first mate

On the other hand, prednisolone, dexamethasone or similar may reduce the severity of symptoms, if you are unlucky enough to contract Covid. If true, that is only of limited comfort I know.

Add to that that some of the most vociferous LTN and cycling supporters on here clearly have it both ways as they admit to owning and driving a car when they need to. Thus they have built a rationale that justifies their own need but that dismisses and negates that of others. It is breathtakingly arrogant and paternalistic.

Well, well, well and are we surprised. You'll have to find a clever workaround. I think the council do a lot of 'managing' of information by these accidentally on purpose technology 'errors'. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On a similar note, the Council seem to have > unilaterally disabled the "update" service on > their Council and Democracy website. I've > suddenly stopped receiving updates, and when I try > to resubscribe I get an error message with the > ominous word "Forbidden". Ironic. > > > dulwichfolk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > As with all these things most that are affected > > don?t have time to search out all the websites > > they should be sticking pins into. > > > > The council seem to be happy with that and only > > wish to hear from one demographic whatever they > > may say about inclusion etc....

Okay, but not how it came over, as I suspect you well know;

Eh, just because ab29 does not trust 'journalism' in one newspaper does not automatically mean he completely trusts it in another. Tsk, such a black and white view, laden with assumptions. In my view, you'd be a fool to completely trust reporting from any media outlet.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/07/fireplaces-and-stoves-are-bigger-polluters-than-traffic Saw this. Wonder what stats are like in Southwark?

Mr chicken needs his wings clipped😉

The cloth-eared council.

Correction, some people's and some children's health. For the rest it seems a sector are intensely relaxed about writing of the health and stress levels of a swathe of other sections of the community because, you see, the end justifies the means. Think not of your children now but in twenty years time and, anyway, many of the less mobile, the elderly, will by then be dead. Fanaticism and ruthless imposition make happy bedfellows.

I'm with you P68, it really is comparing apples and pears. The point about hills is also very important. The standard riposte is to get an e-bike. Again, with bike crime on the rise and the fact that e-bikes and their batteries are very heavy, I am not convinced these are the marvellous solution they are cracked up to be, at least not for elderly or less mobile. In Copenhagen, people can leave bikes out without it seems the same fear of theft. It is a different culture. I return to the school issue. Many of these LTN and CPZ interventions are pegged to protecting children's lungs. Setting aside the fact that LTNs are making pollution worse in some areas, I still want to know what the plan is to solve the school run conundrum? Even in Denmark I gather around 25% of children cycle to school...so what happens with the remaining 75%.

Indeed, what a very simple but effective way to massively improve the look and feel of the high street and also create more space on the pavement. However, get this is not a sexy or innovative intervention...

Crime rates in London are perceived to be higher than in Copenhagen. People feel safer to walk the streets alone at night than they do in London. Copenhagen has a lower population density. It has been observed by a number of posters that the school run is a central contributing factor to traffic load at certain times of the day. That, it seems, is a nut still to be cracked. We can make an assumption that the majority of parents are likely to be young and in reasonable health, so what is stopping them either have their children cycle to and from school or cycle with their children to and from school?

Boohoo, the current measures are not working. Perhaps this sort of radical change cannot happen quickly in the way you would like, unless, that is, one is willing to treat some other person's/ child's health as collateral damage - which seems to be the case. A notable issue is school traffic. It is ironic that we keep hearing about children's lungs but some of the biggest 'offenders' in the polluting stakes are their parents. Unless the school system is modified so that only local kids go to local schools, I cannot see how the regular stream of polluting school drop-offs will ever change. LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rosamund Kissi Debra - "Asked why I don?t > support > > LTNs? Bcos its slowly poisoning my kids & > > thousands more due to daily exposure to toxic > air. > > I?m a mum of 3 & love them equally never > choose. > > Supporting such a scheme means you support > > #lungapartheid. If your rd is clear, congestion > > has moved elsewhere" > > So what do you suggest? What is the alternative? > How do we encourage people out of their cars for > unnecessary short journeys? What will London look > and feel like in 20 years if we go back to what we > had? How well will children e breathing then? > What about the health of their children? I > understand that change isn?t easy and appreciate > we must work quickly to resolve the issues that > have emerged but I need a response to the above > if we are to go forward.

Thanks for this ll- required reading. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s96603/Air%20quality%20part%20two%20draft%20review%20report.pdf legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark Air Quality report part 2, April 2021 > now up on the website in advance of tomorrow > evening?s meeting. Haven?t read it yet. > > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s9660 > 3/Air%20quality%20part%20two%20draft%20review%20re > port.pdf

Sidhue and Penguin, From your posts it is clear there is a big problem with traffic on sections of Underhill at various times of the day and this is the result of LTNs. I suspect not many are being dissuaded by this.

Thanks Nigello. One more point, it is about need not want, there is a real distinction which, if you were or have ever been in similar position, you may better understand. No victim mentality here; a bit of crass and unnecessary point scoring on your part. Why not go away and have a careful think as to whether you really know as much about this area as you feel you do.

Shortage of GPs is a fact, I think politicians of all persuasions are well aware of this. I disagree that you can generally see a GP if you need to, perhaps you have been lucky enough not to require one out of hours for a complex condition but not everyone is so fortunate. The 111 service is a joke and also increasingly dependent on nurse practitioners and less clinically qualified staff. I also disagree with your insinuation that I may have been involved in asking for a GP when a nurse practitioner or similar would have been adequate. How can you possibly be so sure? My experience and that of others I know has clearly been very different from yours. For single factor, simple conditions you may have a point for anything else you are way off base.

I think there is possibly a model that is being pursued to substitute GPs with practitioner nurses. I believe this idea was initiated/ mooted many years ago by Concordia which now runs the Tessa Jowell medical centre. The NHS is being run down, there is a shortage of GPs. It seems a fair few changes have been slipped through in the name of Covid.

Can you "cut legally through Brockwell Park" in a car?

Rockets, I believe you, I also believe those who actually live on the road.

Very interesting. Completely contradictory views of traffic levels and car speeds on Underhill road yesterday morning. Both can't be right! I know which version I believe.

legal, look forward to hearing how you get on with all that and agree with all you say. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Laura, I'm with you. > > I emailed to ask who was on last year's climate > emergency steering group. No answer. Submitted > FoI. No answer. Escalated FoI in accordance with > Southwark policy. Twice. No answer, no answer. > > So I've complained to the ICO. If the council > won't even answer a simple question about who they > have been speaking to, the chance of getting more > detailed info is, I suspect, zero. > > I agree that the council shouldn't have made the > declaration / set the target if they don't believe > they have sufficient powers to do the things > required to achieve it. If they do believe they > have sufficient powers, then there should be a > plan.

Perhaps the Council would have little to gain by going after householders and heating? Car users are a much easier target and can be used to extract cash and if things go wrong or not quite to plan they can blame matters on the current government or the Mayor. What is your view on infill developments by removing and building on green areas on housing estates?

LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed > and accept that the current LTNs are not perfect. > I have seen some of the rubbish on Twitter and > have to say most of the aggressive behaviour comes > from the anti LTN side. If not aggression than > being economical with the truth. But never mind > that if there are people who want to explore what > is best for Dulwich and best for London in terms > of making a meaningful contribution to the climate > emergency then let?s do it. > > However, discussions needs a facilitator who is > impartial and has the expertise in transport and > urban design to look at Dulwich and the wider > area. Such an exercise will only be successful if > there is broad agreement that something needs to > be done to reduce cars, short journeys and > encourage walking and cycling. I?ve not seen much > that is positive coming from the One Dulwich group > who seem to want the LTNs removed or for residents > to have permits which is a proposal I don?t > understand. > > But I honestly don?t think any of the bone will > happen even on World Earth Day so carry on with > your discussions. Consistently accusing those who do not agree with you of "aggression" is, I can see, a useful tactic but the evidence is clear on here this is simply not true or least no more typifies one side of the LTN debate than it does the other. To constantly accuse others of "aggression" is arguably passive aggressive. There seems to be a pattern here to try to demonise LTN naysayers (Daily Mail readers, aggressive, climate deniers, liars). The pattern is echoed in a recent post by Cllr McAsh, where he asserted that in his private chats on a visit to Nx road market everyone was in favour of recent developments but that at least one person in favour was too scared to come into the forum because of the "toxic atmosphere". Nice bit of character framing there too and seems to echo a general approach to those in support of the council handling of LTNs.

Removed