first mate

I know little but just to get the ball rolling: In the garden - pigeons, crows, magpies, jays, ring necked parakeets, blackbirds, swifts, wrens, robins, starlings, sparrows, great tits, gold finches and the odd bird of prey, never sure which. On the Rye have heard Song Thrush. I am sure others will add to this.

Yes, it is just that the local demographic is soon to have a large shift and more late night shopping catering for student needs is likely to be very popular. Presumably the massive student lodgings development plans for Melbourne Grove will have catalysed the Londis application. Wasn't there also an application for a late night bar or club at some point round there? Still, all this will help turn Melbourne Grove North into a real 'vibrant, urban destination' and 'town centre' and, for sure, we can expect lots and lots of e- bikes and scooters to be 'parked' around the place. What makes me laugh is that not so long ago the smaller housing development in the same place was being marketed as wonderful select family homes in quiet, leafy MG, with a 'villagey' feel. As a taster for where all this might lead, has anyone noticed the crumbling brick facing on the railway development, built not so long ago? You throw 'em up and they soon start falling down. The developers make loadsa money and Councillors get to tick their boxes.

Stumbled across CQC ratings for local surgeries the other day and saw that TJ has just been assessed and rated as "good" in all areas. Has this place improved then?

All that extra recently extended pavement, plus late night shopping and somewhere to buy booze, means this can become an even more social area. The seating is already in place. It'll also be somewhere all the students living in the enormous student housing bloc can use.

I have a dim memory of being promised that Tessa Jowell Medical Centre would offer x-ray ( Dulwich hospital as was did x-rays). I just checked the site and seems they do not, which feels a bit of a missed opportunity, but I am no expert on how to run a community medical centres. Sorry, cannot help on the King's service; I doubt it is walk in but may be wrong.

Then read what I wrote.

A bit pots and kettles coming from you Mal. Nigello and Cancerian have fair points; cycling responsibly and taking care round other road users and pedestrians is in everyone's best interests, I do not see that as anti cycling. The cycle lane through Dulwich Village needs sorting, the road surface is awful and in low light may be problematic for some.

I am interested to hear Earl's answer. Also exactly what is Earl's area of expertise?

I have no idea, but not so difficult for one of them to stand to the side and record. In an odd way at least if they were doing it for social media it might explain the motivation, albeit misguided. Others may disagree, but that feels less worrying than a desire to intimidate. I think comparable games like "knock down ginger" where children run away and/or momentarily stick their tongue out as cheeky gesture, have a different vibe to what is described here.

I really do wonder if they are filming these episodes for social media?

This is the truly embarrassing aspect of it all.

What I am interested in is a potential breach of process. I understand that for some on here the end seems to justify the means. Let's not forget there was a clear majority against a CPZ at consultation and the council's own online document in June stated that the revised proposal was subject to (further) consultation.

Does anyone know when the statutory consultation to which the revised MGS CPZ proposal is subject will be taking place? In terms of process, is it okay for a Cllr to announce the revised CPZ has "been agreed" if the statutory consultation has not yet taken place?

We are now mid August and still no sign of the statutory consultation for the revised MGS CPZ proposal, which Cllr Charlie Smith has announced is now agreed. What is going on? Are they just going to impose the reduced CPZ without further consultation?

Have a look at the Melbourne Grove South CPZ. Southwark decided to make MG North a CPZ and then an LTN. Now they are also making the rest of MG, and few other streets a CPZ this coming October, despite a majority against in the last consultation. The details on process are a bit unclear. Wording in a document on the matter I viewed online in June stated the new reduced CPZ would be subject to statutory consultation. So far there has been no further consultation but Cllt Charlie Smith recently announced it had all been agreed. If anyone can explain, I'd be grateful. Anyway, reasons for blocking the road are all part of this grand scheme.

Southwark Council, not Rockets, is responsible for the local filter or LTN, whatever you are calling it now. Southwark Council insisted on a hugely expensive change to local Road and pavement layout in Dulwich Village. The rationale was to make streets safer, greener and have somewhere people can socialise. I would observe that in leafy, Dulwich Village, with its parks, restaurants and wine bars, the last two points were redundant before the changes were even mooted. That just leaves safety...

You have not really addressed my point. "weak" correlation is more or less insignificant. Therefore, when Southwark claim 'causation'- 'this LTN will make your street safer', how has that been demonstrated, aside from the notion that removing cars reduces vehicle collision stats? Safer more pleasant streets is a primary driver for LTNs.

So what you seem to be saying is the filter (love how you are now calling it a filter and not an LTN) has no correlation with crime and safety either way? Other than, of course, the incredible conclusion that removing cars probably reduces collision stats. What then do we make of Southwark's assertion that LTN's make for 'safer' streets?

This intervention cost millions, it was extremely expensive. A major part of the rationale was to make the streets 'safer'. Those in favour now seem to be arguing that although this LTN may be less safe in regard to certain, specific types of crime, overall it is no worse than most London streets. Given the amount spent on all this, that is a rather astounding conclusion.

In similar vein, elsewhere, data or reports or research, 'suggest'; 'broader trends', 'on average'. Yep, everyone is at it.

I am wondering if this is on the local SNT radar and if monitoring the park has been made a priority- the aim being to avoid escalation and copycat behaviour? I also wonder if any of this stuff is being posted on social media for 'larfs and clix'?

@Earl Aelfheah you will continue to argue about the stats and each of us will decide whose interpretation we find more convincing. However, you also said: "Putting aside what a PCSO may or may not have said to Rockets," this is effectively calling another poster a liar. Unless you can prove it then I think you should withdraw. @Alice and @headnun Thanks for that info. Really good to know more police to be out and about and, as said earlier, perception of crime is a thing too. @Glenham That's a shame. How many shops have closed in the area now?

This does seem to boil down to interpretation of statistics; with Rockets citing specifics and Earl broader trends, with Earl carefully referring to 'road danger', but not 'street theft', to make the point that the roads in the area under discussion are safer because there are fewer 'collisions'. Again, I think Rockets was pointing to correlation not causation. The point was made by another poster that the latter would be very hard to prove. What is not fair is to accuse the other of lying.

@Earl Aelfheah said: "So what we have is an individual making stuff up." Which bits specifically are they making up? That is quite a step from saying you do not believe what someone says. This time you are, once more, accusing others of lying.

Why then do you think police were knocking on doors in this specific area and talking to residents about it?