first mate

This has been happening for a long time. The way I have got around it at times is to search east dulwich forum plus a poster's name. The general pattern is that for a while I am able to access the forum on a simple name search and then suddenly the same name search will only bring up this facebook page. I must admit I thought it was a genuine ED FB page. I don't understand how FB can suddenly 'take over' a search term like that?

In the interests of complete transparency shouldn't the council let us know which independent analyst they have hired?

Surely the window will have to be extended enough to accommodate new responses, once the data is made available?

Rah, on the first I believe it has already been clarified that Heartblock meant 25 peer reviewed papers on LTNs, the way he phrased it initially was shorthand...that is how it came over to me anyway. On the employment issue he was making a point about impartiality which still holds true given Aldred's position within the cycle lobby. I don't get why you are chasing this down, it doesn't really add to the debate or the strength of your stance, in my view.

Rahrahrah, you do now seem to be playing with perceptions; This is what Heartblock actually said, below. He did not deny Rachel Aldred's output, he questioned its direct relevance to the subject of LTNs. Okay the point about being paid was slightly off base, but I get the point about her close association with cycling lobby groups. But the stronger point is the first and I think you are misrepresenting the point Heartblock was making. You seemed to be using the fact that RA has 25 peer reviewed papers to suggest that her views and research on LTNs were therefore somehow above scrutiny and beyond question. If that was not your intention then fair enough, but it read that way to me. Earlier in the thread Heartblock responded to rahrahrah saying: "...she doesn?t have 25 peer reviewed papers on the subject of LTNs, in the same way I may have a paper about subject A or subject B or C. Therefore if I wanted to talk about A, I would only mention A. Also if I was paid by a pharmaceutical company to prove that a drug worked, my research would be compromised. Rachel is not neutral and aspects of her research are based on modelling rather than actual data, it does need to be reviewed with that in mind. I?m not dismissing the research, but as a reviewer I would critically review it on that basis".

I hope Heartblock stays too. I also do not agree with rah's take on what Heartblock has said and doubt very many others will either.

I've posted this before but seems relevant. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/21/trouble-cyclists-paradise-amsterdam-accused-favouring-pedestrians

Heartblock, I would also ask you not to go, not yet. This debate needs informed, credible voices and specifically those with a strong grounding in reading and interpreting data.

A revolting example of Trumpian spin and councillor narcissism.

That is the central dilemma, those who support this version of LTNs are also in favour of HTNs (high traffic neighbourhoods) whatever way they try to twist it round, that is the reality

>But this shifts the problem of parents parking elsewhere doesn't it? The idea seems to be that we must accept that inconvenienced parents may need to use cars and that is okay so long as they drop off further away from the school, but those living closer to the school who for other reasons may also be massively inconvenienced at not being able to use a car must get on with it? Is this essentially what you mean? > I think that there needs to be an acceptance that > stopping parents dropping off by car is > impractical but putting in place more proactive > measures to mitigate the effects could be a real > benefit to the local area, whilst not affecting > the overall model for the schools.

I agree, if you have a back garden and room for a shed I am not clear why you'd need a bike hangar at the front of your house or on the street. The latter options are more convenient, it is true. BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At the risk of reigniting SE22's street-based > class war, I would hope that the council look at > the make-up of each road to decide where best to > place the hangars. Roads with predominantly > single-occupancy need hangars less than those with > flats, where inside space is at a premium. The > road I used to live in was nearly all > single-occupancy with front gardens and yet it > received one of the first hangars. Daft and > inequitable.

If you are allowed a dropped curb so you can park your car on the land in front of your house then I don't see why you cannot have a bike hangar- people also build structures for bins. All of these things look pretty ugly in my view, but there you go.

Fair point, but the council does not subsidise car ownership, not directly at least. I am not anti lockers but if these are to be funded by the council in increasingly large numbers we need to be sure that they are secure, otherwise it is a waste of money.

Is there any data on how many council funded bike lockers have been broken into? I guess this might be deemed commercially sensitive information but little point spending the money if they are not that secure.

Rahrahrah, and yet both you and Malumbu continue to own cars...why? rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agree with Malumbu. Making it easier to drive > around Lambeth is not going to encourage people > out of their cars, and it's cars which cause > pollution.

This. hellosailor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Although luckily my friend was able to escape and > was no longer in imminent danger, the next person > he strangles may not escape. It most certainly is > a cause for concern that a man with a compulsion > to strangle a woman walking in daylight with her > child is not being sought by the police. It wasn?t > an attempted mugging or a mobile phone theft, he > tried to strangle her so forcefully that she has > bruises on her neck and burst capillaries and > fingernail marks, photographs of which should be > being taken by the police but are not. It may be > that he is on some substance that makes him have > violent impulses, it may be that he has mental > health issues or it may be that he has a sexual > urge that impels him to strangle passers by but > that will never be known if the police can?t be > bothered to investigate. so we cannot say that the > crime is not ongoing and the danger is ?finished? > as we don?t know if or when he will violently > attack someone again. So the police response is > completely inadequate. > > > alice Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > With all the police cuts hard decisions have to > be > > made. This crime, horrid tho it is, seems to > have > > finished and the person was no longer in > danger. > > An ongoing crime would take precedence.

Given this was in broad daylight, the hope is one of the houses nearby has CCTV that might reveal an ID for this man? It is hoped the police or SNT will knock on doors and ask if anyone that has CCTV on that street, or nearby, to check to see if there is footage on that day around that time to match the description?

What a terrifying experience, I hope you and your son are offered some sort of support. I wonder if the Safer Neighbourhood Team are aware? Your attacker will still be at large, which is a concern.

I don't want to seem a spoilsport but with pet thefts on the rise it might not be a good idea to indicate where the cat lives.

So, if you don't display an anti LTN poster in your window you are obviously neutral or pro? Is that what you are saying?

I think this is truly shocking, though it seems to be a council-wide solution to an increased need for housing. But, in regard to Southwark, not great when you consider how council housing stock has been squandered/sold off (Heygate Estate, now Elephant Park).

malambu, you sound a bit like you are competing for plaudits and 'airtime' with Tom;

Essential opt out info here https://medconfidential.org/how-to-opt-out/

Yes, if it is felt there has to be any sort of display it should be limited and properly controlled and low noise type only. This way those with vulnerable pets or other issues have time to plan and avoid. Pugwash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do like fireworks but think in this day and age, > the only acceptable display is where the public > are charged a notional sum to watch a public > display. Remembering when the children were young > we paid for tickets to see fireworks at Crystal > Palace park - It was something like ?10 for a > family group of 4.