first mate

Every day is a family day in the park. A chance to enjoy green space, the open air and nature. Why risk losing that to pay only commercial ventures that actually damage a community asset? We have always had the odd weekend event involving music, food and drink and those are great but this is a very different proposition. There are lots of places people can go and listen to music and drink, if they wish. There are also all sorts of bespoke activities for children and parents to enjoy. But why can't we just leave the park be? It is not as though we have more green space than we need in London. We need to protect it.

Well yes, the Council response clearly signalling that a normal push bike and even electric would not do at all, as Tooley St to Dulwich is "a long way" and the Mayor may have health issues and not be "proficient at cycling".

Precisely. No issue with a few weekends in the summer but this is different. If we let this happen they will keep asking for more and more and then one day that fenced off section could even become permanent.

LA, thanks for posting and, sadly, agree with you. CR is a complete advocate of commercialisation of parks and makes the point that use is not statutory but strategic and therefore discretionary, in short no protection. She also smugly uses her son's alleged love of KPOP and now Metallica as justification and demonstration of a 'need' for her Park-for-hire agenda. Terrifying and this is a Labour Council.

Don't think free events are any real justification for park privatisation. Agree any revenue raised should go to prop up basic council services and then upkeep of the Rye. However, I am not in favour of a proliferation of events or we risk losing one our most valuable local resources: green space and nature. Once lost we'll never get it back and that could create all kinds of problems. We should also be careful what we wish for, we've seen on Greendale how MOL land is at risk. I could easily see this council finding a way to put up parcels of park land for sale at some point. Frankly, I'd rather pay more council tax.

So more and more events to fund an expanding events team. That sounds like a money black hole to me and also as though the aim is to use up more and more of the park to accommodate more events to raise more money. No, please no. How in any way, shape or form does this correlate with a council that cares about the environment?

Is this flat on Blackwater st?

Rockets, Re the post below that you found from one of our most prolific pro LTN posters. It really does make the point about how certain members of the pro LTN lobby are so completely at ease with car use when it suits their own agenda, Come on, this is hypocrisy at its finest. "malumbu wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 09:33 I'm looking to get a piece of furniture and a door down to our holiday cottage, if you can help then in exchange you can stay there free. Shortest distance door to door (via Portsmouth St Malo) is 180 miles. You'd need a decent sized estate or a roof rack, and would lose a seat or two. The new Zafira or an old Galaxy would work fine. DM/PM me if interested, details of the cottage are here viewtopic.php?p=2298187&hilit=brittany#p2298187"

Nice use of weasel words in article title: "LTNs appear not to" As we know, appearance and reality not always the same.

Rocks, that is the point. Most of the pro lobby all own cars too. It is just that they view their own occasional need as completely justified and feel comfortable being judge and jury in terms of determining the needs of others. No doubt they attend to care needs of relatives by always visiting on bicycle and probably take them to various appointments, medical or otherwise, using a cargo bike.

Hmm, given current ambulance times, train strikes and unreliable public transport I suspect a car is exactly what you might need to get to hospital fast in an emergency.

Well, it has only been going a few years but, yes, since they are now extending the period for which they want to control part of the park I think it is fair to ask questions. It does not look as though much if any money goes back into the Rye, it is used to fund other projects. Those projects may be worthy but that is not the point, festivals should use the park for a few days here and there, not for weeks on end in high summer.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jul/05/revealed-how-london-parks-are-partly-privatised-festivals-wireless-finsbury-park

I don't think how much money they can make out of the park necessarily justifies hiring it out for private use for weeks on end in the summer months. The Gala Festival business owners do have their sights on having control of a large slice of the park for much of the summer. I would hate for that to happen. We have so little green space in the city, we should treasure it. Where, on the one hand ,you have a Council producing LTNs and banging on about parklets and creating green spaces, how on earth they can contemplate supporting Gala's moves to get more and more of the park for private hire is beyond me.

I think they are testing the waters as they have expressed the desire to license part of the park throughout the summer for other events. I've said it before, and I know others disagree, but it is a slippery slope to privatisation of a public space. What is wrong with having the odd very limited event but for the most part using the park as it was originally intended- a green, natural space that is the lungs of the area? A Labour Council should not be colluding in moves to privatisation.

How many weeks will that section of the park be closed off, in total? Is there a link to the application, it would be interesting to see the detail?

I would also be interested in knowing the answer to this as waiting for a vital piece of mail. I imagine there are just heaps of mail jumbled together at the sorting office. I also fear that one way to manage a huge backlog and effectively catch up is for a lot of older mail to just go missing forever, perhaps "falling off the back of a lorry", as an RM Customer Services person helpfully suggested to me.

Thanks LA, your interpretation is correct. In the same way, I suspect the majority of cyclists (especially those who do not want to dismount because of the alleged difficulty of walking in cycling shoes) are using this as a through route to get from one destination to another as easily and quickly as possible. The access to that route has been enhanced for them but removed for Blue Badge holders. I note that EDV mentions pedestrianisation and, as discussed elsewhere, will all able bodied cyclists therefore be expected to dismount and walk through the pedestrianised bit, whether they want to or not?

But access has very recently been removed, primarily to enhance access for cyclists and other able bodied groups, but disadvantaging a number who are disabled and rely on car use to live and have some equality of access, that is not the same thing as demanding 'unfettered access'. I am also interested to know how genuinely wheelchair friendly this area is, given the tables and chairs and certain cyclists whizzing through and unwilling to dismount as they are wearing cycling shoes. I am not convinced and to compare this to an enormous space in central London does not help.

Good points LA. I guess the central headache is how physically to disbar most cars while letting some through. Camera control seems the only real option. But the headache is of Southwark Council's own making and they need to find a solution that is fair and transparent.

It is really difficult to get a Blue Badge these days. You have to be very disabled to qualify and to get one. If the council has really said this then I think it has to be a potential breach of the rights of disabled to equal access. To say the rights of mothers and children trump those of the disabled is not right, not in my view anyhow.

Yes, she does seem to have tried. It is alarming that the efforts of our local MP are apparently so ineffectual. The local postal delivery service is nothing short of appalling with zero accountability. I spoke to RM customer services and was breezily informed that there was no way to trace standard mail or contact the sorting office. Mail sent out before the 21 December that was still undelivered was now classed as officially missing. It may, he explained, have fallen off a lorry or suffered some other mishap. And, no, there would be no compensation as the 'contract' is between sender and Royal Mail and it was for the sender to raise the issue with Royal Mail. Of course, if the sender is a government body that is not going to happen.

I see the point being made. However, without hardcore evidence, it is a leap to suggest that our MP had something to gain from the sale. After all, she wrote to RM protesting the sale of the ED sorting office.

I also do not see how a vaccination hinders natural resilience in this case, given that flu is a virus that mutates regularly? Surely a vaccination aids resilience in that it starts the immune system to build defences against certain flu variations and thereby other variations? Your defences are still natural and the same? Yes, you'll probably have a stronger immune response if you contract flu but the risk there is you become very ill as well. The current rationale for having a jab is to avoid placing pressure on the NHS with admissions or Dr visits that might be avoided. Seems reasonable to me. The only downside, in my view, is that vaccinations are generally less effective the older you get, but that is only because our immune systems decline anyway.