rachp

I guess it's because employers realise it's not as simple as where you work but who you are, cultural challenges etc. Many companies will go through this painful loop before realising that it's more complex than it first appears.

Amen!! My 76 year old father with a hip replacement to name but a few ailments cycles daily. There will always be people who need a car, and that's many of us in some situations. And there are lots of reasons why the way that this has been implemented is wrong. But to paint the picture that the enemy of clean air is the closures when in fact it is the over depedence on cars by too many people, too much of the time seems to focus overly on symptoms, not root causes. Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Coming from NYC, where more cars than road space > always an issue - even in the outer boroughs that > somewhat resemble here - the deterrent to > ownership was "alternate side of the street > parking". Not all cars could squash onto the other > side of the road to park, and, car owners grew > tired of waking up early and sitting in their cars > with hopes of nabbing a parking space on the other > side of the road. You could also pay an > extortionate price for a parking garage. The > reality is population growth will make car > ownership unsustainable and create a very polluted > London. Other cities around the world are taking > similar measures. We can do it! I've raised two > children here and had a car in the beginning as > well as bicycles. We swapped to all public > transport, cycling and walking over nine years ago > when my kids were 7 and 10 (with massive > trepidation - it is definitely daunting!) The > reality is that cycling can often be the fastest > and most pleasurable way. Before you chime in "not > all people can cycle" - I can tell you I have an > arthritic knee, copd, and severe asthma. I have an > electric bike and a regular one - the electric > bike allows me to tackle hills that my lungs would > never keep pace with. The air quality during the > peak of lockdown was such a pleasure - I could > breathe much much better for the first time in my > life. I visited Soho the other day by bike and it > was wonderfully vibrant with the closed off > streets especially as the restaurants were able to > set up tables outside. Being a New Yorker, I'm > always happy to raise my hand for a taxi or call > one when needed - there are definitely times! Not > having a car saves enough money so you can do that > without hesitation. Cars are definitely a > necessity for some and for some people some of the > time. What we should be lobbying for are > segregated cycle lanes so that our children and > less confident can feel a sense of freedom and > safety! To be honest, the current congestion on Ed > Grove/ the village is largely school-related as > far as I can see and has always been that way. Our > public transport system lacks east/west options as > do our cycling routes. If we fix that, it will be > a happier, healthier place to live. One thought > for school runs that need to go thru these pinch > points is setting up a park and cycle. If we had a > place where mums and dads who had a school run > longer than feasible by foot or a bike could park > somewhere and hop on some bikes for the rest of > the trip - that would be great!

My old company would monitor how many times you came into the office and which floors you visited. If you didn't come in often enough or you didn't leave your own floor, it flagged up a review on whether your role could be off shored.

I just watched the episode again and it's not mummy pig, its Mrs Cat. Daddy pig appears to do very little but I'm sure he's very well paid for putting in sn appearance!: Oh dear, you have to get your amusement where you can when you have small kids who insist on watching this rubbish!

Indeed, and why would your employer pay you to work from Scotland if they could get it cheaper from abroad (of course there are lots of reasons not to do this but we know how these things work!). I find the opening paragraph quite amusing 'Much of the British workforce have a job which is some variation on a simple theme: sit at a desk, send emails, make phone calls, and go to the occasional meeting' It sounds like the episode of Peppa Pig where they visit mummy and daddy pig at the office and all mummy pig does is print out pictures of shapes!! (I can't remember what daddy pig does). I am all for flexible working and am sure we will all work from home more as a permanent set up. But we can't write off the need for offices completely without a lot more understanding of the long term impact on different types of roles.

Honestly, I don't know. I just know the business owners voted to keep the changes because they felt it benefitted them commercially. I don't think it's a complete stretch to believe that people would rather sit on a pavement that is next to a road without traffic roaring by. Presumably if there are more seats on the pavement, the road being traffic free compensates for this in terms of creating space. If you want to discredit this example, I'm sure you can. I just thought it was quite uplifting to learn that sometimes, these initiatives can have a positive impact for residents and those who want to visit.

dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is just seems the pro closure will throw any stat > at the subject. > > Northcote Road uplift due to pedestrianisation - > really? Not due to more people at home or the eat > out scheme. Maybe I'm sure people staying closer to home plays a part but it's closed at weekends only so the govt scheme isn't a factor here.

Ha ha ha, shrieker, you might as well change your username to troll you are so obviously on the wind up!

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rachp Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don't think it's accurate to portray this > debate > > as the privileged few living on now quieter > roads > > vs. everyone else. There are lots of people > > (myself included) who don't live on these roads > > but welcome the opportunity to get around > locally > > and access these streets on foot and bike > because > > they are safer and nicerto travel on. And I > > genuinely hope that over time, there will be > > enough people who think differently about local > > travel because ?there are too many cars on the > > road, creating too much pollition. We are all > > selfish if we advocate an outcome that suits us > > better, that's how this works. > > > I think it is fair, however, to say that one of > the consequences of the closures in Dulwich > Village in particular is that they are displacing > a lot of traffic away from some of the least > populated parts of the area and are causing > congestion and additional pollution on roads that > pass through some of the most densely populated > parts of the area. I get that and as I live close to LL, and my kids are in schools and nurseries on LL and EDG, I'm not thrilled about that either. But I do believe that the ultimate solution is less cars, not more roads. We stopped using our car within London along time ago because of the pain of parking on our road...(not because we were taking a moral high ground). Even with two small kids, we still find it preferable to walk or jump on public transport. I'm hoping that we can now start cycling more. So I hope that with the carrot of more appealing routes, more people will feel compelled to do this. So those living on main roads aren't more adversely affected by pollution than they already were. Obviously there is some incompetence in how this has been implemented, and hopefully the the council will right this. I don't get why so many roads off Grove Vale need to be closed ,and impact on businesses needs to be taken very seriously. It's not always a bad thing for business e.g. in Northcote road, they've reported a big uplift in takings aa a result of the pedestrianised road. But this might not transpire for Melbourne Grove. I just don't see it as black and white- all road closures bad except for the privileged few.

I don't think it's accurate to portray this debate as the privileged few living on now quieter roads vs. everyone else. There are lots of people (myself included) who don't live on these roads but welcome the opportunity to get around locally and access these streets on foot and bike because they are safer and nicerto travel on. And I genuinely hope that over time, there will be enough people who think differently about local travel because ?there are too many cars on the road, creating too much pollition. We are all selfish if we advocate an outcome that suits us better, that's how this works.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Redesignation would allow current clogging of > Dulwich Village and EDGrove to have a wide > alternative route. > > Current thinking is to use 'main roads' for > traffic taking it away from 'residential roads'. > This is, as many posters and the facts have shown, > is a fake argument as more people actually live in > our local main roads. But is the point of this to let the lucky chosen few live on quiet residential streets or is it to create safe streets for cycling and walking? I would have thought the former is merely a by-product of the scheme, not an intended outcome.

I accept there are people adversely affected by this, it's not black and white. I don't live on any of the roads with closures and I don't own a bike. But whilst having a cup of tea in Dulwich Square (I don't live there but just visiting), I felt a real sense of hope for the future as I saw scores of people out on their bikes (including family groups who might otherwise be in a car to make the same trip). So much so, it has inspired me to buy a bike. Is this not an upside of all this, more people inspired to cycle & walk, less cars on the road because it is safe and fun to ride, so those who have no option but to drive still can? This will take time to reach a tipping point but I am feeling hopeful.

I was in Bristol last week and it did look very clean in the City Centre https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/powers-bristols-litter-police-revealed-828645

Enforcement officers. I've seen them out a d about in Clapham and Kensington. I reckon just catching people dropping cigarette butts would keep them busy, anything else would be a bonus . I think its about sending out a message that it's not ok and you may be caught. I imagine a lot of security guards could be looking for work right now.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A ?1,000 fine would stop them doing it again. > > Sounds a lot but what does it cost to get it > cleared up. ?? > > ?20 fine is not going to deter anyone. > > Hit these people Hard. > > DulwichFox. You can sign this if you would like to see fines increased https://www.inyourarea.co.uk/news/dont-trash-our-future/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

It doesn't solve the bad behaviour but Friends of Dulwich park are holding a litter pick tomorrow morning https://dulwichparkfriends.org.uk/2020/07/27/join-our-volunteer-litter-collections/

Thanks for sharing, always good to learn something new!

eastdulwichlocal99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You go to a restaurant, you know you are taking a > risk - clearly the ?10/head saving was enough for > you to disregard the risk (what price to pay for > covid...?) yet you then have the audacity to > complain about it after the event. > > Get a takeaway and stop complaining - we should be > supporting our local businesses not putting them > down. Presumably our local businesses won't benefit if the R rate goes up and we go into another lockdown?

Let's face it, those who genuinely care about people who live in poverty would think a lot more about how their actions impact these people. Refusing to wear a mask in shops puts the workers and fellow customers at higher risk of catching the virus and the poorest in our society are those who can least afford to get ill as many have no financial security when they can't work. And having seen the staff in Co-op valiantly chase down shoplifters, I'd suggest these people care very much about this issue as well.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Says the parody account that makes a big deal out > of and refuses to wear a face mask! Pot calling > kettle black clearly ;) And has no issue with the fortune it costs the council to clean up the parks because apparently he can't be bothered to take his rubbish away when the bin is full. At least keep your views in some way consistent if you are intent on winding people up!

Pugwash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We also know an elderly person who until lockdown > did not have a fridge or freezer. She moved into a > HA flat from a private rental which had inadequate > electrical sockets. She moved to the new flat with > the fridge which later 'died'. despite offers of > help to take her to shops to purchase new fridge. > she declined as felt that since she was able to go > out daily to do local shopping. It was only by > chance during lockdown she commented to a sales > assistant that she had neither fridge or freezer, > and was immediately contacted by someone who was > getting rid of a fridge freezer. This kind couple > installed it in her new flat free of charge. Yes, similar story. I met her looking very confused in the shop as she was trying to work out what she could buy that would last a few days without refrigeration. Through nothing more than posting on a mutual aid site on facebook, some lovely people offered up a fridge and someone else delivered it and installed it for her. The crisis truly did bring out the best and worst in people.

I don't know if don't be silly is just a vile person on a vile troll- not sure it matters. The callous attitude shown with no empathy towards people in genuine distress and crisis is too much. During the lockdown, I helped out an 84 year old lady who has no family, no access to the internet, no fridge and no freezer. She basically had no idea how to feed herself unless she made regular trips to the supermarket. She was well aware that she was putting her own life in danger but also incredibly anxious that she was also potentially doing something to put others at risk by getting ill and adding to the strain on the NHS. How would reading some of the comments here make her feel I wonder? In this sense, it's lucky she doesn't have access to the internet.

M&S on Lordship Lane

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So it?s just a coincidence that the main > beneficiaries are those in the wealthier part of > our borough? In ED and DV it is hard to avoid wealthy streets isn't it? Is Melbourne Grove an outlier in ED? And Rye Lane is not wealthy. I don't know where else in Southwark this is happening, I'm assuming not only in Dulwich as it's a London wide initiative.

Don't know I'm sorry, he's Goose Green ward..