first mate

Mops this is disgraceful. I cannot imagine how upsetting and intimidating this must feel. It is appalling but not surprising to learn that your local councillor has not intervened but has instead opportunistically used your complaint to further a pet agenda. I very much hope that the SNP meeting can help and support you. Have you spoken to your neighbours? Is there anything you could do as a group?

If true, it does seem a bit of a contradictory position. To fly abroad for a holiday is a choice, after all. However, a link would be fair. Glad the Rye has been left spotless.

The plan seems to retain 5 onsite parking spaces for commercial use.

You misread the post and misrepresented the poster. Time to put that cognitive bias away. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shouting and screaming at councillors about > attempts to reduce car use and people raising > awareness of imminent climate breakdown *slow > handclap*

A slight aside but for that reason I do not understand how common land can be licensed for private use by the council ( Gala festival. gabys1st Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My understanding is that the Common is common land > so can't be stopped from camping and that they > have porto loos. > XR wda thought pretty obvious want more wind > turbines and building insulation. > Wdnt a Peoples Assembly allow for the above to > happen if enuf peeps wanted them to?

What is meant by ditching pets? I feel reasonably sure this is not a call for mass abandonment or euthanasia but just want to be clear. I suspect fuel poverty and the unravelling energy crisis is more likely to cause a shift in behaviour than any amount of direct action.

I rest my case.

What a very patronising post. Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Community bonds to support low emission bus > services deserves a thread of its own. There are > many on this thread that seem to have a lot of > free time to post on why the LTNs are bad. Their > time could be better spent on initiating a > community bond scheme in this area. Not a dig but > a challenge 😊

Not sure we are debating though? I think we are disagreeing about how effective XR type direct actions are. Do agree with much of your second para though

If it is a matter of only inconveniencing people then okay but once you stop people going to a relative in hospital I think a line begins to be crossed. I thinks the latter risks spilling over into doing harm.

I seem to recall in one case they would not let someone through who was on their way to be with an elderly parent in hospital. The person was completely distraught. I do not feel comfortable with that.

So XR get to commandeer the Common for free in April and then for weeks over the summer residents will be excluded from using the Common, unless they pay. This is madness.

Thanks Legal, Lots of objections from locals, which is good. The police are not happy. The proposal is for three three day events, for up to 20,000 people on the common and, I think, other parts of the park, in perpetuity. So 9 days of noise and then you have to add preparation of site time, which is days either side of the event. Overall this could be weeks of park use. Fortunately two Labour Councillors are among the objectors. Councillor Hamvas makes the point that the application is exceptionally vague and the applicants are asking for a license for use of most of the park as a massive premises.

Not condoning this action but if the shrub was overhanging the pavement it is in breach of the Highway Act 1980 s154. To add, it should be cut back to the boundary but not completely destroyed. Have they trespassed? Perhaps it was causing an issue for someone locally.

A divisive issue is likely to generate divisive content. I also think Waseley's post was on the strong side and hardly even-handed.

My preference would be for some very strong independents. But, it is likely they would be isolated and given a rough ride. But the hope would be that an independent might have a genuine interest in grass roots local issues. Some current councillors seem too interested in careers at national level. I am not a natural tory or even LD voter but the behaviour of the Labour council has been so appalling that something must be done to break their stranglehold.

James Barber historically a prime mover re CPZ, double yellow lines everywhere. Also, I think, at one point on Southwark Cyclists committee. Not sure I would trust him on LTNs. He has been very quiet on the subject.

In which case, there have always been volunteers to do speed testing with handheld devices, why not pollution monitoring? Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > yes, lets put a person on every street to do the > counts, 24/7 x 365, shouldn't cost a lot > > You don't need a census when there are perfectly > good and valid sampling methodologies. The rubber > strip traffic counts are good at estimating the > number of vehicles passing on a road, and were > designed for issues such as congestion, but they > offer nothing to pollution studies. It is quite > wrong to suppose that any general view of > different types of traffic across London (diesel, > petrol, plug-in hybrid, self generating hybrid, > full electric) would apply to a particular locale > and time. > > And air quality sampling does not require the sort > of very large and costly equipment hypothesised > here. Sampling devices can be hand-held (they do > not need to be permanently installed and > ruggedised) - so long as the sampling programme > properly covers key times and is repeatable. And > although most of the monitors below are for > indoors use, sampling changes of indoor levels is > acceptable if what you are tracking is change - > which is what is key when you are looking at the > impact of traffic rules changes. . > > https://www.architecturelab.net/best-air-quality-t > est-kit/ > > https://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring- > instruments/test-meters/air-quality-meter-kat_1509 > 25.htm > > https://www.amazon.co.uk/Air-Pollution-Monitor/s?k > =Air+Pollution+Monitor

No surprise really. MGMP (Concordia) was a disaster, somehow they managed to get this prime site, goodness knows how.

Before you know it large sections of park taken out of general use through much of summer.

Given the building yard existed many,many years before this development the regular damage to the new development by delivery lorries points to poor design by developers (greed) and poor planning decisions by S'wark. The M&S site on Lordship Lane suffered similar issues, where the blindingly obvious shortcomings of the site footprint and access were systematically ignored by developers and planning.

As I read it, Heartblock carefully qualified his/her statement with an 'apparently' made an admission it was seen on twitter and then asked for data. Not, as you say, presenting it a statement of fact. You are either too quick to rush to judgement or not reading carefully enough. goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > See you're still trying to discredit renown > academics Heartblock. Not really doing yourself > any favours, we all remember how this went last > time. > > Edited to add - you've also stated something as > fact and then in the very next sentence asked for > data because 'you've only seen it on twitter' - > which I also think we've been through before in > that just because you've seen 'something on > twitter' it doesn't' make it true.

Daring to question or disagree is now 'promoting anti-southwark hysteria'. Goodness!

"Vibrant, exciting"... run for the hills! Visions of the ?10,000 NX rd mural spring to mind (the one that looks like a nursery school reception).

Indeed. In the case of CPZs the council ripped up its own policy to consult street by street and because the majority of MG were against a CPZ, they divided the street into two to achieve the station area CPZ rollout. I wonder, if they do put a market there, will traders have to turn up on cargo bikes with all their gear? Of course, it also means that for one day only children will be unable to play in the street.