sanda

I’m getting increasingly angry about the drivers I see on their phones and how dangerous they are. I’ve had so many dangerous situations recently when crossing main roads because drivers just don’t stop. Even when on a green man or at a zebra crossing. You can see their eyes are looking down at their phone and not at the road. The same with trying to cross the road in stationary traffic, I recently had one move forward at me without looking up from their phone, I had to jump back and banged on his window as he passed. He called me the c word instead of apologising for nearly running me over. Why don’t the police do anything? Whenever I walk along past cars queuing it seems about half the drivers are on their phone. The police could have a busy day fining all the drivers and I’d feel a lot safer knowing they’re not likely to be on their phones again. I just don’t get why this is tolerated when it is illegal and so dangerous?

It isn’t exactly a conspiracy that an award winning volunteer would be active in multiple groups. <massive shrug> I was at this meeting, as I was at the online meeting in 2021 and thought it was incredible what a waste of time and money was created yet again by the One Dulwich/Conservative group. They remain anonymous until their names pop up when they try to be disruptive to the Dulwich Society with some ill-thought out motions. If only those people, who also seem to post repeatedly on here, spent as much time volunteering for good in the community instead of attacking those people that are actually getting involved. This all has echos of the recent attack on the National Trust, which was also defended. Hopefully we as a country can start moving on from everything being so vitriolic and a culture-war.

I don?t have my ?own candidates?. I was just asking for transparency and honesty from those candidates who are standing. The rather feeble denial from Tristan H makes me still suspect that the VoteThemOut group is just a front for the conservatives. It would be easy for Tristan to deny any association but even he knows that it is hard to do that without lying. And I suspect he cares enough about that as a solicitor, unlike many in his party who seem very willing to lie. So this thread is about negative campaigning from a nameless group like something out of the Brexit playbook. We still don?t know who they are and we still don?t have local candidates properly denying involvement.

None of those groups you mention are sending me election literature telling me who to vote for or who not to vote for. That is the difference. And the fact you can?t see that is what is really concerning about what is happening to our democracy.

Between the Dulwich Alliance, One Dulwich and Vote them out, can you point to any transparency about what these groups are? This isn?t about conspiracy but about transparency. Maybe I?m just too old now and I shouldn?t be expecting politicians to be honest in their campaign associations. As for Labour being behind these schemes, these are funded by the Conservative Government. If they get ripped out, the conservative government cuts the funding for those councils, including their own Conservative councils: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/mar/27/get-on-your-bike-not-if-some-tory-councils-have-their-way So some transparency in who is behind all of these shadowy groups would help everyone to vote for the right candidates according to their beliefs. As it stands, it just feels like the electorate are being conned on all sides. That isn?t good for democracy.

Still no message from Tristan or Clive to disassociate the *party* from this VoteThemOut facade. Whatever party you are in, this is shoddy negative campaigning that is so clearly biased towards the conservative candidates. It is all very dishonest and really what sums up the modern Conservative party. I the whole party has had a blood transfusion of UKIP and Brexit types, and all the decent conservatives have quit or been thrown out by the party for opposing Brexit. It would be a very sad indictment of the residents of Dulwich Village Ward (with the highest car ownership in the borough) if they somehow overlook all of the problems in the Conservative party and vote for a single issue candidate from the shady Dulwich Alliance/One Dulwich group. Nothing positive will be achieved for Dulwich Village as a result of them being elected. It will be like watching Nigel Farage sitting in the European Parliament, an irritant at best, and at worst just completely marginalised by the Lib Dems and Labour and an embarrassment to the ward. Dulwich Village always seems out of touch with the rest of the borough. This was very noticeable when I watched Clive Rates speak at the council meeting and he wanted more and more time to talk about driving around Dulwich. It was embarrassing to watch. He had to be shutdown so the meeting could finally move on and talk about some really impactful problems with housing in much more deprived wards in the borough. And yet One Dulwich complained about not getting enough time - that was when their campaign really showed me who they really were. And VoteThemOut just looks like more of the same.

dulwichlawproject Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just seen this on twitter: > > https://twitter.com/THoneyborne/status/15084380807 > 09173257 > > Conservatives appear to be denying that the group > has anything to do with them. Not quite? Tristan says ?neither Clive nor I have ever had any association with the group?. Given that Tristan is a lawyer advising offshore trusts used for ?cross-border planning? (which means tax avoidance) I?m quite sure he is able to very carefully choose his words? so note that he doesn?t say the Conservatives have not been associated with Vote them Out. Just that neither he or Clive have been associated. This is beginning to feel a lot like the Downing Street parties? Anyone know what Clive?s background is?

That is if the services run at all. East Dulwich is so close to London Bridge and yet so far. A few times now I?ve taken the jubilee to Canada Water and got the Overground to Peckham Rye and then walked home from there. Quicker than waiting for the train. I wish TFL would take over that route like the overground. Southern are still a shambles.

The local conservatives seem to have turned into the political wing of the Dulwich Alliance with all the same negative tactics. You can see it in their choice of candidates in Dulwich Village and also who they now get out knocking on doors in their campaign photos. Some of those folks are really unpleasant individuals, if you?ve lived locally for a long time you?ll spot some of the notorious characters. I?ve never known such negativity and dishonesty in the area in campaigning. But even if they do officially deny any association with this campaign, I?m not sure that anyone would believe them. If Dulwich Village do elect Clive Rates and Tristan Honeyballs onto Southwark Council it will just be like when Boris and Nigel Farage go to Brussels. Nothing productive will get done, and the spectacle will be deeply embarrassing for everyone.

Roads change all the time and road signs go up and come down, including temporary ones. Part of the expectation of being a licensed driver is to keep a careful eye on surroundings and to know your Highway Code. Get it wrong, and you might pay a fine as now. Or worse, you run someone over or crash into something. If you had driven through a new ?Give Way? sign and slammed into the side of someone, would it matter when the change to the road was made?

James, that is good news! There are lots of sections of EDG where there is already ample space for a segregated cycle lane, including outside Alleyns, JAGs etc. And on village way after the junction. Also, the speed that cars race down from the Townley junction and round the curve on EDG is terrifying. If you can improve this we could get as a family from ED all the way through to the schools and village safely without using the pavements.

mako Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Could you not have just walked to the park anyway? > Now im not saying Im not pleased it is a little > bit nicer for your journey when you fancy going to > the park and cant be bothered to walk, but is that > occasional 'a bit nicer' a fair price for the > community to pay for the life threatening levels > of pollution that residents/pedestrians, walkers > cyclists on Court Lane now face for hours daily? We could just walk. But it is a long walk, and cycling on the pavement isn't something we want to do as adults. So we'd just keep driving as that is the easiest and safest option. The closures have changed that. I don't see the life threatening levels of pollution on Court Lane now, it is much easier and safer to cross, and travel along. The same with other roads in the area. Now that those are safer, we can cycle and leave the car. Other roads like Lordship Lane or the South Circular are still very busy and cycling on there isn't an option with children (except where there are sections of cycle lane off the road). At least now we have a safe option to cycle, which we didn't have before. And that means we've not used our car for any local journeys since before lockdown and saving a lot of local journeys and pollution.

We don't live on a road with a closure, but we've found it so much easier to get to the park as Eynella and Court Lane are so much quieter. The kids can actually cycle now, and the whole family can travel by bike together. Before we used to take the car. The Melbourne Grove closure has made it so much easier to get around ED without driving on Lordship Lane, or walking alongside the ever present pollution on the narrow pavements. The trip to nursery has become much safer and less pollution. We haven't used our car locally all month, but before the changes we would have used it for 8-10 trips a week before. I don't think traffic on EDG is much different to recent years. I've seen good days and bad days in the last month, just as it always has been. There are so many cars everywhere in London now it is a relief to have a few roads in our neighbourhood that aren't full of angry drivers stuck in traffic jams.

I'm in favour of the CPZ, which seems to be a rare thing, especially given that I am a keen motorist (family car parked at home, and my money-pit time-sink classic car but worth very little is in long term storage). We only moved to South London a few years ago and before that had always lived in various parts of North London with CPZs that worked very well. Shops thrived on our local roads and people walked and cycled a lot more, leaving the driving for when you need to head out of town. New shops were constantly opening and the area became nicer and more attractive. What has surprised me about East Dulwich is how much people love their cars and will drive them for even the shortest trip, behaviour that is more like what I see in the suburbs in the UK than central London (although not as bad as America). I've seen on this forum and heard in person all sorts of doomsday arguments that I find hard to believe given the years I spent living in CPZs. Such as mum's can't go to coffee shops on LL without their car, or take their children on Lordship Lane without a car to carry all the children's stuff, or buy groceries without their car. I even had a Lib Dem candidate (failed) on my doorstep claiming that tile shops will have to close if there isn't enough parking for people to load up all the tiles they've bought. And more. A few things that strike me about this CPZ that are really good: - 30 mins free parking for shops must be a good thing, it keeps the cars moving so shops will have a new car parked outside their shop every 30 mins. Why isn't that good for custom? I rarely go to Lorship Lane by car as I find it impossible to ever park due to the number of cars that park for long periods. The only times I ever drive there is if I'm dropping stuff off at a charity shop and even then have to park on double yellows. Providing short term parking is ideal for people from near and far who want to pop into the shops. If you need longer, you pay just a few pounds. Given the high cost of land in London, the cost of parking seems remarkably cheap! - increased pedestrian space and cycle parking is a good thing for everyone. The reality is that we all need to change our transport usage. Dulwich is a lovely green area but there are too many cars! I know I might sound like a hypocrite as a keen motorist, but central London isn't designed for lots of cars. Lordship Lane has frequent busses going up and down the road and it is very well served by public transport. Blocking up the road with cars parked all day just leaves less space for shoppers coming by car, and less space for pedestrians, mum's with buggies, children on bikes and scooters and so on. My son loves to cycle and he is only 5, but hates Lordship Lane saying "it is really smelly with the cars, and there isn't any space". I agree. I don't like pushing our baby down their either. The shops on Lordship Lane would get more custom if it wasn't so clogged up with vehicles. It really could be made so much nicer and the changes to the pavements should be welcomed. - the cost of a parking permit is insignificant compared to the overall cost of running a vehicle. I think many people do not realise just how expensive a car is to run and there are so many other forms of transport that are cheaper and more efficient. The arguments then often go to the fact old people or the disabled must use a car, but that isn't true. My parents and in-laws visit us from out of town, are very old and one of them requires a wheelchair. And yet when here we walk around and use the pavements (except when their are so many blocked cars obstructing wheelchairs!). Disabled users can also apply for blue badges, so if they need to park, they can. I've also noticed some criticism of the local councillors for being Corbynites. From what I have seen, they are certainly not Corbynites and one even told me on my doorstep how much they hated Corbyn! I was unfortunate enough to live for 3 years in Jeremy Corbyn's constituency in Islington (he is dreadful on every level), and in that borough the resident's permit charges track vehicle emissions similar to VED, so the yummy mummy driving to the local cafe in a Landrover Discovery in Islington would be paying ?475 a year for a parking permit. Ouch! - My main concern about the East Dulwich scheme is that it doesn't include the road we live on and I do expect spill over from the CPZ. The zone should be extended further but the fringes of the zone should have much shorter restricted hours (e.g. 10-12). A few hours a day will stop people from leaving cars in these residential areas, but will mean only a minor inconvenience to visitors: disabled badge holders would pay nothing, tradesmen and other visitors would need a scratchcard for just the 2 hour window. This was exactly what we had in the area we lived in NW London, and the cost was ?1.80 a day for a tradesman during the working day. Again, compared to the cost of cars, and tradesmen, a small price to pay and it mean tradesmen could actually park closer - often saving us money in reduced charges from their hourly charges. We still visit friends in that area, by car, and it really isn't a problem. East Dulwich will survive! I think the proposals to charge for parking in the local parks are also a good idea, but again will result in spillover and so the CPZ (very limited hours) should be extended to cover all of the areas around these parks too. I do find it amazing how I see people drive 1/2 a mile to go and park in Dulwich Park to then walk their dog in the park...

The updated OFSTED report from the second inspection has been published online: https://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/CARE/EY489739 The nursery has moved from Inadequate to "Requires Improvement" across the four categories. On the ground, there have been a lot of changes. The manager and assistant manager both left in the aftermath of the first report. One or other was clearly part of the problem (as many parents suspected) and several staff who had left in the past year have now returned and the atmosphere has certainly improved, although there is a long way still to go. There is a new manager who is bringing improvements and tightening up on the sloppiness we saw in the past. There are more new staff, and overall numbers of staff appear to have increased. Admin is improving, but billing is still chaotic and we know of many parents who have had to calculate their own bills to keep tabs on it. Parents have an active parents group on Facebook, so any parents not on it should join as it is the best way to keep up with news. Like many parents, our little one is leaving Le Nid this summer. Many parents have already pulled children out, others are simply waiting for other places to come up in other nurseries or school or pre-prep this September. For parents that are there, I know of none who are sending their 2nd child to Le Nid. Given the improvements, why the departures? The most disappointing aspect for many of us has been the attitude from the owners of the nursery in response to the inspections. After each inspection, parents would receive an email trying to excuse the poor result by criticising the complainant for being anonymous, dismissing the grounds for the complaint, and explaining how the nursery were caught out at short notice. The fact is, that the ratings speak for themselves. We didn't make any formal complaints to OfSted, although we would have had several reasons to do so over the past year, but it is disappointing that the owners of the Nursery still do not seem to be ready to admit that they got it wrong, and that they need to improve. We get the impression that action is now only happening out of a need to ensure the rating improves due to the withdrawal of Southwark Council funding and concerns about bad publicity. I wish all the staff at Le Nid well, but the owners (and the investors behind them) need a change of approach to ensure that they fully empower the staff of Le Nid to make the necessary improvements.