first mate

Sally, you seemed to infer it was all straightforward and if you cannot take a bus and need to use a car you can get a blue badge. It is not simple, people often fail tests for PIP or blue badge, because the system is loaded, unfairly, to make them fail. The fact many win at appeal is a strong indication of that. The utopia you seem to paint where people have a clear, easy choice with options, according to need, is simply not the reality.

And before all that it was a butchers, hence the tiles. Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > nxjen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yes, that?s where it was. There used to be, or > > perhaps it?s still there, a thistle insignia > which > > was David Greig?s logo. Tart?s predecessor was > a > > restaurant called Le Chardon, French for > thistle. > > > For a time, bizarrely, it was called Thistells :))

Sally, you make it sound so simple. However, getting PIP is incredibly difficult, even arduous, with many disabled people getting turned down. The assessment process is designed to fail people. Getting a Blue Badge is also very difficult. So no, disabled or chronically ill people who have to drive and cannot get a bus will not just be able to get a blue badge. This will also have a huge knock on effect to those caring for them. Sally Eva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People who have to drive and cannot catch a bus > can get a blue badge and they will not have to > pay. A blue badge is automatically given to those > with Personal Independence Payment mobility > allowance and also to those who can show a medical > need. > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/disabled-park > ing/blue-badge

Grace and Favour, run by Rose, opened up the day after the General Election in 1997. That was the second trendy coffee shop on Northcross, so reckon Mel?s Blue Mountain was a couple of year?s earlier

Yes, the Council have counted on the knock effect to get full CPZ. It started with the few streets around the train station where S'wark were incredibly keen to respond to resident's concerns about commuter parking, stopping residents from parking in their street, though presumably they were able to park soemwhere near or would have ceased to be car owners and CPZ no longer a relevant concern. That was the beginning and S'wark knew that if they could just get those few streets in the CPZ noose the rest would surely follow, in time. The council also implemented all day CPZ rather than a few hours- which surely would have dealt with the commuter issue but not placed the desired parking pressure on nearby streets. At the same time S'wark ramped up parking pressure elsewhere in every way possible.

The Council never intended to listen, they were determined to have CPZ everywhere- they need the money. However, they have to maintain the illusion of legality, consultation and a democratic process. Scrutiny of what they say and what has been done reveals a string of contradictions.

It could be stress related and it could also be territorial, one feeding into the other. That is why vertical spaces inside the home may be a good idea. Your cat may have decided which bits of space are hers and lashes out when she doesn't want to share. Her 'feelings' about her space may change over the day and will be exacerbated if she is startled, by a noise or similar. If she can get up high and rest there you may be able to reduce the chances of confrontation. That said, attacking cats are no fun and can be downright dangerous. It might be best to get professional help. The cat is probably as stressed as you are. Cats are highly territorial and some individuals even more so. BTW catnip stimulates some cats, something your cat doesn't need. Other cats are totally immune to its effects.

Have you tried using a Feliway diffuser? Has she got plenty of spaces she can escape to? Has she got vertical spaces she can climb up to and watch events from?

Not to mention wasting money on murals, using CGS funding.

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Harris got the ?17k because levels of pollution > around the school are at illegal levels. Governors > at the school took matters into their own hands to > ensure the kids don't have to breathe such filthy > air in their classrooms. It wasn't even enough: > the money had to be supplemented with a sizeable > chunk of cash fundraised through many events. It > shouldn't be necessary to find money this way but > you go through whichever door is open to you. And then you have the whole Goose Green Tree Amigos fiasco, with a diesel generator bang next door to the children's playground- where another chunk of CGS funding was spent to increase screening from car pollution. Astonishing example of Southwark being all over the place in terms of decision making.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Got an email with all the successful CGS funding > applications. Very interesting Couldn't agree more. How in any way does this 'mural' make the area cleaner and greener?

It is interesting that the council is now open to reducing double yellows on some streets within the proposed CPZ to create more permit spaces. Yet, not so long ago, extending double yellows, thereby artificially creating parking pressure, was pushed through by the council as a vital safety measure.

comment deleted

Is it possible someone in the local managment team is a member?

Perhaps Councillors can find out the how, when and who of the decision to let out a large section of Goose Green to a private company, seemingly circumventing its own climate change commitments in the process? In addition, how much money will Southwark get from the letting and where does that money get used? It would be great if Councillors McAsh or Smith could post here on their findings.

What we need to know is exactly how much money the Council will make from the enterprise this year and where that money will go - not to fund more nursery school type murals it is hoped.

I had understood from those on site that this is to do with the large proposed development opposite the Clockhouse.

Words fail!

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's a parking space right at the end of > Spurling Rd that, as far as I know, has never seen > a car parked in it. Instead, it has become an > extremely unpleasant and dangerous dumping ground > for all sorts of items - old sofas, boxes, broken > glass, old sanitaryware and builder materials. > It's a total eyesore and shouldn't be permitted. > The council have twice refused to clear it on the > grounds it's private land but its an offence to > the entire neighbourhood and simply must be sorted > out. > Does anyone have any suggestions on how to force > the council to act? Might there be plans afoot to develop this sight, turning 'unsightly wasteland' into flats?

Slightly surprised Nx shops and shoppers would vote this in. If it had been some sort of signage it would make a bit more sense. It features really bright primary colours and, I think, it looks dreary in our cold, winter light. I wonder if the shop owners like it?

FreyaMikaelson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whatever it is it looks like it belongs in a > childrens playground. Perhaps that is how the council view local resident and environs.

Presumably not finished then? Guessing NX road market or similar to be inscribed on mural?

Yes Sue, that's the one. As I said I don't want to be negative but went and had a look yesterday and try as I might just could not find anything to like. It looks part creche part Teletubbies. As you say, perhaps not yet finsihed and will be transformed as more work done. Perhaps other people will absolutely adore it and it will become a treasured local landmark- each to their own. But...I am interested in who commissioned it and cost.

Agreed, but look at the environmental impact and cost of other types of litter- cigarette butts and plastics for starters- these are not 'harmless'. Granted, the immediate personal cost may not be so great but they still have a negative impact. Broken glass is another and there is loads of it around. I understand the considerable rage and disgust experienced after stepping in dog poop and it is massively inconvenient to have to clean it off- not to mention the dangers to health for children and pregnant women, I doubt anyone is disputing that. But I still don't agree that posting up photos of alleged perpetrators, without clear cut evidence, is the way to go. if you have all that then the person can be properly reported. If online photo shaming becomes more prevalent it would be open to abuse. It is a modern version of the stocks and I could not support that.