first mate

We need someone truly independent that cares about constituency issues and representing the majority more than internal party politics.

I think it is interesting that James refers to his work on ED CP as carving out a proposal that? most people could live with?. I would say hardly, most people did not want it but most people have no choice but to live with it.

What is clear is that it does not have to be a majority, it just needs to be some people whose thinking aligns with the Council agenda ( a very long-term agenda in this case, nothing to do with Covid and first mooted when James Barber was Cllr). Farewell democracy, all residents are equal just the views of some are more equal than others!

In reply to Snake-filth. Has there been a decrease in break-ins to bike hangers and bike theft in general since lockdown?

Sorry James, to say a couple of hundred people ?responded? gives no indication of whether they are in favour. Please can you tell us if the whole of Melbourne was ?consulted? or just one end and then, for whichever case applies, how many total households were in the area of consultation and within that how many households were ?consulted? and of those how many in favour? So are you saying there were two consultative processes around this, a ?survey? by Councillors and Then another within Healthy Street? What a lot of effort around just a part of one street? Can you explain please? I clicked on the Southwark link in geh?s post, just a few posts up from your reply James. You should have a look. Within that there is a PDF labelled Melbourne Grove, it states and I quote: ?Recent engagement from Our Healthy Street Dulwich scheme shows around 70% of respondents? ...in favour. So 70% of how many asked? What is that figure and what proportion of all the households on Melbourne is that? How many consulted First Mate - a couple of hundred people responded to the survey. You are absolutely right that this is not a majority of the households on these streets but it is does give an indication of what people think. As emphasised above, any measures implemented will be followed by a monitoring period where changes can be made or the measures removed. The southern section of Melbourne Grove has previously been consulted as part of the Our Healthy Streets consultation. Edit:In the time it took to write this first mate mentioned a figure of 70%. I have just glanced over the documents and cannot see that anywhere but I suspect that it refers to Our Healthy Streets, not the survey we councillors d

Wow it states 70% of Melbourne Grove residents support closing the street, but where is the evidence for this and is this the whole of Melbourne or just one side ( for CPZ they massaged the results by treating the North and South side of Melbourne Grove as two separate roads). I think if they are going to shunt through a long held aim using Covid as the excuse they should be forced to show the rest of us the evidence that 70% support it. I asked James McAsh about this twice and he never answered.

The fear is these hangars are not secure and with bike use on the rise bike theft may become better organised and more frequent. Not sure what the solution is.

yourmomma Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hilariously they have uploaded a new parking > survey that suggests that parking is not an issue > in the surrounding streets, well why then have the > council just instigated a CPZ in those very same > streets! Because it is a load of b*** that's why. They are making it up as they go along, shifting the goal posts each time per specific goal.Their parking surveys for planning purposes are 'cooked' and so in turn are their surveys for CPZ.

Yes, it just may not have carried the same health risks historically.

Nor me

Now I think you are being a tiny bit provocative!:)

I think the social distancing issue is to the point. Extinction rebellion have managed socially distanced and online protest. Not a good idea to urge large amounts of people to protest on the street, in close proximity, if that is what happened? That said, also appalled by what happened in USA. Unfortunately, this may be an incident where Trump can turn the mode of protest to his advantage where events distract from his woeful handling of Covid 19, which has and will cost hundreds of BAME lives.

Yes, but not onto the pavement. Social distancing on pavements for those that want and need must be the priority, as must free access for the disabled etc.. We must not push people to walk on the roads. For those premises lucky enough to have outdoor space to accommodate ?parklets? or for the occasional incredibly wide section of public pavement it might work but not realistic for the bulk of ED streets.

It is to be hoped that is a positive.

Other foxes may move into the territory in time, so this could happen again. I am also concerned about the use of a firearm in an urban area. There is an outside chance this was done by a hired specialist but not clear. Examination of the body might indicate what was used to kill the animal and from that it might be ascertained whether this was done according to guidelines. The fate of the cubs is a big issue.

I am not sure the RSPCA are correct. Govt advice is as follows: Shoot ?You can shoot free foxes using a suitable firearm and ammunition. You shouldn?t use firearms in urban areas for reasons of public safety. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation has a code of practice on shooting foxes at night(lamping?). Examination of the body will reveal if suitable ammunition and firearm were involved (the firearm has to be licensed). Firearms should not be used in urban areas. There is advice elsewhere that if a whelping vixen is shot her den and cubs must also immediately be found and the cubs humanely killed to prevent unnecessary suffering. Unnecessary suffering is a point in law.

This is barbaric. It looks as though teats are visible suggesting this was a vixen rearing cubs. Those cubs will suffer. Thank you for leaving the corpse of this poor animal for investigation. I hope they throw the book at whoever did this.

DM?s version of events really does not stack up but the fake news/blame it on the media schtick is well underway. And, if you can?t blame it on the media roll out the scientists.

Re: DC. A few points that for me are not clear. 1. Why in lockdown, with so few people on the streets and presumably as chief govt adviser access to a security detail, would threats of violence require him to go up north? 2. His wife was allegedly so ill she felt barely able to look after their child and had been vomiting but was somehow able to undergo a 250 mile journey with no stops? Their car also had a full tank but had not been filled that day? 3.Why did DC have to travel 60 miles to a beauty spot to test if his eyesight was good enough for the full trip back to London? Why did he choose to take his wife and child if there was any doubt? 4. Do we know if his wife is able to drive? If so, why could she not have driven back? Many, many other questions but these are of interest. uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sephiroth Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I?ve been full of advice - to go over the big > > ticket items of the last few years > > > > Don?t vote to leave the eu > > Don?t give either Johnson or Corbyn a big > majority > > > > Actually don?t elect johnson as replacemnt for > May > > > > Lock down at the start of March - don?t wait > until > > nearly the end > > replace Johnson immediately - probably with > Hunt. > > > > Remove Cummings > > Immediately extend Brexit transition by 2 years > > > > > Wherever I say these things I get told off. But > > don?t say I don?t offer advice > > None of that is practical advice on anything since > you give no reasons and I would 'advise' the > complete opposite which is now the status > quo...thank goodness- and the democratic will of > the people. > > It is even more clear that DC did nothing wrong as > he has fully explained his actions on the > briefing. And once again we see the hostility of > the lefty media in all its glory. > If people think they can do what they like ( > they've been doing it anyway) because of DC then > they are just petulant children (which many of > them are anyway)

He says the reason for leaving was because his wife felt her ability to look after their child was compromised because she felt so unwell (having vomited)and yet she was able to endure a 250 mile journey, presumably feeling nauseous? Their car also magically had a full tank, enabling them to drive the distance straight without stopping. He says he left London because of threats of violence but surely the govt?s top adviser would have protection? As for the ?test? drive To Barnard Castle. Bizarre.

A baby crying is a totally separate issue but, for the most part, the level and duration of noise is generally possible to control and that includes young children, who can be asked and taught to play quietly at times. There will obviously be exceptions but they are just that, not the rule.

I think the OP was more referring to loud music than a baby crying and the combination of that with other noises. Under the circumstances loud music in the garden is not very neighbourly.

Whatever is growing in a neighbour?s garden cannot be touched without their permission, unless it is overhanging into your garden in which case you are allowed to trim back to the boundary but legally must offer them back what you have cut. If the tree is a protected species you cannot touch it and if your neighbour agrees you will require the services of a tree surgeon. If not protected then you need to negotiate with your neighbour. There are maximum heights for hedges and so on but again these kinds of boundary issue can get heated. A lot will depend on your neighbours and how sympathetic they are.

James, I did ask you some quite specific questions and would appreciate an answer. How many households are there on Melbourne Grove and the other streets being considered for the permeable filter? Of those households how many have actively sought and support these measures...you surely must know this? Going forward, if the measures are implemented, how will you measure wide-spread support? One more little thing? How can you possibly know that not everyone that uses email uses this forum...do you ask people?!

The Council has been intimately involved in the genesis of both Charter and the TJ medical centre. I believe James Barber was the driving force behind the former. It has always been felt that insufficient thought was given to car parking for both builds. Poor planning and poor decision making by the council all round. Add to this the fact that many children attending Charter will be coming from much further afield and it is clear why traffic will become even more of an issue and the Council would have known this from the start. Permeable filters will displace traffic and parking and then obviously the streets bearing the burden of that displacement will clamour for CPZ and I believe this is the reason why the council has chosen to focus exclusively on Melbourne Grove etc... The latter is adjacent to the area that resisted CPZ. They want mass CPZ and so far they haven?t managed to get it. That said, if they can get a smattering of permeable filters all round ED this too will speed up CPZ. So presenting themselves as being even-handed the council will be very keen to ?listen? to and ?explore? ideas for permeable filters on other streets. This has been a Council long game, from the time the medical centre and school builds got underway Southwark was fiddling around with plans to unnecessarily increase yellow lines and so on to reduce parking. They had their sights set on mass CPZ years ago. James Barber was a big, big fan. Covid19 is just the latest opportunity to be seized by our Labour Council and further measures can now conveniently be framed as an emergency. I am not suggesting things do not have to change but it is the haste with which Southwark is continuing to push through very old ideas (James Barber was very involved with residents on Melbourne Grove years ago With attempts to block off that street) and rehashing and spinning the rationale to fit the current narrative each time, that jars. You then wonder if the health and best interests of residents really are driving Council proposals, or is something else?