Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This thread is intended to generate suggestions for ridding E.D. and other parts of South London of the plague of red vans that belong to a certain Mr Terry Kilty.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050948/Exposed-The-man-menace-rusty-red-vans-blighting-suburbia-ads.html


Arsom is not acceptable (on ecological grounds) but extra points will be awarded for suggestions that are particularly creative, humorous or off-beat.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/6265-red-van-plague/
Share on other sites

Avid readers of the EDF might suggest I have an unusually low tolerance for littering, loutishness and the like, but in this case I am neutral. There's no suggestion the vans are not taxed or unroadworthy, so let him park where he wants and make a living. Vehicles that are driven poorly by anti-social drivers and that blast out music are more worthy of our ire, as are fly-tipping, dropping litter and other such uncivil behaviour.
Guess I've got a sense of humour failure, but these vans are eyesores (and not as amateur/just trying to make a living as they appear). I wouldn't like a billboard opposite my house or a van parked with a huge sign (as these are). If the vans were parked in the normal course of business, that would be fine - but not parked for weeks. There is little enough road space for parking anyway. Not illegal, but bad manners and a bad example. I wouldn't want my house or walls or fences covered in the kind of graffiti that the vans appear to emulate. (I don't much care for the crackhouse aesthetic anyway, which proves how middle-aged I am).

I am sad enough i noted down some registration numbers and satisfied myself they were not all the same van.. and googled to see if I could find some info about them.


FWIW, there is one by Goose Green usually and one outside Dulwich Village Infants.


So are they a fleet of vans all in operation.. or do only a few of them move and the rest are novel forms of advertising hording?

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

    • The fundamental problem at present is that the government has been given to belief that if they took it into public ownership, they'd have to pay all its billions of debts. This, oddly, is not a problem that's dogged any of its previous owners, and a very simple solution would be to fine it, say, £40bn for being useless and then pick it up for free. So that's possible. However one of the compelling arguments that got it privatised in the first place was that government-run operations aren't often very well run. They might promise 40 new reservoirs to get them through an election, but that's the last you'll hear of it till the water-rates bill arrives, and there's precious little in the way of economic "growth" to be had out of processing sewage. There are advantages, perhaps, to having an accountable hand on the tiller, but governments, and their agencies, tend not to very accountable. Last December, for example, the Office for Environmental Protection released a report detailing how DEFRA, the Environment Agency and Ofwat had all failed in their legal duties, but as the OEP's powers extend only to writing reports, that's as far as it went. An alternative might be to have it run as an autonomous business, with the government holding the only share. But that's what they did with the Post Office where any benefits of privatisation have become only a boondoggle for lawyers. Not that lawyers don't deserve the compulsory generosity of taxpayers, but their needs must surely be secondary to the Post Office's vital core missions of re-selling stamps, not handing out pensions and cooking the digital books. Which leaves us, I think, in need of a Third Way. That might seem a little too Blairite for some, but I think there's a way to add a Corbynish gloss by setting it up as a co-operative, owned not by the state but by its customers, who would have an interest in striking a balance between increasing bills, maintaining supplies and preserving their own environment, and who'd be able to hold the management to account without having to go through a web of five regulators by way of the office of a part-time representative with an eye on a job in the Cabinet. There are risks with that, of course, in that the shoutiest can exert the most influence, and the shoutiest are not often the most wise, but with everyone having an equal stake, the shoutiest usually get shouted down, which is why co-operatives tend to last longer than businesses steered by cliques of shareholders or political advisers. In other words, the optimum and correct path to take is tried and tested and sitting right there and I'll eat my hat if it happens.  
    • At least the situation with rail travel  is being addressed.
    • It would cost so much  now.  But pay off for us in the long run. Thatcher and her privatisation of public services.  It is a total disaster 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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