Ampersand

Looks like it’s back up now.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So it is sanctioned by the council.......a list of > rules...my goodness...if it turns out the > portaloos have been provided by the council at tax > payers' expense then we really do know the council > is utterly out of control. I?m totally clutching my pearls too darling!

Yes, I think I?ll be voting. I?m in Dulwich Wood ward and despite a great deal of ambivalence about the Labour Party and politics generally, I have always had very prompt responses to issues i have raised with Andy Simmonds. As I have a pair of fully functioning legs and couldn?t afford to run a car even if I wanted to, the whole LTN thing is pretty much irrelevant to people like me.

monica Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dontbesilly, The CCTV you refer to is the TFL > camera not CCTV. I was chatting to some other > forumites on the lane today, whilst drinking my > oat cappuccino and flashing my black amex around. > The other forumites think you are a hoot, > absolutely hilarious, sad pathetic and hilarious. > How silly of you to mistake a TFL camera for CCTV. > You really are silly billy, or maybe you are a > hillbilly. > Now jog on back to the borders where you belong, > don't forget the binocluars, so you can stare at > ED lovingly, wantingly and lustfully. > This is fun, sporting with the peasants > > Well, you sound nice. Remind us of the name of that shop you own again?

🙃

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > No co-incidence is it that since the closures came > into place Lordship Lane and the A205 have been > snarled up most times of the day? East Dulwich > Grove has seen a noticeable increase in the amount > of traffic, but, of course, because the council > aren't monitoring those places they have no data > to show what is actually happening. How > convenient. > I live next to the A205. My living room windows look out onto the stretch of the South Circular that runs up the hill from the Grove Tavern to the Horniman Museum and this assertion is basically untrue. I?m currently working from home and have regular opportunities to look out of the window. The traffic is no busier than it always has been.

*

Genuinely encouraged by the altruistic responses to this thread about concern for people on lower incomes and their access to the green spaces in the borough. I can?t afford to own a car so do pm me about when you are available to pick me up and give me a lift to my local park.

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can't be bothered to click on some link. > > Somebody just told me to F off earlier back but > not bothered really. > > As usual, Rendal et al turns the thread around to > their own advantage and assumes I'm a 'she' > > Totally laughable response by some! > > Get on your bike! Oh dear. How embarrassing for you. Another thread you have started that you have been comprehensively owned on.

Another recommendation for James from me. Excellent service and very reasonable prices.

Applespider Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I?m wondering how many of those making light of > the situation have been even remotely affected? I live at the Lordship Lane end of Underhill Road and take either the 363 or P4 to work so yes, quite a bit.

I?m wondering how many of these people whining about traffic on back streets own a car.

Nobody did. Classic straw man. Just as well they invented public transport then, eh? > > It?s appalling to tell people they are lazy > because they don?t walk or cycle to the shops. You > never truly know the reasons, anxieties and > situations as to why people make their > choices.Some people with significant physical and > mental impairments but not severe disability won?t > qualify for a blue badge. I live on Dunstans road > so for me it?s quick and easy to whizz down the > hill to Lordship lane on my bike and it?s really > nice in the sunshine but it?s a tough long long > steep sweaty incline to get back home and harder > when it?s raining or windy. I imagine it wouldn?t > be easy to do with children or lots of shopping or > with my dad. Frequent daily shopping might not be > an option for everyone so they are more likely to > use online options which will affect local > business. > > >

Not really. People with serious disabilities tend to have a blue badge. However I see a lot of older people and those with mobility issues on the bus. Do you? tomskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not at all. I live at the furthest outpost of SE22 > so it is a good 20 minutes walk for me to get to > LL. If I want to do a food shop at the Co-Op or > M&S plus a potter around all my other favourite > shops and the market that's another 20 minutes > walk back up the hill with a load of shopping > bags. I'll still nip down to LL for the odd thing > from Greetings or Farmers, no doubt, but can see > myself otherwise driving to Crystal Palace for > High Street type shopping. > > As an aside, I'd suggest you don't accuse people > you don't know of being lazy - just incase they > have a disability of some kind, or are maybe in > the 70+ age bracket. That would be embarrassing > for you.

That you are too lazy not to use your car? I guess it is yes. tomskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I will definitely go elsewhere to shop if I have > to pay for parking on or near Lordship Lane. Such > a shame for our local independents.

?Will no one think of the servants?!? Possibly the most ridiculous argument so far.

That's not what I meant and I don't think it will - it is more that this professed concern for a thriving high street is BS. Same as the 'concern' for people on lower incomes or those with mobility issues. As you say, its all about people wanting to park right outside their houses. > > Oh come off it. Do you really think a CPZ will > lead to less pollution on the Lane? It's more > about residents wanting to be able to park right > outside their houses.

New account. Three posts. Who is this ?our? you are referring to? Your concern for ?our lovely and unique high street? reeks of diesel. dulwichresident01 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's recently come to our attention that the > council are yet again proposing controlled parking > on all the side streets off Lordship Lane. > > Whilst fewer cars would be welcome, I have grave > concerns for our lovely and unique high street > which makes East Dulwich what it is today. Surely > this will massively disrupt the trade of all our > lovely shops and in turn kill the high street? > Imagine Lordship Lane without all it's > indpendents... > > I for one love the Lane and would hate to see it > affected in this way.

I?m at the Horniman End of Underhill Road too. All I would suggest is if you have a problem with aircraft noise in East Dulwich is do not move to West London under any circumstances. I lived in Chiswick for ten years and don?t even notice the planes over ED. Motor traffic on the other hand...

SpringTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps that's because I'm not a big fan of > homosexuality. Of course you?re not darling. Who might think that?

They have left South London's very own Spring-Heeled Jack off that list who was seen around Forest Hill and Peckham in the 1830s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring-heeled_Jack JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As my physics teacher used to say - even if you > see something and others do too - you can never > tell you haven't participated in a group mass > hysteria event (which happens) > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria > > The latest mass hysteria event in Wikis list - > Killer Clowns in 2016

Another vote for the Capitoline Museums and the Galleria Borghese - both of which are amazing. If you are interested in Ancient Rome I'd also suggest the Palazzo Altemps and Palazzo Massimo which form part of the Museo Nazionale Romano which are both pretty central and not very busy and can be visited on the same ticket I think. Also the ceiling at the Sant'Ignazio Jesuit church or for that matter the Pantheon which is close by. It is also worth remembering St. Peter's opens at 7am so can be visited early if you are staying nearby when it is usually practically empty.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Is there any local car lobby? > > I'll ask the next 50 people I talk with. Maybe when you are all sitting in the same traffic jam perhaps?

I live on Lordship Lane and it is noticeably quieter. The old ones sounded like someone was trying to suck your brains out of your ear with a vacuum cleaner. Hopefully the new buses have heating too. I remember regularly been absolutely frozen in winter by the time you eventually reached Tottenham Court Road on the old 176.

By definition a 'pedestrianised' Oxford Street would mean no cyclists and something as someone who uses a bike to get to work I wouldn't have a problem with tbh. Most people on Oxford Street seem to walk around in a trance as it is. There was another clickbait article in the Standard yesterday about banning black cabs from a 'pedestrainised' Oxford Street. I'm not sure of the logistics, but couldn't bus routes terminate at each end of Oxford Street, St. Giles and Marble Arch?