Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was happily doing my usual school run route when I hit some congestion on Hillsboro Road. This is not unusual but on most occasions it sorts itself easily. However, the other day when I saw the congestion, I past what I thought were parked cars dropping children of at Alleyn's and I pulled into a gap, I was soon approached by an angry man that accused me of being stupid and couldn't I see that they were waiting. NO I couldn't, I thought you were parked! Anyway, it wasn't long before a woman joined in to say, very nicely, that the parents of Alleyn's have a rule that Hillsboro Road is a one way street that comes down from the opposite direction I was going in. I was getting fed up at this point so smiled, said it wasn't usually a problem and swiftly turned round to change my route.

As the day went on I kept thinking how cheeky it was that parents of Alleyn's have decided to change driving restrictions on a PUBLIC road. I do appreciate it's difficult to find parking near any school for morning drop off and it's also a problem at my child's school but why don't you try parking a little further away, I DO! Many of us residents of nearby streets are perfectly entitled to use Hillsboro Road anyway we want, THANKS!

I've seen this kind of mutually agreed one way system work extremely well in a similar situation in North London. However the school there worked very hard to have strong links with the local community. Sadly Alleyns doesn't, & the parents have set up this system whilst neglecting to tell 80% of the local residents of their plans. Note I say 'tell' not, 'negotiate' or 'suggest this course of action to'. They did post notes to those on Hillsborough rd, but not to anyone on the Dutch Estate, or Thornecombe, Glengarry, Tarbert or Trossachs Rds - all of whom use Hillsborough to get to & from their homes (when we can). It could work well with a little good will and effort, I'm sure many in the local community would be willing to give it a go, but it needs to be mutually agreed & adequately policed (by this I mean two or three parent volunteers out each drop off, pick up time for a week or so informing people of what they're doing, plus some basic signage reminders of which way the traffic should be flowing pinned on Alleyns fence - nothing fancy)in the set up period in order to work sufficiently well enough to ease the congestion.


It does seem to me to be another typical Alleys "we're doing this & *!%* the lot of you" scheme. they've been very cackhanded in their approach & management of this. Poor show from them again. Shame really.

I think the appropriate reply in this situation would be along the lines of:


"You can make whatever agreement amongst yourselves you like but I adhere to the law of the land and your cosy little agreements are b****er all to do with me so **** off!"


Alternatively, you could tell them that you and a group of ED residents had decided amongst yourselves that the road in question was to become a toll-road and that you were there as designated collector to take ?10 of all the other users, so hand over the dosh! See how they react to that.

Domitianus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the appropriate reply in this situation

> would be along the lines of:

>

> "You can make whatever agreement amongst

> yourselves you like but I adhere to the law of the

> land and your cosy little agreements are b****er

> all to do with me so **** off!"

>

> Alternatively, you could tell them that you and a

> group of ED residents had decided amongst

> yourselves that the road in question was to become

> a toll-road and that you were there as designated

> collector to take ?10 of all the other users, so

> hand over the dosh! See how they react to that.



^


totally that!! ha ha ha ha that cracked me up

I viewed the situation described in the original post slightly differently ie that Alleyns parents, having realised the problems that drop off traffic cause on that road, have decided that they will operate a one-way system for Alleyn parents only thus reducing the impact of the school run. In this case there was confusion between the original poster and the parents dropping off as to who the rule was applied to. Perhaps they thought she was a parent trying to pick up her child.

Domitianus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Alternatively, you could tell them that you and a

> group of ED residents had decided amongst

> yourselves that the road in question was to become

> a toll-road and that you were there as designated

> collector to take ?10 of all the other users, so

> hand over the dosh! See how they react to that.


LOL! I'm so gonna try that one! Perhaps TheAllSeeingEye could join me?

Domitianus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Does it matter? Fact is. whether one is an

> Alleyn's parent or not - they can still choose to

> obey the real law rather than the made-up law of

> the Alleyn's "We own the roads" posse.



It's good news is it not that peer pressure rather than laws can improve the traffic congestion outside a school. KC should not have been asked to turn around but aside from that its great that parents can come up with a partial solution to this problem

It might be good news if it hadn't taken them 11 years after the suggestion was first mooted to instigate it. I've grown people in the time it's taken them to realise that this approach could work (well, it might if they handled it properly). Rubbish response time from Alleyns really.

Domitianus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree that parents agreeing a practical solution

> amongst themselves is positive. I am not so

> comfortable with the fact that some appear to be

> trying to 'enforce' this rather than seeing it as

> a type of voluntary code.


I agree entirely.

> Domitianus Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> I agree that parents agreeing a practical

> solution amongst themselves is positive. I am not

> so comfortable with the fact that some appear to

> be trying to 'enforce' this rather than seeing it

> as a type of voluntary code.


It's not a matter of comfort, nor of community relations, nor of positivity. Obstructing the highway is a matter for the police.


If they want to campaign to have the status of the road revised, there are legal and democratic means to do so, and they are free to approach the proper authorities. As it stands, their actions amount to mob rule and should be condemned outright.


paragraph removed following complaints The Administrator

Very rarely does this forum make me cross. I find it most useful on many an occasion. BUT how dare you Burbage use such language talking about other people and their children. 'nauseating spawn' - what makes you say such appalling things about young children??? What is it that enrages you so much?

Sorry, totally forgot to say what I was going to say in the first place.


No, Hillsborough is not a one way street and that is obviously for good reason. But what is wrong with parents trying to make it work for all involved by going in one way and going out another for half an hour a day? Anybody who has ever been in the unfortunate situation of having to go through this road at school time may think it is a good idea. Random parking, dropping off etc on both sides of the road are really dangerous and the traffic jam causes road rage with no extra help needed.


Obviously...doing the vigilante thing is overstepping the mark on many levels...and I think you should be cross Knackered Cow, I would be. But most of these people take their children to school and go off to work, they don't like driving through this road any more than anybody else would.

Perhaps a solution would be for said parents to collect their children on one of the other roads nearby rather than having to congregate on this street? If my information is correct Alleyns pupils are above ten years of age and can presumably be expected to stroll a hundred yards or so without walking in front of a car/falling down a mine shaft/taking sweets from strage men etc etc?


Or would that be an 'elf an' safety issue?

They shouldn't be using so many cars to take their precious babies to school. They should carpool or how about this - make their children walk/use public transport!


Do you have any evidence that (some at least) of 'them' don't do these things? Alleyn's is a very large school, if all parents were just bringing one of their 'precious babes' (I'm glad that you, if you have children of your own, obviously and rightly disdain and despise them, it's just so middle class to value and love your own children) there would be horrendous jams (much more than now) all around the school.


As I said in an earlier message (expunged as the message it was replying to was also expunged) it is clear that Gordon Brown's belief that he can win the next election on a class war basis clearly still has some mileage in SE22.


I should add that I too believe that the action of these parents in trying to enforce a unilateral chnage of road use is out of order

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They shouldn't be using so many cars to take their

> precious babies to school. They should carpool or

> how about this - make their children walk/use

> public transport!

>

> Do you have any evidence that (some at least) of

> 'them' don't do these things? Alleyn's is a very

> large school, if all parents were just bringing

> one of their 'precious babes' (I'm glad that you,

> if you have children of your own, obviously and

> rightly disdain and despise them, it's just so

> middle class to value and love your own children)

> there would be horrendous jams (much more than

> now) all around the school.

>

> As I said in an earlier message (expunged as the

> message it was replying to was also expunged) it

> is clear that Gordon Brown's belief that he can

> win the next election on a class war basis clearly

> still has some mileage in SE22.

>

> I should add that I too believe that the action of

> these parents in trying to enforce a unilateral

> chnage of road use is out of order



It's not entirely surprising that such a response to my generally light-hearted post should appear! What on earth are you going on about though re "disdaining/despising"? Are you inferring that middle class people "value and love" their children more than other people? If not, forgive me but I found your post confused and ever so slightly bizarre.

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

    • I would imagine that the evidence shows that protein powder is not suitable for under 18s whatever the brand.  Staff should’ve known that.
    • I'm not sure it's sensible  to presume any agreement from interlocutors, but if you do, then I do agree that it's the right thing to say so. My own guess -- it's nothing more -- is that the officers were acting just to effect an arrest on arrival, as requested, quite possibly without any knowledge of the content of wretched tweet at all*, and that their being armed was absolutely incidental.  But I don't know any reliable facts. I do think the turning up (5?) en masse to do so was possibly complacent and unthinking, if there was no reason to believe the arrestee was a threat.  If they had  been doing so for good reason, I guess they could have had at least one weapon trained at him, and had  him hands above head or on the ground in no time.  But I know no reliable facts of the incident whatsoever.  Perhaps they were Father Ted fans -- seriously -- and trogged along, on a quiet afternoon, to see the man himself.  Perhaps they and/or their CO will get a severe bollocking from above.  I don't know. * But even that with some reservations.  The last time I looked up cases on wrongful arrest, years ago, I think I remember there being held then to be at least some onus on the acting arresting officer to be satisfied that  the required grounds for a lawful arrest  did exist.  And I don't know any of the facts of the present case. 
    • They carry guns at the airport.  It may not make it ok but that is a fact.  In France and America they all carry guns.
    • TfL and the Met had a small team a few years ago dedicated to addressing bike theft.  https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2011/february/officers-target-bike-thieves-and-successfully-reunite-stolen-bikes-with-their-owners I assume that went with austerity. There is now a Task Force https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/metropolitan-police-service-cycle-taskforce And some advice from the MPS: https://www.met.police.uk/cp/crime-prevention/keeping-vehicles-safe/how-safe-is-your-bike/ The marking service is good and helps.  As a cyclist you do your best to minimise the likelihood and I would never leave a high end bike locked on the street out of sight.  I've had three bikes stolen in London over the last two decades. Gum Tree sadly makes it too easy and for every bike theft there is someone knowingly or unknowingly prepared to buy a bargain that is stolen.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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