first mate

Thanks for that. Interesting. Think the assertion, I am not across the evidence base, that it can also enter through the eyes is worrying.

You can trust the photo. They are fake ?ye olde? character bricks. How on earth did planning pass this? There is another aesthetically jarring, monstrosity on the junction of Ashbourne and Melbourne Grove.

E-bikes are heavy. Not easy to lug around or get into offices, shops etc..and probably more vulnerable to theft if chained outside. Not sure how realistic a solution this is to our local hill issue tbh. Seems anyone young and fit can cycle but older folk, as a solution it?s not really workable, in my view.

Ah well, that?s okay then.

How bizarre. Seems like whoever stole the pot may read this forum?

Ah, complete misunderstanding on my part...apologies. In that case would support temporary pavement widening.

Also potentially weeks and months of non- essential, disruptive roadworks, whereas poor, uneven paving (a significant trip hazard) is left untouched for years, despite requests to have it mended...not a political priority.

Wolseleymad So sorry to see this, your sheltie looks as though it has sustained puncture wounds. You should try to find out if the owner of the husky is insured. I would be pursuing the owner to cover your vet fees as well as money to cover any other support you and your dog may need in future. To correct one comment on here, there is little correlation between attacks on other dogs by dogs and on children. One does not lead to the other. The greatest danger to people/children is if they try to break up a dog fight. The overwhelming number of dog bites to children take place in the home and are generally the consequence of lack of supervision of dog and child where the child unwittingly irritates, frightens or hurts the dog. This is not to say that a dog cannot injure a child by trying to play roughly or jumping on them in excitement, and skin can be broken by sharp nails or a tooth, by accident, and is obviously not acceptable. However, this is not the same as what is described and shown by the sheltie owner, where there are puncture wounds. This is not play in any sense of the word and the owner of this dog should be reported and will have to be instructed to keep the dog under control.

I have copied your post onto the Councillor thread and asked for comment from Cllr McAsh. slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > During the consultation period our Councillors > claimed that the traffic "through the junction", > had increased by 47% in recent years. This claim > featured very prominently in the 2 public meetings > I attended and was used as a justification for the > urgent need to support the Councils' proposals. > > I have been doing some research this weekend and > learned from one of the Southwark traffic > engineeers that the 47% increase came from > Southwark's "Annual Report on delivery of the > Transport Plan 2017\18" (page 12, Fig 6) The data > is from Southwark's annual traffic surveys, ie the > number I quoted in my original post. > > So, the 47% increase "through the junction" is > acually comparing traffic going North\South on > Dulwich Village, not "through the junction" . > And, most importantly, the base period is Sep > 2017. when the council was carrying out the > reconfiguration works to the DV junction. Can you > remember the huge queues and disruption caused by > the building works and the 4 way traffic lights. > no wonder traffic volumes were lower in that > period. > > This is therefore a totally false comparison; if > you compare 2018 with 2016, 2015 or 2014 you can > see that the traffic has actually decreased and is > part of a continuing downwards decrease. > > This is quite frankly outrageous. Councillors > have quoted highly misleading statistics to > justify a scheme that will have a massive impact > on residents in Dulwich. It is possible, though > unlikely, that this was a genuine mistake but even > so, it totally undermines the credibility of the > phase 3 consultation process. > > If our councillors or their supporters > (Exdulwicher, TownleyGreen?) can explain the 47% > increase as other than a temporary blip caused by > massive disruption in the base period I would be > interested to hear their reasons.

Hi James, Thanks for the update on the good work you are doing to support children and young people in the borough. I have copied a post from another thread on the Healthy Living Streets consultation and further proposals for road and traffic changes based on Council statistics. The post below challenges Council figures about an alleged rise in traffic around Melbourne Grove. A number of us would be interested in your take on this? Have the Council made mistake? ? During the consultation period our Councillors claimed that the traffic "through the junction", had increased by 47% in recent years. This claim featured very prominently in the 2 public meetings I attended and was used as a justification for the urgent need to support the Councils' proposals. I have been doing some research this weekend and learned from one of the Southwark traffic engineeers that the 47% increase came from Southwark's "Annual Report on delivery of the Transport Plan 2017\18" (page 12, Fig 6) The data is from Southwark's annual traffic surveys, ie the number I quoted in my original post. So, the 47% increase "through the junction" is acually comparing traffic going North\South on Dulwich Village, not "through the junction" . And, most importantly, the base period is Sep 2017. when the council was carrying out the reconfiguration works to the DV junction. Can you remember the huge queues and disruption caused by the building works and the 4 way traffic lights. no wonder traffic volumes were lower in that period.? This is therefore a totally false comparison; if you compare 2018 with 2016, 2015 or 2014 you can see that the traffic has actually decreased and is part of a continuing downwards decrease. This is quite frankly outrageous. Councillors have quoted highly misleading statistics to justify a scheme that will have a massive impact on residents in Dulwich. It is possible, though unlikely, that this was a genuine mistake but even so, it totally undermines the credibility of the phase 3 consultation process. If our councillors or their supporters (Exdulwicher, TownleyGreen?) can explain the 47% increase as other than a temporary blip caused by massive disruption in the base period I would be interested to hear their reasons.

Is this about keeping Conway in pocket?

I think a bit every now and then is okay, as well as being at a reasonable time, but all the time no, and definitely not after 11pm.

If people want to listen to loud music every day and night that is understandable but given the number of high quality headsets out there, there is really no good reason to inflict it on everyone else.

If either are healthcare or keyworkers they may need to be washing much more frequently. Additionally, if their water is metered water charges drop after a certain time. In normal circumstance, some of us have neighbours that roll in at 12 or later from the pub and start to play loud music. So I get where you are coming from.

Anal

Yes, but is it standard or ethical to pollard in late spring early summer when birds are nesting?

Don?t feel bad it?s not for everyone but if it helps even a few key workers through it is worth it. Just grin and bear it.

Uncle

Gump

Malambu said : At times this thread feels like vigilantism by proxy. Interesting to see some of the reports of police being unnecessarily inundated with calls including some wishing to settle old scores with neighbours [www.independent.co.uk] And everyone's favourite on line newspaper (The Daily Hate) ran two stories separated by four days at the end of March, the first a story urging people not to bother the police unnecessarily, the second the opposite (grass on your neighbours). You seem a decent cove Malambu but there you go again. You may feel that some of us are overly anxious, or just not ?positive? enough, but the inference that those who do not completely share your views or perspective are ?vigilantes by proxy? with the subtle hint that the same may possibly take cues and values from the ?Daily Hate? and might be the types to grass up neighbours to settle old scores is all a bit OTT and provocative don?t you think? Perhaps you did not mean it that way, I hope not. Understand the use of ?morons? might have got you riled but your sly digs are no better really.

Out this morning every single or pair of joggers skirted right round me or crossed the road well in advance, and each time I thanked them for it. Only one guy forced me to wait in the middle of a pedestrian crossing, so we would not meet on the pavement I was crossing over to and he was running on. He could have detoured into the grass area but chose not to. He thanked me for waiting though. I think runner fatigue can clearly sometimes interfere with judgement!

hellosailor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yup. The idea that having anxiety about people > ignoring the advice and risking people?s lives is > what is unhelpful in the current situation is both > spectacularly irresponsible and misguided. We must > adhere to the guidance. Being anxious about people > ignoring it doesn?t make you a whinger. Agreed and how ironic that those who are so keen to leap on a hypothetical ?5%? for being ?whingers? and overly anxious are themselves exhibiting the very kind of behaviour policing they say should stop.