Rockets

Snowy - I am point scoring about people using incorrect facts for point scoring. Like you just did. 😉 The vehicle is both taxed and has a valid MOT which I believe makes your post far more Alan Partridge than mine... Honestly a little bit of research goes a long way.... But thank you so much for validating my point.

The statutory consultation website is utterly unnavigable which probably means the council gets fewer responses and this probably helps their cause. Amazing that during the initial consultation they publicise and make it easy to give feedback yet in the statutory one it is anything but user-friendly - we got a letter pushed through our letterbox telling you you have until Oct 3rd to respond. I would love to know how the overwhelmingly negative views of constituents in the first consultation are considered in this one - I suspect they may be ignored. https://consultation.appyway.com/southwark/order/6e28e047-80e7-4bf1-bb97-00bce239c6e9 I would suggest that anyone who lives in the area and feels strongly about this responds and encourages their neighbours to do so again - if constituents again say we don't need this or want this you have to hope the council might consider the consequences. If anyone from One Dulwich reads this it might be good to send a missive to encourage others to respond.

Well Dulwich Roads refers to the vehicle as "taking up residence" and "appearing in the same places many days in a row" which is clearly trying to project that someone owns this vehicle (they often use such language when they see a vehicle they disapprove of) which is designed to play into the "ludicrously large vehicles clogging up our roads" narrative. And you used it as an example of long-term car storage by posting this followed by the Dulwich Roads post: So rather than me missing the point I think both you and Dulwich Roads (who often post without thinking or researching as well) have tried to make a point without knowing the full facts. They do this all the time - never let the truth get in the way of a good story is their modus operandi on pretty much everything they post and they never correct anything when the truth emerges, happy to leave their "loose" interpretation of fact on their feed no doubt happy in the knowledge that they have "spun" the story they want their followers to believe, thus reinforcing their own ideology. There are a million reasons why that ludicrously large vehicle, that is utterly unsuitable for our roads and no doubt an absolute pig to drive, had been parked there for a couple of days - long-term car storage was probably not one of them. But I am sure our good friend Raptortruckman69 was salivating with envy given that a Raptortruck is the modern-day equivalent! 😉

Well if they are storing it there for future use let's hope no-one decides to take it or it is well secured - I suspect it's worth a few bob and there are plenty of people driving around the area looking for scrap and if they see if I bet it will go.

BBC News - E-bike rage in the borough that's had enough - and how it might be solved https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly9jqd5765o

Interesting that Southwark is lauding the amount of money they are investing in EV charging points....has the penny finally dropped for them? They spent years fighting anything on 4 wheels but now seem to be far more embracing of them.

You've got to hope it's being reused...it wasn't put in that long ago. The way it has been tossed with the rest of the rubbish suggests it is being thrown out. Very, very bad look for the council if it is (especially given the noise they made about the reuse of the playground furniture installed there in the first lymp of tax payers' money invested in Dulwich Square). P.S. When was the photo of the bench taken and was it in front of the hairdressers as if it was, it doesn't seem to be there now? P.P.S ignore that as having looked at the photo it isn't in front of the hairdressers - there are similar pallets and white bags out front of the hairdressers.

And please, please, please, please if your little cherubs do cycle on the pavement don't teach them to vigorously ring their bell to alert people to "get out of my way" as they cycle up behind them. Teach them that the person in front of them has the right of way and it's their job to navigate around them and not the responsibility of the pedestrian to move out of their way! And if the pedestrian does move out of their way a thank you goes a long way to ensure cyclist and pedestrian entente cordiale!

And Madrid... https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/05/madrid-moves-to-ban-app-rented-e-scooters-over-safety-concerns

https://inews.co.uk/news/private-school-parents-attack-labour-vat-closure-3256850

A quick search revealed that that monster truck is in fact a rental vehicle and not someone's over-sized family wheels...no doubt much to the disappointment of Dulwich Roads... https://www.bookaclassic.co.uk/ford-f150-truck-london/

There was a survey of shopping habits of Lordship Lane some years ago, produced by Southwark Council, and it focussed on where people came from to shop there. I will see if I can find it as I think car was quite high as a lot of visitors came from neighbouring (and those further afield) boroughs.

Was it a concession given during the original CPZ discussion as I think you are right, many spaces are taken by the business owners during working hours? They were very vocal against the measures.

Except the ones like the police conducted at Bank junction due to the continual problems posed by bad cycling.....how many cyclists got PCNs.....? No cycling on the pavement is a nuisance and increases risk for pedestrians. Any ammunition given to those who oppose cycling on pavements is down to...well, cycling on pavements....which is not allowed and increases risk for pedestrians.... It's not cyclists it's bad cyclists we are angry at. Just as we are angry at bad drivers. But the difference is we don't try to defend bad driving and offer "yeah, but" excuses....

DKHB you got me! Congrats, you win a prize. I got that wrong and I stand corrected...there you see, admitting you got something wrong doesn't hurt and can be quite therapeutic...perhaps some of you and the council should try it! Bottom line remains the council chooses to spend millions of tax payers money on Dulwich Square yet Lordship Lane pavements are in a terrible state of repair and are often flooded. Perhaps Cllr Leeming can assure you the pavement on Lordship Lane is perfect and never floods and you can come on here and tell us you have proof all is good! P.S. is that a picture of Cllr McAsh and his grand CPZ plan per chance?

Especially when it comes to the council and their agenda and gaining constituent consensus. They always put self-interest ahead of their constituents.

Ha ha...you just can't help yourself can you! In one breath you are urging people to end the culture wars and by the end of your post you're continuing to wage one....can you not see the irony there?

There are probably so few threads discussing this because every thread that, for example this one, says there is an increasing problem for pedestrians being caused by cyclists gets hijacked by someone from the pro-cycle lobby saying...but cars kills more people than bikes do. Which is exactly what you have just done - again. Thank you!

https://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/24558055.lime-bikes-instructed-removed-brent-council/ Brent has had enough

I am also anti-champagne socialist as much as anti-Marxist so that's why I find it laughable that a council, who has been pleading poverty, can find £5m for Dulwich Square's repeated renovations...I bet the Marxists hate that as much as I do. And then I read the following which is said to be part of an email Cllr Leeming sent and you realise how much they are lying to everyone (the overwhelming majority clearly didn't respond to his council's repeated consultations!), how the consultatuon had no bearing on the outcome (approval 2.5 years ago - it was a done deal before the consultation) and what the real motivation is. If true this is damning. Meanwhile the pavements on Lordship Lane are in an awful state. #forthefewnotthemany

Given the £ the council is spending on Dulwich Square and the Hunts Slip works there is zero excuse for the shambolic nature of the pavements on Lordship Lane - I walked down there today and after any short amount of rainfall the pavements become very waterlogged. It's a bit like the leaf clearing (or lack of it) in Autumn - it seems Lordship Labe is very low on the priority list.

I do wonder if this is reflective of the ideology of the various councillors representing their wards: - Dulwich Village councillors happy to spend huge amounts of tax-payers money on beautifying the already most beautified part of the area to keep their neighbours/constituents happy - the Champagne Socialist approach to socialism - Goose Green councillors reluctant to spend money because the wealthy so and so's of Lordship Lane should think themselves lucky to have any pavement at all - the Marxist approach to socialism! 😉

I dunno, most of my neighbours and people I know who use the area hate it.

Funny that….one wonders whether the same advice was given to the current councillors….

But don't let your prejudice blinker your opinion...ahem The councillors spent time lobbying to retain the ATM at the Post Office so the Village'ites could withdraw their gold bullion - so if they can do that they can represent the needs of their constituents by lobbying to improve mobile provision for those who live, work and play in the area. But let's hope they do a better job because of course the day after the photo op saying they had saved the ATM it it was removed.....much to the embarrassment of the councillors….