Penguin68

Possibly because cars have proper lights, which they are required under law to use and indeed many now have daylight lights as well. If anything lights on cars may now be too bright. And curiously those of us calling for cyclists to be visible do so because we would prefer them not to be killed or injured, although the cycling lobby on these pages is helping me doubt that viewpoint.

But what was said was that there was no such thing as an accident, not that certain incidents could be seen to have a contributory cause which should have been forseen. If I am suddenly stung by a wasp whilst driving I may have an involuntary movement which may cause me, or someone else, significant harm. But would you then wish to attribute blame to someone, indeed presumably me. 50 years ago I was driving when I had a sudden mechanical failure of a component which was newly fitted. Which caused my car, and nearly me, to be written off. It was a mechanical failure which could not have been forseen by me or the person who fitted it. But apparently there's no such thing as as an accident in some people's books.

That's really not true, I do wish you'd stop insisting that. The desire to believe that every incident can be blamed on someone is simply childish. As is the desire to seek to blame people. Except cyclists of course, I believe is your theme.

Typically the way 'family run businesses' operate is either to have family members continue the business, or to sell on, either as a site (in this instance) or as a going concern. Either which way this is the way the owners create a 'pension' from the business. The number of suggestions as to alternatives makes me feel that the market for small repairing garages locally may be well served, so selling on the site makes the best financial sense for the owners. It's a sign not of the times but of normal business realities.

That's not what I said and you know it.

Cyclists who chose not to follow advice, guidance or rules specific to visability in poor light conditions choose the risks they run and I see no reason for sympathy when their luck runs out. However, I do feel sympathy both for pedestrians hit by invisible cyclists, and obviously those with visual or hearing impairment which adds to their risk on the pavements or road, and to drivers who may hit these invisible cyclists and suffer guilt or trauma having done so. And anyone who wishes to suggest that a cyclist so hit is not to blame because it's always the drivers fault can go hang. Why do you think the rules and guidance exist in the first place?

And another thread is hijacked by the anti car brigade... To be fair, it was started by a sympathiser.

No, because they are a business and their job is to make a profit. It is the local council, on our behalf, who should be giving regard to the environment. Gala, not unreasonably, might take the view that it is the council's role to protect the environment of Southwark, and if they have no objection to this scheme then frankly why shouldn't they (Gala) go ahead? And the council also seems to take the view that they are focused on revenue and not the environment. Otherwise they might listen to the environmental pleas here. The mistake you are making is assuming that either party to this transaction (we are clearly only bystanders) gives a flying fig for the environment when there is money in the offing.

I don't believe it offers free WiFi, and if it does from a pretty grotty and expensive to maintain platform.

I think free calls and WiFi might be considered a public service. Many, of course, are on contracts which offer much of that, but not everybody, and particularly not those who can't afford such contracts. Or maybe those are the sort of people you don't want to be mixing with on Lordship Lane.

If this is approved BT will probably apply to remove the phone box. These cost far more than they earn and are very vulnerable to vandelism. The old phone boxes are not ideal to become WiFi hubs, and will need the same level of engineering work to convert (they will be connected over copper). And they don't offer the advertising opportunity which pays for the free WiFi.

NIMBY - apparently

Yes, there's no way anyone would want a Wi-Fi hub in Lordship Lane. Absolutely pointless. Anyone who actually wants or needs to communicate or access data will already have their 5G phone or satellite phone on them to get fast data. And of course we are lucky that we have such a strong and unbroken mobile signal from all suppliers locally. With no dead spots.

Sadly, but not unreasonably, councils find it difficult to justify such expenditure on their current budgets. My family, which does like fireworks have been enjoying the displays by those still with disposable wealth by viewing them from Hilly Fields. Other hills (Dawson Heights) are available. For children who have autumn and winter birthdays, a firework display is some consolation for their birthday climate. My grandchildren, being summer babies, can enjoy garden parties and picnics. Without the need for explosions and dazzling display.

I think you'll find that there are more than just 'quite a lot' involved with firework enjoyment. I'm not one of those, but I do not begrudge the enjoyment of others.