first mate

>But this shifts the problem of parents parking elsewhere doesn't it? The idea seems to be that we must accept that inconvenienced parents may need to use cars and that is okay so long as they drop off further away from the school, but those living closer to the school who for other reasons may also be massively inconvenienced at not being able to use a car must get on with it? Is this essentially what you mean? > I think that there needs to be an acceptance that > stopping parents dropping off by car is > impractical but putting in place more proactive > measures to mitigate the effects could be a real > benefit to the local area, whilst not affecting > the overall model for the schools.

I agree, if you have a back garden and room for a shed I am not clear why you'd need a bike hangar at the front of your house or on the street. The latter options are more convenient, it is true. BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At the risk of reigniting SE22's street-based > class war, I would hope that the council look at > the make-up of each road to decide where best to > place the hangars. Roads with predominantly > single-occupancy need hangars less than those with > flats, where inside space is at a premium. The > road I used to live in was nearly all > single-occupancy with front gardens and yet it > received one of the first hangars. Daft and > inequitable.

If you are allowed a dropped curb so you can park your car on the land in front of your house then I don't see why you cannot have a bike hangar- people also build structures for bins. All of these things look pretty ugly in my view, but there you go.

Fair point, but the council does not subsidise car ownership, not directly at least. I am not anti lockers but if these are to be funded by the council in increasingly large numbers we need to be sure that they are secure, otherwise it is a waste of money.

Is there any data on how many council funded bike lockers have been broken into? I guess this might be deemed commercially sensitive information but little point spending the money if they are not that secure.

Rahrahrah, and yet both you and Malumbu continue to own cars...why? rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agree with Malumbu. Making it easier to drive > around Lambeth is not going to encourage people > out of their cars, and it's cars which cause > pollution.

This. hellosailor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Although luckily my friend was able to escape and > was no longer in imminent danger, the next person > he strangles may not escape. It most certainly is > a cause for concern that a man with a compulsion > to strangle a woman walking in daylight with her > child is not being sought by the police. It wasn?t > an attempted mugging or a mobile phone theft, he > tried to strangle her so forcefully that she has > bruises on her neck and burst capillaries and > fingernail marks, photographs of which should be > being taken by the police but are not. It may be > that he is on some substance that makes him have > violent impulses, it may be that he has mental > health issues or it may be that he has a sexual > urge that impels him to strangle passers by but > that will never be known if the police can?t be > bothered to investigate. so we cannot say that the > crime is not ongoing and the danger is ?finished? > as we don?t know if or when he will violently > attack someone again. So the police response is > completely inadequate. > > > alice Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > With all the police cuts hard decisions have to > be > > made. This crime, horrid tho it is, seems to > have > > finished and the person was no longer in > danger. > > An ongoing crime would take precedence.

Given this was in broad daylight, the hope is one of the houses nearby has CCTV that might reveal an ID for this man? It is hoped the police or SNT will knock on doors and ask if anyone that has CCTV on that street, or nearby, to check to see if there is footage on that day around that time to match the description?

What a terrifying experience, I hope you and your son are offered some sort of support. I wonder if the Safer Neighbourhood Team are aware? Your attacker will still be at large, which is a concern.

I don't want to seem a spoilsport but with pet thefts on the rise it might not be a good idea to indicate where the cat lives.

So, if you don't display an anti LTN poster in your window you are obviously neutral or pro? Is that what you are saying?

I think this is truly shocking, though it seems to be a council-wide solution to an increased need for housing. But, in regard to Southwark, not great when you consider how council housing stock has been squandered/sold off (Heygate Estate, now Elephant Park).

malambu, you sound a bit like you are competing for plaudits and 'airtime' with Tom;

Essential opt out info here https://medconfidential.org/how-to-opt-out/

Yes, if it is felt there has to be any sort of display it should be limited and properly controlled and low noise type only. This way those with vulnerable pets or other issues have time to plan and avoid. Pugwash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do like fireworks but think in this day and age, > the only acceptable display is where the public > are charged a notional sum to watch a public > display. Remembering when the children were young > we paid for tickets to see fireworks at Crystal > Palace park - It was something like ?10 for a > family group of 4.

ianr, suggest you read articles, as linked to in other posts, above. They explain implications/concerns better than I. ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > First Mate wrote on May 26, 05:48PM > > > It seems that unless you opt out > > you are giving over rather more > > than just anonymised data, your name, > > address, DOB. > > What's your source for your information that name, > address and DOB may be passed on? > > Does your "rather more than" refer to "just > anonymised data, your name, address, DOB"? If so, > what is the "more"?

I think, as exdulwicher has pointed out, you can support a principle in the abstract but be against forms of implementation. I think for many that is the case with these LTNs and the way the council is going about it. Likewise, because you support an idea the fact that you cannot proffer a perfect, ready made solution does not mean you are against its implementation in any shape or form. You can know what you don't want and be clear when something is not working, without simultaneously knowing the solution. If DA tries to focus on solutions at this juncture they know it will dilute the message to the council, which is to stop their bull in a china shop tactics and start proper, democratic consultation. The council is also extremely adept at divide and rule and myriad suggestions about 'what to do' would probably be like manna to them, a bit like their street by street consultation on CPZ (except for certain streets like Melbourne Grove).

Thanks Rockets for correcting the attempted slur on the motives of those against LTNs. It is really not helpful when the Council employs such underhand tactics in order to get the result they have pre-determined. I am also tired of reading how the mayoral elections are a clear mandate for LTNs. I think few had the appetite to strengthen the hand of the current Govt by voting in their reps and they are all frankly such liars we have no way of knowing they would have dismantled LTNs anyhow. But viewing a vote for Labour as mass mandating of LTNs. Nope.

Yes agree, but the Council trawl for views and opinions that(presumably)helps inform their decisions, only goes one way, in this instance.

Extraordinary waste of funds by our 'green' council desperate to save the planet. Wonder if the type they aim to purchase are low noise?

LTN BooHoo got the answer to their question, the latter dripping with judgement and condescension. A change of tone would help. LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Droid Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > eastdulwichlocal99 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I really don?t know what all the fuss is > about > > - > > > the roads are only busy at rush hour like > they > > > have always been. Go down from 9:30am onwards > > and > > > it?s really quiet. Removing the LTNs won?t > > change > > > the rush hour jam one bit. > > > > > Sorry but it's not just rush hour. The > increased > > traffic congestion on Saturday & Sunday is > > horrendous on EDG, LL, DV, Croxted and Gove > Vale > > simply because:- > > 1. Locals use their cars for a weekly shop as > it's > > the only time they can reasonably do it if the > > work mid-week. > > 2. Most of the roads off EDG and the others are > > blocked. > > 3. People travel to socialise. > > > > Last Saturday, my neighbour took 40 minutes to > > travel from Grove Vale to Alleyns school. > > > > Your assessment is just so, so wrong. > > Ok I have to ask, I assume your neighbour was > driving from Grove Vale to Alleyns School, if so > why? Time poor? Au pair on the sick? Why would > anyone drive that short distance?

Why is it that on the cycle hangar commonplace map you can ask for a cycle hangar but as a resident on the same street you cannot object to it. Again, seems anyone can ask for hangars and state there is terrific demand without any proper analysis. Totally undemocratic.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/30/the-guardian-view-on-medical-records-nhs-data-grab-needs-explaining Think this deserves much greater scrutiny. NHS patient records are a data goldmine...It is stated patient records would not be used solely for commercial purposes. That says it all.

The chook's very obvious tactics- to hen peck posters into submission, so the thread and subject goes away- is best ignored.

Just went to the link and said it cannot be found?