCash has also stated in meetings that he would like to see all cars taken off the streets of Southwark and streets open for children to play in- presumably all the time. So you see, the Council suggestion to have a 'lil partee' to celebrate no cars is underpinned by an intention that extends well beyond just one day.

56 minutes ago, first mate said:

Gala doing their thing for three days, what about when it becomes 6 and then yet more events are added to that? In earlier posts you said you were not aware about Gala extending as something that nearly happened and was withdrawn at a late stage.

James McCash has also stated in meetings that he would like to see all cars taken off the streets of Southwark and streets open for children to play in- presumably all the time. So you see, the Council suggestion to have a 'lil partee' to celebrate no cars is underpinned by an intention that extends well beyond just one day.

In your opinion

The opinions expressed are partly mine but much more me just passing on what the council has said it wants to do to increase park hire for private events and ridding the streets of all cars.
 

 I will add to that a possibility that councillors may be seduced by the Lime dollar and remove parking space on every street to make way for Lime e-bike and scooter storage and use. I don't quite know how a proliferation of e-bikes and scooters sits with the aim of getting children to play in the street, not at the speeds I have seen some of them go...

Edited by first mate
4 minutes ago, first mate said:

The opinions expressed are partly mine but much more me just passing on what the council has said it wants to do in increasing park hire for private events and ridding the streets of all cars.

All cars? Every single car parked on the road? First i've heard of that. Hardly a vote winner and it would be a huge hit in revenue streams for them.

Yes, so it is about balance. Quite how we decide who deserves to use a car remains to be seen but Cllr McAsh did say that; perhaps it was a moment of levity, playing to the 'stakeholder' gallery, who knows. 

  • Like 1
1 hour ago, first mate said:

The opinions expressed are partly mine but much more me just passing on what the council has said it wants to do to increase park hire for private events and ridding the streets of all cars.
 

 I will add to that a possibility that councillors may be seduced by the Lime dollar and remove parking space on every street to make way for Lime e-bike and scooter storage and use. I don't quite know how a proliferation of e-bikes and scooters sits with the aim of getting children to play in the street, not at the speeds I have seen some of them go...

Have you seen the proliferation of Lime bikes on Blenheim Grove? Sooooooooooooooooooooo many Lime bikes in front of All Saints Church. 

10 hours ago, Dulwich dweller said:

All cars? Every single car parked on the road? First i've heard of that. Hardly a vote winner and it would be a huge hit in revenue streams for them.

You are right, the Southwark Labour Party manifesto I think 2 elections ago, but it might have been 3, only declared that it wanted to drive out privately owned cars from Southwark. Private ownership of anything is of course anathema to a certain part of the socialist universe, including those who have only recently withdrawn 'Marxist' from their personal description. 

And, yes, their hatred of privately owned cars and their reliance on revenues derived from the same does show a lack of consistency and common sense. 

Edited by Penguin68
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
11 hours ago, first mate said:

I will add to that a possibility that councillors may be seduced by the Lime dollar

Discussion of a street party has moved into full-on conspiracy theory mode.

#southwarkderangementsyndrome

  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1

Seeing as most roads have existed well before cars,  maybe its car drivers rather than pedestrians should be applying for permission to use the roads. 

More seriously there seems to be a small hardcore of people on here worried that someone,  somewhere might actually be having fun. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
1 hour ago, Cyclemonkey said:

Seeing as most roads have existed well before cars,  maybe its car drivers rather than pedestrians should be applying for permission to use the roads. 

Existed as dirt roads maybe in ED, but as paved roads with pavements here not until the advent of motor vehicles, I think you'll find. As far as paved and user friendly roads in the suburbs it was cars wot done it. 

33 minutes ago, snowy said:

I think the cycling touring club and the Roads Improvement Association in the late 19th century would correct you on that assumption. 

Yep, there are reports in the South London Press and South London Chronicle that Camberwell Vestry (the former body reponsible for local administrative matters) ordered the paving of some streets in East Dulwich in the 1870s which extended the entire width of the road. Advertisements for houses to rent in, for example, Ulverscroft Road in the 1880s boasted the street was paved as a selling point.

Edited by Jenijenjen
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

What is road tax?

Road taxation has existed since the 17th century to pay for building and maintenance of Britain's highways, and in 1909 the Road Fund was established to collect road tax for the financing and administration of road building and maintenance.

A tax specifically for motor vehicles was first introduced in 1920, but after 1937 the Road Fund and any ring-fencing of the vehicle excise duty for the specific financing of roads was ended. 

Since then all UK road tax is paid into the government's Consolidated Fund and road maintenance is financed out of general taxation.

I am interested to know how many posters here support Southwark's stated intention to remove all private cars from the streets. For those that need to use a car how do you see this working? 
 

If a major intention of getting rid of cars is to free up streets for children to play, for socialising etc., how does e-bike and scooter use fit into this idea? Given other cities have now banned these because they are so dangerous I am interested to understand the thinking. Southwark is looking at removing car parking spaces on every street and installing e-bikes and e-scooters in the space instead.

you seem personally offended that there may be a suggestion that there are too many cars on the roads and people are aware of that.

Just fancy, the whole entire world having a car free day yet there is an issue in a little burb of london.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Blimey o'reily 

This really has moved from its intended purpose, promoting street parties as part of World car free day to anti southwarks anti car policy.

Personally, I think we need to separate the two (southwark and world car free day) and concentrate on a simpler view.

1. Which roads are interested in hosting a street party ? 

2. Has enough time been left to organise street parties? 

Let's be frank here, when we used to have "the big lunch" street parties no one really objected to roads being closed so the issue here seems to be that it is associated with a car free day. 

I agree with other posters that Southwark has expressed an opinion about removing all privately owned cars but let's not mistake that as the sole reason for a street party,the two things are separate and its not about kids playing in the streets in general but streets getting together to party. Surely not a bad thing after covid locked us all up for ages and reconnecting with Mrs Miggens down the street who lost her husband is a good thing after all.

I fear if we drive this down the anti car road any further it will get moved to the transport section rather than being a place to discuss the good things that come out of street parties. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
22 minutes ago, first mate said:

I am interested to know how many posters here support Southwark's stated intention to remove all private cars from the streets.

Is that before or after the Bill Gates COVID microchips are implanted in us? 

 

1 hour ago, Cyclemonkey said:

Romans were also well kown for producing a good walkable road surface.

The woke active travel conspiracy goes back further than I thought!

  • Haha 2

Okay, let's just say we'd like some street parties and to do that we need to close the street- to all traffic. A nice side benefit is kids can play in the space while the adults socialise and have fun. 

I can see that residents think, yes, a party would be nice and they organise it. Supposing there is a good turnout, you just know this will be spun as overwhelming support for Southwark's car/street plans. 

3 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Is that before or after the Bill Gates COVID microchips are implanted in us? 

 

The woke active travel conspiracy goes back further than I thought!

Are you denying Southwark have said this- about the cars, of course.

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...