first mate

DulvilleRes more or less accused Rockets of lying about PCSOs as well as crime rates in Dulwich Village many months ago. It is one thing to disagree about interpretation of data but to insist that another poster's experience is a lie should be disallowed in my view, unless the 'accuser' has absolute proof. Accusing other posters of lying or suggesting they have mental health problems or are angry seems to be something of an MO for certain members of this forum.

Tiresome. This habit of obliquely calling other posters liars needs to be called out, even if done in a 'jokey'' way.

I don't doubt it, but even then a headache could mean so many different things, from a tension headache to a brain tumour or stroke. A sore arm could be nothing more than a bad bruise or early indication of a serious neurological condition. Perhaps I have this wrong but the presenting symptoms can only be properly analysed for significance after a final diagnosis and followup, surely? Maybe that was done and all were non-serious, in which case those figures would be genuinely shocking. I fine it hard to believe anyone could bear to be in a&e these days with nothing worse than a sore throat. As a walk-in they are likely to have to wait up to 12 hours to be seen.

I guess any issues with pavement and cycle way slipping could be avoided with gritting. Perhaps a grit box could be kept nearby and maybe local shop owners or even cyclists could ensure that area is gritted in future.

In regard to sore throats and itchy skin, I wonder though if those were generally the only symptoms? You could be quite seriously ill and still present with a sore throat or itchy skin. The idea of multiple people rocking up to a&e with 'just' a sore throat or itchy skin may be slightly misleading.

Ah yes, all car drivers and those that 'support' car use are angry and look exactly like Victor Meldrew. But wait, don't you also use a car from time to time, when you go off on your hols to the continent or do your community service thang, driving round checking bus lanes and junctions? Is this perchance who you see in the mirror of a mornin'? 😉

It is the Council who have referenced LL in regard to parking and businesses in their piece on CPZ. If completely unrelated it seems an odd thing to do.

If that was the case, the Council would not have highlighted the relationship between businesses and parking on LL alongside its CPZ plans. I don't know why you have suddenly popped in pavement width. The Council did not mention it in its CPZ statement and neither did I.

Are you saying the Bus Union Rep was selectively reporting? Are you implying that the Rep is biased against cyclists and therefore what he reported to the LA session is not to be trusted? You do sometimes seem to take the line that if someone says something about cycle infrastructure or cyclists, that you do not agree with, this is because they are angry or dislike cyclists (even when the observations you disagree with are made by other cyclists).

@Earl Aelfheah The Council's own statement, which I have just given you, makes that link. Were the impact of CPZ and parking on LL completely unrelated, as you maintain, then the Council would have had no need to highlight it.

Below is what the Council said about their CPZ plans, explaining LL would not be included, although streets adjacent on one side would be. The reason for this non inclusion was explained as preserving parking for visitors to LL thereby protecting business interests. It was added that to further improve visitor parking paid for spaces would be added to streets adjacent to LL. To pretend the LL and CPZ plans were in no way linked is disingenuous. The Council knew that businesses would be more likely to object to local CPZ if they lost parking spaces.

March, it was specifically mentioned in the overall plans. Clearly CPZ would remove swathes of parking for visitors in cars at various time of day, do the Council made a point of saying parking provision on LL would not be affected. This was a Council statement not my conflation. At the time of the CPZ consultation all of you who want to remove parking on LL stayed very quiet. I flagged the bus issue up in the relevant threads- not one of you commented. Once the consultation was over and CPZ results and implementation announced, then suddenly the clamour to remove all parking on LL begins. It does look like playing the long game.

Eh, I think objections were to the overall costs of landscaping. But you seem to be introducing a new take on all this? It was a cyclist that first complained about the Duliwch Square cycle way resurface and others agreed. Later @Malumbu made a joke about this and Rockets commented that this was possibly in poor taste. It feels a bit like you are trying to find an angle to change the subject. I should point out that cyclists should not be cycling on the bulk of the square anyway. Aside from that, if the area had been gritted there may not have been an issue? Whose responsibilty is gritting for this area?

@Earl Aelfheah said : "I have clearly stated more than once that I support the removal of some parking on Lordship Lane, both to increase the space for pedestrians and also to improve bus passage along the road - so it seems odd that he keeps asking me the same question". Actually, I don't think you have clearly stated removing space on LL to improve bus passage on this thread, perhaps I missed it, I am sure you will re- post if I did. Can we conclude then that you do think there is an issue with slower bus speeds on LL? Can we also conclude that you would not support the Council's stated CPZ plans where they say they will preserve existing parking on LL to support visitors in cars to shops on the Lane?

Earl, I'm fine, are you okay? I keep asking you if you want removal of parking on LL in order to mitigate bus speeds, or are bus speeds on LL not a factor, in your view? You seem unwilling to answer this directly, for some reason? The Council CPZ stated plans have factored in retaining the parking spaces on LL; would you then say you disagree with that plan? Remember, they felt it was important to include parking on LL to protect businesses and "balance" the needs of visitors in cars with those of residents. Do you disagree with the Council on the importance of supporting the needs of businesses and visitors in cars to Lordship Lane?