first mate

You could apply the same argument to any kind of penalty as an effective deterrent. Better than doing nothing.

Rockets said: "Perhaps you should be asking who is lobbying the council to close the junction or parts of it or why the council is happy to waste so much of our money on it - who are they representing as even their own consultation demonstrated they did not have support from the local community for the measures? The results showed the majority of local residents were against the measure...but they are going ahead with them anyway" This.

Malumbu said: "I've asked some good questions about how you address 'antisocial cycling" but nobody has offered any answers - as this is a forum I'd be keen to understand." Isn't this what City of London police are now doing, addressing 'antisocial cycling'?

Do you think cyclists running red lights or cycling on pavements is just fine then? A red light is the occasion when a pedestrian may be more likely to cross a busy road. Because there are significant penalties for car drivers, the vast majority of drivers do stop at a red light; I rarely see cyclists stop. As I said before, the other day a I witnessed a Lime bike shoot through a red light at speed and nearly take out a child. Had the bike connected, that would have been a nasty injury. As Rockets has pointed out, there clearly is an issue with this as City of London Police are cracking down on cyclists.

I don't think that was what Penguin was saying at all. If light sequencing fails how should road users proceed? Given the quite serious penalties for car users running red lights I am still surprised it happens as often as some on here have stated. Now speeding, that is different.

DVR, lots of smears or attempted smears there. One Dulwich posts have the ring of truth about them. Rather than bang on about shadowy, opaque organisations why not address the content OD put out with some really convincing rebuttals. What say you to this bit? "The Council says it wants to block off Calton Avenue because a small number of non-emergency vehicles drive through the junction. In our view, this is down to poor signage – a straightforward traffic management issue. The London Ambulance Service (LAS) was pressured into accepting the blockage at a meeting with the Council in February. However, according to a recent FOI, the London Fire Brigade confirmed “we have had no confirmation of this proposal or communications regarding this”. Why is the safety of local residents being put at risk in this way?

Car or bike, all are dangerous and all should be addressed. I am amazed you saw 5 cars jump red lights in one day, where was this? Perhaps I am being naïve but so many lights are rigged with cameras, wouldn't that mean instant points on the licence? I do think the same type of entitled attitude drives the behaviour, whether on two wheels or four. I especially hate those car drivers that intimidate and tailgate when you have the temerity to stick to a 20mph speed limit.

I think there is some truth in this, and with little in the way of penalties perhaps no surprise. Just yesterday, I saw a child nearly taken out by someone riding a Lime bike, who went through a red light at speed. I have not seen a car run a red light for a very long time, but see many cyclists do it, whether in my car or on my bike.

For anyone who has not read the evidence, it is worth a look.

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/rac-pothole-index-statistics-data-and-projections/ Not the best evidence but certainly indicates matters are not improving. Can CPZ and other council collected car- related revenue be ploughed back into road, pavement repair and upkeep? Is there info on this for Southwark? Surely this would be a better use of those funds than creation of areas like Dulwich Village Sq/ junction?

Do the council services still collect garden waste/ empty brown bins even if you have not subscribed and paid for the service? What is people's experience?

I asked you much earlier in the thread.

Just to correct you, it is not just 3 days, it is nearly a month of disruption for the sake of 3 days. You still have not said if you support the event being extended?

Ah, we have tried the Nimby approach and now it's personal attack time. I don't feel security guards, there to protect the interests of a private event, add to or are in any way appropriate to the park ambience. I don't think I am alone. To infer posters who disagree with the idea that hiring out parks for festival-style events is all great are therefore DM readers is laughable and a lazy, cheap shot. The notion that a poster like DKHB is a vociferous DM reader is just ludicrous. Shall we try to keep the discussion civil and adult? If you read the evidence and objections to extending the event ( and indeed having it at all) you would know that the concerns are entirely valid, so much so that the council and organisers had to back down this time. But I have little doubt they'll try again next year. I am prepared to live with the three days, just so long as this does not set a precedent for extending this event or mounting other events of similar scale, down the line. But Cllr Catherine Rose is on the record saying that is precisely her aim.

Have you read the objections and the supporting evidence to the event? It is not about crime waves but long-term impact on the park. Do you really believe that after each 'clean-up' the land used is returned to baseline? Do you really think that the month's worth of upheaval, noise and light pollution has zero effect on the wildlife? It is disingenuous to make out that the impact on the rest of the park is negligible and everything carries on as usual. Do you support further extending this event? Because if this Council have their way that is what will happen.

The point here is to stop further degradation of Peckham Rye Park and other green areas. The first action would be to extract a pledge that the Gala event will never be extended and no similar events mounted. I would also maintain that Peckham Rye Park was never suitable for an event of this scale.

But surely protecting and cherishing our green spaces is for the greater good?

But, the 'vast' open spaces like Hyde park, Clapham Common, Finsbury Park, already have these events only a short bus, train or cycle journey away. So these sort of events already exist for those that want them. However, I would not describe Peckham Rye park as a vast space. It is relatively small and compared to the aforementioned, in a totally different class in terms of scale. That is, of course, why it should not be used to mount this kind of event. This is not about serving the community, though there will always be takers for an event like this among dedicated festival goers. There is no pressing need, this is purely about the council making money by whatever means it can and I think we will come to regret letting them do this. FWIW I also like live music but there is a time and a place and I find it hard to accept that our supposedly envrionment-loving and green-friendly council is actively pushing to extend this event.

We will have to agree to disagree on frequent use of that area, bearing in mind that part of it was/ is left to grow wild in the more swampy area to encourage flora and fauna. However, the mowed areas are, in my experience, well used. We must go at different times of day.

Let's just ignore the casual ageism (for some reason one of the more acceptable isms). I disagree it is an unloved and little used section of the park, quite the contrary. On my many park visits it is well used and, naturally, much more so as we head towards summer. The area used is a significant part of the park, for comparison, apparently the common land on the Rye, where most events have been held, is not large enough! If you are attuned to creeping privatisation of green spaces then I assume you would not support extension of the event? It may be well organised in your view, but there is enough evidence of year on year damage to the parkland that is used for the event, as well as failure to meet various obligations ( admitted by the organisers), to raise question marks on that score. Well organised is not just about fewer drugs, etc..

The thing is, the impact does not last for three days but for nearly a month, that is a lot of time to have a major part of the park removed from local access. It also changes the character of the park over that time. The giant metal hoardings are awful. Early summer is also when the park is most beautiful and when you hope to enjoy that oasis of nature and escape the hustle and bustle of the city. That peace has massive benefits for mental and physical health. Instead, for around a month, the park is partly sectioned off; metal barriers erected, there is a background noise of generators and building vehicles and work, security guys dressed in black wander around yacking on walkie talkies. it is a park; not a music venue. There are literally hundreds of festivals for committed festival goers to visit elsewhere. There are zillions of live music venues and clubs. Why transpose all of that onto one of the few green oasis we have? It is bonkers. The primary motivation of this thread was to halt the madness of extending the live music event from 3 days to 6 and beyond. I am extremely glad that did not happen.

All the services we were promised were to ensure a large part of the site was moved from NHS use to enable building of the Charter School. I remember Cllr James Barber making all kinds of promises as to the wonderful services that would be available at the new 'state of the art' medical centre; there to serve the community. As it is we have lost a hospital that although very rundown did provide lot of services, including x-ryas, maternity and rehab for the elderly- all services we need. TJ has fairly active physio and phlebotomy depts ( so did the old hospital) but what else does it provide? Do they do x-rays on the site? When last there I saw an MRI sign. Do they have an MRI scanner? Who uses it?

Has Helen Hayes replied? If there was ever a reason for an MP to get involved surely this is it? How is it that a bunch of profiteering wide boys were handed TJ on a plate? I am surprised this has not hit the press big time.

Yup, that is how it will go and very much the plan. Once, and if, that source of funding runs dry they'll be looking around for others.

Not just roads but pavements too. Paving on NX already looking shabby and in places a trip hazard; ditto other local streets. Could some of that money be used for maintenance of street trees? Perhaps that is already happening? The other thought is fly-tipping on street corners?