Penguin68

It is worthwhile noting that the original technical meaning was 'a reduction of 10%', which does not, to my mind, chime at all with 'drastically reduce'. I know that's how it is, I think lazily, often used nowadays but it does allow 'decimate' to be used so loosely that it loses meaning. And it can be confusing to those who know it's original meaning. I think that the fact that decimate and devastate are close homonyms does not help things here.

Many have already suggested, including some in Ryedale, that full width speed humps would do much to reduce driver speeds and seems an immediate possible remedy. The width of the road through much of its length additionally causes two way traffic to slow down and pass only with caution, again addressing speed issues. Local people, I am one, frequently use the cross roads to access Underhill from Forest Hill Road/ Peckham Rye and vice versa. The more of these open, the less traffic each one carries. And the less nuisance to residents. Those who wish to exclude others from using roads they live in are nimbys of the worst sort, but wishing speeds to be reduced for safety is entirely reasonable.

There is virtually nowhere that is, except perhaps the few remains of the temperate rain forest in the West of the country. Even the apparently wilder parts are actually the result of agriculture or game management.

But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error.

Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves.

Yiddish is written in Hebrew script, traditionally, so any attempt to use 'Roman' script will be transliteration, as noted. Hebrew script does not have vowels as such, so any vowels used will try to copy the Yiddish sound of the word. Bagel and Beigel are both correct transliterations of the Yiddish word.

To be fair, this is both a very valid issue to raise, and one which would be very difficult to research, not least because there are no valid measurements for emissions at the key 'manoeuvre' spots before the introduction of the changes for comparison. Face validity would suggest that there must be some additional emissions, but exactly what, and what the implications of these are, will be very difficult to measure in a way which can't be reasonably challenged.

Not first thing this morning

I live on the route itself, so see the buses passing, or not, on an hourly basis. But please, your occasional use will Trump me on the basis of lived experience. I'm sure.

When it's running (there's a long run of Underhill to have road blocking road works in) and even when it does run, like all hoppers it's much less regular than its published timetable would allow.

My point was that there was no consultation on this so far as I can recall; if ward policy is to be decided, then asking people in the ward for their views might be a democratic starting point. Unless you believe that ward policy should be the remit of the Labour councillors only... Oh you probably do believe that. As do the Labour councillors no doubt.

It required legislation to identify the beneficial owners of properties in the UK held by overseas companies - and these still haven't been properly disclosed - ownership of things isn't just a google search away - and to suggest otherwise is not to understand how capitalism works. Unless you (cyclemonkey) do have access to that knowledge and would like to share.

Agreed with whom? one wonders. Not (knowingly) with me, for sure. As an elector in Dulwich Hill. Agreed with someone in Ryedale, one assumes.

Out of interest it also, rather tellingly, excludes topography from this map - Camberwell Old Cemetery is built on a hill (the hill that gives our ward its new name) and which means that for the old and/ or infirm the cycling and walking routes up and down this hill pose real barriers, very much lost on this map without contours. If East Dulwich is now to be only the land of the young and the fit - well shame on every councillor who has (possibly unthinkingly) endorsed this.

The way this all reads it would seem increasingly possible to suggest a conspiracy between unnamed individuals who live in Rydale, indeed possibly just one individual, and redacted councillors aiming to bypass advice and democratic consultation to achieve, well, what? Chaos it might seem and considerable very poor and discriminatory knock-on effects. And not ones which fall, I might argue, in the unintended consequences box, but rather intended consequences to make life worse for those reliant on, or simply choosing, 4 wheeled transport. I write as someone very local to Rydale, on Underhill, who has relied on accessing my GP surgery, pharmacist, Post Office, dry cleaner... etc. whilst in ill health. Rydale is not (just, if at all) a rat run for the dreaded foreigner - it is an artery for people who live locally. Or now a private road for just those people who live in Rydale, and hang the rest!