Lee Scoresby

HMBoab, I repeat, people have to be able to walk freely in a public space, more especially on a well-used path, without even having to think about flying projectiles (including bikes BTW), keeping an eye on someone hitting balls, wondering if the balls ARE hard or soft, etc etc. Because this IS a path NOT a cricket ground, so the analogy with a squash court falls down. En passant, I have seen squashistas with lattice-welted kissers. Is this you, HMB? (smiley face). Space for all and everything, if everyone is reasonable: the Rye as small boo-tiful universe, if you will. Lee S

SJack - not sure I said you were an admin wallah - you did refer to a previous administrator in personal terms. I got that 2 different people were communicating with me - I have found the whole experience a learning curve. 'Too regular' eh? Defined how? as the patient said to the bowel specialist. I often don't post for many months at a time. I hope that my contributions add to the gaiety of ED life in their modest way. And I have drawn attention to at least 2 problematic ED issues: Fusion's appalling mismanagement of the ED Leisure Centre - this thread went on for months, with scores of contributors. And the garbage generated by visiting sports teams on the Rye. Not a self-back-pat; this is part of what the EDF is genius for, surely? Mr X the Administrator - I appreciate your being in touch and the help you have given. And I now understand more about the EDF's software substructure. But: - If the EDF has a general header/subheader which refers to the WHOLE forum, this should be separate from the header/subheader for the first 'Issues' section. - The top subheader IS confusing. Headers AND subs should be totally 'relevant', that is: clear. - Tho eateries are clearly businesses, I do not immediately think of them in these terms, like a plumber. I guess I think of them more like 'experiences' or something. Do other readers have any thoughts? Offered as friendly feedback is all, LS

Far be it from me to suggest that sports fans have trouble keeping to a subject . . . To echo the welcome for a return of cricket to the Rye - in an appropriate setting. As I said to Bussey in a PM, this development needs to ensure an invitation is extended to the gentlemen who commandeer this pathway. And Ms Hamvas, the authorities need to reassert the integrity of this path, official or not - it is heavily used. Last summer I saw a vanload of coppers physically restraining a bloke who was stubbornly refusing to stop driving golf balls on the Rye. I'm certainly NOT calling for heavyhandedness, just pointing out that a bottom line for safe, considerate behaviour CAN be asserted when the authorities do chose to move. For those sanguine about about the velocity of tennis balls, an experiment: have someone whack one at YOUR face, eh? People walking on a pathway should not have to accept such a risk. Ms Hamvas, I'm sure others concur with my gratitude for your prompt attention to our EDF posts, but your reference to 'prohibitive costs' regarding a lido, though correct in 2014, masks a long, inglorious history of mismanagement and waste by Southwark. Why was the original lido demolished? The planning shambles that is downtown Peckham is a gigantic reproach to 'our' local authority, even by comparison with other south London LAs. Lee Scoresby

Hello Mr X the Administrator, and/or SJack, loathe as I really am to bring all this up again, I have been chewing over my ill-fated cafe review thread for several days, and several mysteries keep bugging me: The biggest one is why my post 'Shout out for the Blue Brick', after severals day up and running with various comments by other customers, all totally normal, has now disappeared? Why on earth . . ? The second is why, after a series of friendly and extremely helpful PRIVATE message exchanges with SJack, I was then contacted by Mr X the Administrator, rather cooler in tone I have to say - and have since discovered that these messages have gone onto this 'public' thread, as above. The third is that I was told off for putting my cafe comments in the top section of the EDF, 'General EDF issues', rather than the (4th) business section. And yet the strapline for the top section specifically states, in part: "Talk about local restaurants [etc] . . ." by which we can surely include cafes. So the whole thing is a shmozzle. Sorry to be narky. I expressed my admiration and gratitude for the EDF to SJack, who was prepared to discuss rather than wag that anonymous finger and press that delete button, but it really does not make sense. Now I've said it. Lee Scoresby

OK sorry guvna, I see it should've been in the biz section . . . NOW he sees, sheeesh . . . Rather astounded at this 5-year Socratic dialogue with the invisible college of moderators I will try harder to be commonsensical, so 'elp me I will LS

The EDF main-section subheader invites us to comment on eateries - which I did. Cafes are businesses, sure. And they have kitchens. Verrily, the Venn circles overlap chum. LS

SJ, further to our PM exchange: the filter apparently didn't like two words in my mail - let's see if I can post them here in this section: kitchen, and investment. LS

With the advent of sunshine and dry ground comes a situation on the Rye which I recall from last year, and has probably occurred for some years now. With that sure application of Euclidian geometry to the very human wish to avoid time and effort, a path has developed from the lower corner once known as Kings on the Rye, cutting over and up the hill to the park's edge at Solomons Passage. The problem is that chaps, clearly Pakistanis or Afghans, regularly take over this axial space as an ideal ground on which to play cricket. The path is 'unofficial' but the latest (rather whimsical) round of mowing on the Rye has cut a width of short grass along either side of the path - which only increases it attraction for cricket. Now, before people start bleating wildly that I'm being racist, just let me say: I'm really happy they're playing in this green public London space, it's all good. But it's just not really convenient or right that the path is blocked in this way. One can walk round the game, but flying cricket balls are fairly lethal, not least if one isn't watching the batsman. What I'm suggesting is that perennially dozy behind-the-curve Southwark parks management welcomes this community onto the Rye by creating one or two proper cricket pitches somewhere appropriate. It's a big space. Will be good to hear from the councillors on this. Lee Scoresby

grrrr - Here we go again, dear Admininstrator - just now tried to post a friendly response in my thread about the Blue Brick, and the system is blocking me again - I'll get my coat . . . LS

What I would like to happen is for the Moderator, who, goodness knows, has been happy enough with his/ her trigger finger in nixing my posts over the years, simply to let me know how I can send him/ her a private message with the text of my would-be post, so that the offending word/s can be identified. And for the EDF to review exactly what words are being stopped by this bozo filter. Because, to repeat, I assure you my text is utterly innocuous. Pibes old chap, I have just now learned what cialis is, so there's education for you. I cannot but observe that for some reason we are permitted to use this diabolical word in this section. LS

Intriguing idea El Pibe - are you, by any chance, Senor X, El Administrador Grande Y Mas Secreta? I came up against this block years ago when I let an opinion go a bit sweary - yes, I admit it. But I mean: buggies? - louche? - puds? - Fellbrigg? - monkey? . . . Not exactly 4X is it? LS

Hello Administrator, I have tried to post a praising message about a cafe in East Dulwich, but the system keeps taking me into a dead end. Is there a gremlin or is it a system block? If so, why? Thanx, Lee Scoresby

. . . is to be rebuilt as another site for Haberdasher Askes School. Hot tip this, from the inside. Many might feel the H A brand was well over-extended as it is, but it's a crazy free-market fantasy we live in, so here they come like another corporation with their product offering.

Can I ask the EDF community to sign the e-petition to push the never-endlingly pathetically useless UK authorities to take action to prevent female gentital mutilation in the UK? - it's been a crime for decades and not a single prosecution - viewer of Newsnight last year will have seen then-DPP Keir Starmer whiffling and shuffling about this The petition is on change.org but for some reason seems more accessible via theguardian.com/end-fgm Thanks, this is really important, Lee Scoresby

A question to Councillors Hamvas, Barber, or any of their colleagues who cares to answer. Nota bene, I have no presumption whatever about the answer. I am simply curious, as I suspect other EDF'ers will be: Today's 'BBC Sunday Politics' described a survey of London's 33 local authorities regarding the detection of fraud and prosecution of staff. The estimate is that one pound in 20 in London goes astray; that's over ?1 billion each year. This segment can be seen online at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03cz958/Sunday_Politics_London_20_10_2013/ - at 51:40 on the timeline. My question is, was Southwark one of the 25 councils who responded or one of the eight who did not? If so, what (briefly) are the figures for Southwark? If not, why not? The suspicion, expressed in the programme, is that non-responders are simply not looking for fraud. Regarding the law and the general public, I am always staggered that in an urban area of about a quarter of a million people, Southwark publicity always boasts prosecution figures, spread over years, for, say, littering and flytipping, illegal trading practices, etc, as well as evictions for rent arrears and subletting, which often do not reach double digits. I AM NOT SAYING that a council exists first and foremost as a big, scary enforcer over either its own staff or the public, certainly not. What a negative view that would be. And, to repeat, I AM ABSOLUTELY NEITHER ALLEGING NOR PRESUMING that Southwark Council is any more or less prone to fraud than any other local authority. But the willingness and ability of council legal departments to prosecute where appropriate IS an important bottom line. So I would be interested to hear what councillors have to say. Lee Scoresby

Thanks once again Ms Hamvas for your further action, and for letting us know. I am nothing but encouraged when positive outcomes, such as this, temper my more general scepticism about local governance, and about large organisations. As I have said, I know local councillors put in a helluva lot of work on what must often be thankless problems. And certainly, some councillor officers likewise try hard. I guess my wider view here is that notice has been served to garbage chuckers - they're in the spotlight. So let's see how it goes. Keeping an eye open is the thing to do now, if you would kindly do likewise, Ms H. I have some sense of regretting that other comments and squabbles have hitched a ride on this thread, but that is not uncommon; it's probably 'the way it is' on the EDF. Nor do I always express myself temperately. Lee Scoresby

Sorry Ms Hamvas, not remotely good enough . . . speaking as the person who actually raised this issue . . . These days there's a pervasive disingenuousness, not only from Southwark council, god knows, but anytime jane & joe public attempt to hold anyone to account. I call it 'Who's kidding Who' (or 'whom' for the expensively educated). Well, on this occasion, I'm not kidded, nor will anyone else be who knows the Rye well. Last Sunday's garbage may or may not have come from an 'impromptu gathering' - that is not the point. Notoriously, sports groups, who must have booked with Southwark, have been leaving their crappola behind for years. Do others feel the situation has improved? I'd be very happy to have my impression corrected. Have parks officers taken steps to end this abuse? Let them say so clearly, through you if they wish. So, sorry Ms Hamvas, this is a fob-off, no doubt one of many from a council officer to a councillor. You shouldn't be fooled by it. I'm not and I don't think other EDF participants will be. And really, why should a proper remedy rely on endless nagging from us? ("If this is repeated . . . ") You're there to see that THEY do what WE the people want and need, Ms H, not simply act as a conveyor for their baloney and excuses back to us. So thanks, sincerely, for responding, but you and Mr Barber really do need to push this somewhat harder and longer. Lee Scoresby

Thanks Mr Barber for responding. But please follow it up vigorously, and get back to us. As Miacis says, three strikes and you're gone! would seem to be a good starting point. I know individual councillors to be concerned and energetic people in a rather thankless job. But I am hardly alone in wondering how much power the present structure of local government gives our representatives against the inertia, self-interest and secret agendas of council officers. That Fusion remains a contractor of Southwark is a case in point. Sports (etc) litter may well be a Southwark-wide issue but this is the EDF and Peckham Rye is what we're discussing. The trouble with that perspective is, it makes it too easy to say, well, that's just how it is, nothing to be done . . . Maybe instead, the Rye could LEAD THE WAY as a get-tough pilot? lameduck, I hear what you say but I'm certainly not arguing for murdering anyone. What this really shows is the limits of any idea of 'community'. We can try to insist on the right thing in our own families but how does one do that in the world outside? Finally, and I really do hesitate even to raise this, the baby elephant in the room is that some (SOME!) of the serious littering is done by groups who have come to live in Southwark, and evidently have no culture of public tidiness in the countries they came from. If immigration and identity were not such fraught and confused issues in the UK this could be addressed fairly straightforwardly, but there you go. Lee Scoresby

Dear me - the EDF can be fascinating - all the rich variety of human psychology on parade . . . Let me follow other contributors in laying to rest some bizzarre misconceptions being touted here: 1. This is a 'forum' - that's what it says on the tin. Among other things, it's a chance (rare in modern society) to raise local problems, talk about how we feel about them, and consider solutions. So it's always intriguing when an authoritarian personality intervenes in a thread to tell us we're just "whinging". Such remarks betray a deep-rooted anger at, and anxiety about any form of 'dissent' or 'troublemaking'. Rather, in reality, consider (as an example) how widespread dissatisfaction about how Fusion runs the local leisure centre, expressed in the EDF, has propelled local councillors at least to attempt to get this disgraceful rogue contractor to mend its ways. However imperfect, isn't that practical local democracy in action? 2. Photos can capture something like litter more precisely and concisely than words. And they are indisputable evidence, helping force the authorities to act. 3. As anyone who knows me can attest, I am always very keen to help others, and very supportive of neighbourliness. But I am highly suspicious of vague talk about "the community" in a huge city like London. Politicians are constantly doing it. In any case, there's a fundamental difference between being a good community member and a perennial unpaid janitor - a fool, basically, Ladygooner, with respect. This is not some one-off problem caused by time, nature or misfortune. It's a predicable endlessly-repeating anti-social offence caused by selfish people. But, OK, let's think about the idea of a 'local community'. Most of these dirty sportspeople don't live near here, so (on top of their other deficiencies in consideration and respect for others) they are not invested in this neighbourhood - they just drive over here to kick a ball; they dump their rubbish, they don't care. 4. We are certainly paying for this behaviour, in the repeated pollution of a much-loved and used amenity. (And I am certainly fed up trying to walk my dogs while preventing them eating other people's abandoned fast food waste.) But lanelover, we are also actually paying council and other taxes now, for some bloke with a gulf buggy and a grabby-stick to pick it all up, over and over again. This is the malign circle: dozy old Southwark outsources the issue and forgets about it > the contractor is happy to be paid to solve this problem (however artificial and manmade) > the slobs are happy that their rubbish 'just disappears' so they can sling more next week. (Talk to these charlies and many of them tell you exactly this: "Whatever, they collect it, innit"). Because it (presumably) schedules these sporting groups, Southwark can exert considerable pressure on them. Let it belatedly begin doing so! It would cost little or nothing. And since the council has made such a song and dance for years about rangers and wardens, let's also see this presence on the ground resulting in prosecutions of those social gatherings who stroll away from their filth. I don't "live under a rock" lane lover. Local authorities certainly have big tasks, and environmental cleanliness is one of them. Who can honestly say that Southwark never wastes our money? Stopping the slobs might actually SAVE money, or at least divert contractor manhours on the Rye to more useful projects. Lee Scoresby

Another Sunday evening, another landscape of trash left strewn across the Peckham Rye fields These slots for sporting pitches must be booked with Southwark, and they must be highly coveted, surely. So I ask in this forum yet again: Why does Southwark not make return of a group the next week strictly conditional on cleaning up after themselves? Has any group ever been banned? Ever been warned? Has it even ever been mentioned? May I suggest that people who are bothered, as I am, start collecting digital images of this filthy mess and emailing them to the tribunes of the people, as well as to the faceless-nameless ones who run the council . . . every day This has been going on for years + years + years . . . pathetic, pathetic, pathetic Lee Scoresby

Mako - thanx for your remarks - the appallingly slanted 'consultation' is prima facie evidence of an anti-mutt agenda at Southwark - but as I say, let's get it all out in the daylight - if we had a local press remotely willing to perform its democratic role we might look there, but . . . One thing which most vexes many of us is this sense in trying to deal with 'our' supposed local government and getting the strong feeling of: nameless officers with agendas (as I said), Westminster party politics (toytown level), and just general drift and chaos and lack of glastnost DaveR . . . sigh . . . my expression does not mean that ALL and ONLY the English keep and walk dogs - it does mean that in these (English) parks there is a longstanding and much-loved habit of walking dogs (unlike 'country X' say)- so, referring back to my observation that conflicting claims must be resolved fairly, this fact must be weighed in the final total balance - I do not accept that my posts express a 'complete absence of engagement with the real issues', whatever (as LadyD says) you feel these to be I am very surprised no-one is supporting me on the issue of the piles of garbage - if you're going to have Southwark narks lurking behind bushes this is one very real and recurrent abuse of this public space which could be dealt with very effectively - as I said, I assume these sports groups book-in for a time and space - if they persist in leaving their piles of c-r-a-p they should lose that privilege - and again, groups walking away from revolting picnic messes could be easily intercepted - dozy old Southwark just needs to want to do it Lee Scoresby

To clarify Mako's comprehensive misrepresentation of my position: By definition, proposing to exclude dogs from large areas is to ban their presence there, and thereby to prohibit general walking of dogs on Peckham Rye (for example) - as to 'informed debate', the reaction to the so-called 'consultation document' by all I speak to has been astonishment at its leading, biased wording - straight outta North Korea! you could say - any subsequent official action using results of this 'consultation' as justification would certainly be challenged in court I am not having a go at "other park users" - as I say, free movement is a fundamental right - like many human rights, differing claims must be reconciled fairly Mako may find my more general remark "incredibly unlikely" and I was extremely reluctant to express it - however it is naive to think Southwark politicians don't think about these things - look at some of Harriet Harman's material from the last general election . . . To be clear, I absolutely support dangerous dog owners going to jail, and other irresponsible owners being brought to book - but this would need some credible presence on the ground by Southwark - the last decade has seen a whirligig of 'rangers' and 'wardens' come and go (mostly go), in all their various dinky uniforms and modes of conveyance And, as I say, how about the mountains of refuse, Southwark? elmgrove, I do not have names and the EDF moderator might well excise my post if I did mention any - mako is quite right that this 'common knowledge' needs to be tested - so, OK, what are the names, what are the facts, what are the standing policies? - what is there to hide? Lee Scoresby

Where to start . . . Whenever I think my contempt for Southwark Council is utter, they go and pull another stunt. Like Southwark doesn't have actual useful things to do . . . Like Southwark has vast funds at its disposal . . . Like Southwark has a shining record of achievement (I direct readers to the squalid farce resulting in the present chaos of Rye Lane, as an example) Free movement, unmolested (for example, by other people's dogs), in public space is a very fundamental democratic right, no question. Dogs should be under control, no question. Responsible dog owners agree. I have previously referred in an EDF thread to an horrendous incident several years ago in the Horniman Gardens where several children were attacked, and the yob didn't even get off his mobile. Oh, and the Met declined to attend, let alone take action. However! For years in this country there has been a lazy kneejerk fascist tendency at all levels by those who rule us to deal with the misbehaviour of a few by banning whole categories of inherently blameless behaviour. I point out two things of which readers may not be aware: Senior Southwark 'Environment' officers have been known for years to be fanatically anti-dog. And such is the decrepit state of local government in London that these faceless-nameless entities can push their agendas and obsessions. Second, in the wider ethnic politics of the borough, coming down on dogs plays extremely well with one group which fears and dislikes dogs, and another which considers them unclean. But this is England: the English keep and walk dogs. That is just how it is. If Southwark really wants to get hot n' jiggy about our parks, how about cracking down on the people leaving vast piles of garbage strewn everywhere, every day, every week? Q: has even one person been prosecuted for littering in Peckham Rye, or any Southwark Park, in the last year? Has any sports group been warned that its (presumably much sought after) slot on the Rye is in jeopardy if they keep walking away from their horrible refuse? Nope, thought not. Pathetic. I suggest campaigners start talking photo's of this despoilation and sending them to Southwark with very great regularity. Lee Scoresby

Well Alex K, now we've taken a bite out of each other, shall we leave it? I have no interest whatever in troll-on-troll action. 'Authoritarian personalities' occasionally come on the EDF for whom dissent (speaking about problems) is offensive and threatening. So I'm glad that isn't you. Thanks for all the suggestions about what to do. I really do not want to seem cynical about any of them. In past years I have engaged with a variety of complaint procedures, not just about transport. Every one of them was just a garbage chute. It was impossible even to get the system to refer to (never mind admit) the issue at hand. Nothing whatever was ever achieved. Transport user groups, in the past at least, have been famously, hilariously unwilling to upset the transport companies they were supposely holding to account. In this present context, my point to people is really to notice how scattered and temporary and uncertain these suggested remedies are. Feedback (a better idea than 'complaint') should be such an inherent intuitive evident continuous part of any modern urban public system that this sort of forum thread would be superfluous. Lee Scoresby

Happy to cut Countdown itself a bit of slack - it's ballpark - often the bus comes SOONER than advised - (unlike "adjusting the service", hoho, which just means hangin' about in a stopped bus) - but 'DUE' for 20 minutes? - it destroys trust in the system It may be 'start of route' - here's something that happens further down the line - just happened to me 90 minutes before writing this - not exactly rush hour: the 484 was chock-a-block, and people waiting at an ED stop were left standing. My point: this is a chronically badly run route, and TfL has failed over years to stand up for passengers. And as I pointed out to Alex K, there is no obvious way for us to hold the nameless-faceless ones to account and insist on a properly serviced bus route. Lee Scoresby