Charles Martel

From his twitter it would appear Cllr. Livingstone has agreed the report, but has returned to two separate CPZ areas with the East Dulwich side operating all day. It will be interesting to see the final plan. A previous council survey in 2011 for the last CPZ attempt found that an average of 80% of cars parked in the area then under consideration belonged to residents, 20% to non residents. How much of the 20% freed up by the CPZ will be lost to the planned number of new double yellow lines? It would seem from looking at the old plan for Elsie Road this would be net negative for residents parking. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s27152/Appendix%20A%20Grove%20Vale%201st%20and%202nd%20stage%20CPZ%20consultation%20report.pdf pg33

Rutger Hauer has passed away aged 75. Without doubt this scene from Blade Runner is one of the most memorable in cinema history. Rutger Hauer helped to create Roy Batty?s death soliloquy. ?I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannh?user Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain..." The irony is that Rutger Hauer's unforgettable performance has trapped him in the amber of that cinematic moment. RIP.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > [...] > All I'm asking for is a link to the stats. https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichparking/results/eastdulwichparkingconsultation-interimreportfinal.pdf The overall response showed the majority of those who responded (69%) were against a parking zone, 25% wanting a zone and 6% were undecided.

Reg Smeeton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now I'm being really dim - I clicked on the link > in the OP - where is this overview map? Which > page? All I see is Fig 2, 3 etc - each with roads > highlighted in red blue or green. I don't see a > key anywhere. > > But I'll be happy if somebody just tells me: > Green = ? > Blue = ? > Red = ? Figure 2 shows, based on responses, majority support in green, majority against in red, and undecided in blue.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The silent majority who want controlled parking > (54%) have voiced their opinion, despite all the > bleating on this forum most people approve of it. You seem not to have read the report. From page 2 - 3: The overall response showed the majority of those who responded (69%) were against a parking zone, 25% wanting a zone and 6% were undecided. Results were very similar when excluding visitors to the area (68%, 25% and 7%). Street-by-street analysis shows that within the whole study area 15 streets supported a parking zone while 54 streets were against. 10 streets were undecided and there was no response from two streets. 69% were against. How from that do you come to the conclusion "most people approve of it". People close to the station have had their say and they can have a parking zone if they want one. By the time the number of residents cars displaced by the new double yellow lines are taken into account I doubt they will be that much better off. Overall the result seems like a victory for common sense so far.

roywj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >[...] > The private schools are already on holiday this > week and I have already noticed a significant > reduction in congestion where I live. Air quality, > in turn, will be improved. How exactly will a CPZ in East Dulwich reduce the number of cars doing the school run?

roywj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The ULEZ will help with air pollution from diesel > cars but most petrol cars will be unaffected. The > CPZ is required to improve our air quality The proposed CPZ will do nothing to reduce air pollution. East Dulwich is a small area in a large city. The vast majority of traffic in this area passes through on the way to somewhere else. Therefore the vast majority of the traffic related pollution comes from the routes through East Dulwich like Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Road as shown on this pollution map. The CPZ will do nothing to reduce this traffic flow. The CPZ is designed to privilege one group of car owners, residents, over another, so called commuters. The cars of both groups produce pollution. The green washing of this CPZ proposal is ridiculous. So long as residents are prepared to pay they can pollute as much as they like on the school run, short trips to the shops, to the hairdresser etc.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just to reiterate, CPR is not part of the Quietway > (TfL initiative) but the Southwark Spine > (Southwark Council initiative). From the Southwark Green Party website Apr 18, 2018 https://www.southwarkgreenparty.org.uk/camberwellandpeckham "Southwark's consultation sham Why do councillors ignore residents' views? Last year, Southwark Council ran a consultation on its proposed 'Southwark Spine' cycle route. Local people and road safety experts said the designs would make cycling more dangerous, especially around Bellenden Road. In fact, 63% of people who replied opposed it. But just before the election was called, one of the Labour councillors for this area, Ian Wingfield, signed off the scheme. Eleanor Margolies says: "This makes a mockery of the idea of consultation."

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MarkT Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If people drive from the other end of East > Dulwich > > to catch a train, they must be confident of > > finding a space to park near the station. > Whether > > they are coming from Underhill Road or > Canterbury > > surely it demonstrates there is not a critical > > shortage of parking space near the station. > > ...until the commuters have got there and taken > all the available spaces, and then there are none > left during the day for carers, tradesmen, > visitors or any person unfortunate enough to have > needed to use their vehicle around the time of the > commuter influx. This is what happens on our road > (near the station) - there might be a few spaces > available early in the morning, but from 7.30 > onwards those spaces are quickly seized by > commuters (who literally circle the streets > waiting for a space to come up) and then for the > rest of the day until the commuters leave spaces > are of the hen's teeth variety. There wouldn't be > a critical shortage of parking space without the > commuter, but they are there and there is. The problem around East Dulwich station has been well documented. https://twitter.com/edstnparking However it should be obvious that the problems documented do not extend across the whole of the East Dulwich area. If you are in favour of the CPZ because you live close to East Dulwich station or in an area where there is a parking problem due to commuters can you understand why those of us who live in areas remote from the station do not support the CPZ? The problem with the TV report and the earlier radio interview was that the councillor was not challenged as to why the area of the proposed CPZ was so large. Far larger than any problem in the area around the station or the area around the shops on Lordship Lane. Also he was not asked about the increase in the amount of double yellow lines that are likely to displace as many residents cars as commuters. If on street parking on Ashbourne Grove is substantially reduced as is the plan, where do those residents cars go? The councillor will be well aware of the problems the double yellow lines of the DKH CPZ caused for residents of Grove Park. One resident there wrote ?As a resident of Grove Park, who is also the mother of young children, the new plan will make it almost impossible to obtain a parking space for me unless I pave over my front garden, which is currently full of flowers and wildlife and a space enjoyed by my whole family.? http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s76845/Appendix%202.pdf The BBC missed the chance to actually look at the proposal in the context of the area as a whole.

https://www.facebook.com/67241244613/posts/10157369402824614/

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Charles Martel Wrote: > --------------------------------------------- > > > > > Regardless of how you may feel East Dulwich is > > obviously not safe....... Nowhere in London is > > safe. > > > Nowhere anywhere is "safe" then. > > If a tragic incident happens somewhere, that > doesn't make the area "unsafe". Dennis Anderson was brutally murdered in our high street for the most trivial of reasons. His killer is still at large, armed and dangerous. There is a murderer on the loose so why would anyone feel safe? This crime fits the same pattern as many others where a random, seemingly trivial argument between strangers leads to an act of extraordinary violence. The reality is there are people who have created their own psychotic dystopia in which going around armed and prepared to kill is normal. There is absolutely nothing protecting the rest of us from these people.

Reg Smeeton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some perspective - in 1985 an off-duty policeman, > George Hammond, was stabbed at a very similar > location on Lordship Lane. And I think that was > late evening rather than the small hours. I'd say > East Dulwich felt less safe then than it does now > (in those days the East Dulwich Tavern was a > hang-out for crooks, for example). Regardless of how you may feel East Dulwich is obviously not safe. A man's dead body lying on Lordship Lane is proof of that. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687663/Man-30s-stabbed-death-south-east-London.html Crime is not caused by areas, it is caused by specific individuals, criminals who are as mobile as the rest of us. Unless you believe that we live in some sort of magically protected enclave, we are as exposed as anywhere else to crime of this type. A man was stabbed through the head in Dulwich park in 2017 by someone who wanted the price of a bottle of rum. Why do people persist in deluding themselves? Nowhere in London is safe.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know people doubt the 40% figure, but go to any > area pre and post CPZ and you'll find this to be > the case. Parking massively increases compared to > the previous situation. Yet despite regular > repeated evidence to support this, people still > doubt this. A shame. The reason the the 40% figure is doubted is that it is not based on any real evidence from an area like most of the proposed East Dulwich Car Poll tax Zone. In this area most roads are lined with terraced houses and the residents park their cars on the road. So for each house there is generally one parking space. If a road has 100 houses and each resident has 1 car then there will be 100% occupation of the available parking space. For a CPZ to reduce the number of parked cars by 40% you would need 40% of the residents to give up their cars. That is simply not going to happen in East Dulwich. None of my neighbours are going to give up their cars because of a ?125 car poll tax. Neither are their visitors going to stop coming and parking. So even if this Car Poll tax Zone were to be implemented it will have little or no benefit for the residents of most of the area. Currently occupation of the available parking space is not 100% in any case. East Dulwich is simply not an area that fills with cars on Monday morning and empties out on Friday afternoon. Generally speaking the roads in East Dulwich around Lordship Lane are pretty full of cars in the evenings and at the weekends all the time. The only time roads in this area are anything like the ?after? photo in the consultation document is between Christmas and New Year when people pack up and leave for the holidays. Clearly the 40% figure was simply cut and pasted from DKH along with the idea that we are facing a tidal wave of commuters who will supposedly park up by the library for easy access to the station. The comparison with the DKH CPZ is completely bogus. That area has two railway stations and King's College Hospital on its doorstep to attract commuters. Obviously King's has a very large workforce and large numbers of patients and visitors travelling to and from each day. It was known that some parts of the surrounding area were recommended to staff and visitors for free parking access to the hospital only a short walk away. Clearly no one is going to park in East Dulwich to access Kings College Hospital. East Dulwich has no such large employer and therefore is not a destination for large numbers of commuters. There is no evidence, outside of a small area around the station that there is any problem in this area with commuters taking up parking space. Certainly no one in the council has done any work to verify whether there is such a problem. When I went to the drop in session on Saturday I expected the council to have some data to justify this desire for a CPZ. All they would have to do to get a definitive answer would be to roll their ANPR car around the area, log number plates and see how many were registered outside the area.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Labour councillors aren't going to be interested > in stopping a proposal that taxes rich middle > class car owners and capitalist business people. The CPZ is a poll tax that will affect everyone with a car who parks it on the public highway. Home helps and carers will have to pay to visit their clients and relatives. The wide range of people using the community centre on Darrell Road will have to pay. In the same way that people did not vote LibDem to get a Tory government. People did not vote Labour to get some kind of hysterical Green anti-car agenda inflicted on them. Rich middle class people tend to have driveways.

Pugwash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > [...] > I believe that some residents are > undertaking petitions as they have discovered that > not every household received the consultation > documents. Everyone needs to submit the consultation form, either on paper or online. According to what was said at the drop in session on Saturday the council will make the decision based on what comes to them via the consultation process. Anyone who thinks that a CPZ will introduce some kind of parking nirvana into East Dulwich should read the following correspondence from residents of Grove Park in the DKH CPZ to the council. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s72980/Appendix%203%20Pre%20Statutory%20Consultation%20representations%20Referred%20to%20in%20Record%20of%20Decision.pdf https://camberwellconservationsocietyorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/2019-01-10-website-letter-to-southwark-council.pdf

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not even sure I believe some of this from > @campbellclaret :) > > "One of those memorable moments in life. In a cafe > with @Jacob_Rees_Mogg An NHS consultant comes > over, tells us the story of how his German wife, a > Doctor, left him because he voted Leave (which he > did because he thought it would mean more money > for the NHS). Heartrendingly sad" It was part of a Channel 4 news piece. As it happened: How could any grown up adult be naive enough to believe a politician promises? The issues around Britain's position in the EU as opposed to the EEC have been discussed over and over and over again in the last thirty years. This was the issue that led to the ousting of Mrs. Thatcher in 1990. In this snippet of a commons debate from Oct. 1990 you can hear all the issues Given the longevity of this issue in British politics it is absurd to claim that rational people would have made their decision based solely on the few months of the campaign. It is equally absurd that given the length of time that some politicians have been agitating for the UK to leave the EU none of them would have worked out a credible plan to do so.

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh dear, surely the OP and others are just > boasting about what they can and can't do to a > property, when there are other people desperate > for a home? Don't worry. Comrade Corbyn's socialist paradise is just around the corner.

Carlos Ezquerra the artist who created Judge Dredd. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/oct/01/judge-dredd-co-creator-carlos-ezquerra-dies-aged-70.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The lack of local knowledge demonstrated by the > individuals in attendance made me realise how very > important it is to go along to such events . Isn't the whole point of local government with local councillors in wards etc. to provide that local knowledge? Otherwise what is the point?

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think there are three issues here which are > being confounded. > [...] > > (3) Is Collection of undelivered mail from Peckham > an acceptable substitute for collection from > Sylvester Road? Here it is clear that the > location, lack of parking and long queues already > being experienced suggest that an alternative > collection point more local to SE22 is an > immediate requirement. It is this issue which most > effects people and where it is unlikely that time > will prove any remedy. This is the area where ED > people have and will continue to suffer a > significant degradation of service. It is here > that effort (assuming the issue at (2) is > resolved) should be focused. Can missed deliveries not be rescheduled, either by phone or via the web?

Jacqueline Pearce the actress who played the iconic character Servalan in 70s TV series Blake's Seven has died. Without question Servalan was one of the best villains in TV science fiction. Jacqueline Pearce obituary https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/sep/04/jacqueline-pearce-obituary Blake's 7 - A Servalan Compilation - Part 1 of 2 Blake's 7 - A Servalan Compilation - Part 2 of 2

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One word for you..Huddersfield Just the one? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6062349/Thirty-men-woman-charged-sexual-exploitation-girls-young-12.html Why not add another, Pennsylvania? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6063183/Victims-Pennsylvania-priests-share-stories-emotional-video.html You would be a fool to trust a gammon around kids any more than a kebab.

This thread:

The problems with this type of bike share scheme have been well documented in China, where these companies originate. https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/03/bike-share-oversupply-in-china-huge-piles-of-abandoned-and-broken-bicycles/556268/

Caught, plead guilty and now awaiting sentence. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5882605/Rush-hour-sex-prowler-groped-women-girl-just-EIGHT.html