ed26

Can't deny that I love a good juice. It's a treat though, and a healthier choice than a Coke or a "juice drink" with added sugar and additives. But what niggles me is juices that are mainly apple or grape in spite of their name - Joe & the Juice used to do a berry juice with ingredients listed as strawberries, raspberries, blackberries, etc., but the majority of the base was apple. Even Tropicana's Orange & Raspberry juice is 40% apple, despite it not being in the name. Just thought I'd add to the juice rant.

Definitely less poo on the streets than 40 years ago (I can't comment on 49), but also definitely more on the streets than 10 years ago. Not really sure what resulted in the reduction - was it that it became socially unacceptable to leave dog poo around, or that the public became more aware of the health risks, or better cleaning from the Council? But the jokes about "you don't see white dog poo any more" seemed to correspond with the reduction. But there seems to be more irresponsible dog owners than 10+ years ago in general, and not just lockdown pups, as this trend has been happening since I moved to ED. My daughter gets sniffed around by lots more dogs than previously (and she's scared of dogs), and owners have become increasingly shirty when I've asked them to try to keep their dogs away. There's a lot more dogs off leads in the "on leads" part of the park, like around the pond. And a woman recently was letting her dog sniff around the kids' picnics in the no dogs picnic area, justifying it with "don't worry, she's harmless." Another woman let her dog curl out a massive one right next to my car when I was about to get in it, but when I asked her what she was going to do about it, she told me to "f?%*k off." The Council also seemed to reduce cleaning efforts during lockdown that haven't been reinstated recently. The amount of poo, fly-tipping, etc. is a disgrace (and gutter weeds, although I'm not sure whether this is the same department as street cleaning).

I've just completed this, and the theme of the questions seems to suggest that the needs of cyclists who are passing through Rye Lane on the way to the City will be prioritised above passengers who are travelling to Rye Lane. If there really isn't enough room for both cycles and buses, then why shouldn't cyclists be diverted around Copeland Road? Don't get me wrong - I don't think that cyclists should be rerouted off Rye Lane, but it seems a bit crazy to prioritise people who are passing the station over people who are travelling TO the station. Part of me wonders if this is all part of the plan to do away with the 12/78 routes - you aren't going to get the 78 from Nunhead to go back on yourself to Copeland Road, just to get to the station, and it would be easier to get the 40/176/185 to Denmark Hill rather than walk from Copeland Road to Peckham Rye station. so then TfL can claim that there's a big reduction in bus usage.

I lived in a town with 20-min bus services. The bus co reduced the frequency to 30 mins. The number of passengers consequently declined so they reduced the frequency to 60 mins. After you've just missed a bus and had to wait 59 mins for the next one, you vow never to take the bus again and you drive into the town centre. The point is that the bus co took one bus an hour off the service to save a few quid, and it completely decimated it. This is exactly what has been happening in London and will continue to happen until the services are as unreliable as they were 15-20 years ago.

So much wrong (yet right) about the article... It gave me a giggle anyway. I'm assuming that Adam sits around at home all day looking wistful and plagiarising John Lennon, while poor Liz has to hold down three jobs just to pay for the nanny to look after their gender neutrally-clothed children, Casper, India and Namaste. Debbie probably worked in Marketing at RBS 20 years ago and is referred to as "banker" to make sure the Brexiteers REALLY hate her. @Angelina - yes, technically Bellenden Road is Peckham as it's SE15 but it does *feel* very East Dulwich at that end of the road, and it's nearer to ED Station than either Peckham station, so we'll let them off. Some estate agents even call it "Bellenden Village" The comments about the extensions looking like a shanty town and sheds are spot on IMHO. Perhaps an amicable solution would be to knock both extensions down and build a proper terraced house extension with a proper party wall. It would look a hell of a lot better anyway. It does make me a bit sick how the tabloids trawl social media to find photos of people in their stories, in situations that are completely unrelated to the issue. But then there's probably a lesson to be learned about not posting your holiday snaps for the whole world to see. I'm questioning the need for a business that makes gender neutral clothing for 3-12 year olds. It's not like you can't find jeans and t-shirts that aren't all pink princesses and blue diggers in Primark (although I support the idea of ethical / sustainable clothing and you certainly can't buy that in Primark). But hey, if it's made Adam and Liz into millionaire hipsters then good on them. I still have this niggling thought that Adam has sold this story to the press to promote his band though.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I had a postal vote and went the scientific route > in my selection. Only 3 candidates had their > addresses on the ballot, so they got my votes (2 > LD's and a Green). I think this is a worthy approach - I took a similar approach in the last GE as only one of the main (i.e. not Legalise Cannabis Now or whatever) candidates lived in the constituency. Can't remember if it was Green or LibDems now. Fat lot of good it did us though.

My satnav directed me around a load of back streets around Nunhead and Peckham on Tuesday to avoid those roadworks so it's quite likely.

The http://votethemoutmay22.org.uk/how-to-vote/ website has finally been updated with some suggestions of how to vote tactically to try to oust Labour. Contrary to some earlier comments, it isn't entirely pro-Conservatives. I am a few yards into the Rye Lane ward, where Labour got 80% of the vote last time around. I can't see them being toppled this time with that kind of majority. That's probably why they put the least effective councillors in this ward, who you only hear from at election time. There's a full breakdown of 2018 results here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Southwark_London_Borough_Council_election I'd say that, unless Conservatives are a very close second, voting for them could be a waste as I can't imagine their popularity increasing in the current circumstances. Lib Dems always seem to do well on a local basis (and deserve to, in my experience) and also when voters are looking to send a sign to their usual party. So my guess is that they would be best placed to take some of the closer seats. Dulwich Village was very close 2nd place for Lib Dems / Conservatives last time around. The anti-Labour vote risks being split between the anti-LTN Conservatives and the anti-Conservative LibDems. Would be lovely to end the Southwark dictatorship and get a bit more balance on the Council but I don't think any of the opposition is strong enough, sadly.

I finally feel part of this forum now that I've received my own sneering comment from goldilocks. I bet he/she/they spat their soy chai latte all over the screen while typing "hilarious" I'm clearly not as familiar with Tristan's work in the same way as goldilocks is, but my point was that "cross border" does not necessarily imply anything nefarious is going on. Just because clients legal advice doesn't mean that they are managing a portfolios of offshore accounts in the Caribbean. goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hilarious take there - moments away from > suggesting its pretty much all pro bono > > To be clear, the type of work Tristan (Tory > candidate) does is very very far away from what > you've suggested. > >

Can't see what's wrong with this really. Every time there's a General Election, there's plenty of websites that guide people in voting tactically to try to oust a monopoly party, where the opposition is fractured. That's exactly what's happening here. (And re the comment about cross-border planning, it probably just means cases like if a UK Citizen marries an EU Citizen and they have assets, family or beneficiaries in both jurisdictions. Not necessarily sinister).

Agree re Richer Sounds - nice crew in the Tooley Street store. I'm on my 4th TV in 35 years with each of the previous ones lasting 10+ years. I don't think this one will last as long due to the apps. At some point, Amazon, Netflix, etc., will stop supporting that model and you'll be left with a perfectly good TV that can only play from plugged-in devices (BluRay, Sky box, Fire Stick, etc). That's not a complaint, but the way things are these days, just like apps no longer supporting a mobile phone that's more than 5 years old, or software no longer supporting Windows 7. Planned obsolescence, unfortunately. My previous TVs were Panasonic and were brilliant. This one is Samsung. No particular reason. Great picture and much better sound than expected (don't underestimate good sound quality - turn it up LOUD in the showroom and check for distortion and rattles, as a TV that sounds good loud should sound great at normal volumes), but it's quirky. Will switch off or reboot for no reason, and it has ads on the home screen, which really bugs me for something I've paid outright for. I would think all brands are the same though. Richer Sounds often have stock of last year's models, with hundreds of pounds off - you'll get a much better TV if you buy last year's ?600 TV for ?350, compared to this year's ?350 TV. So bear in mind that this purchase may not last as long as you've been used to, and don't pay over the odds for a new model or gimmicks like Alexa (I can walk to the other end of the house and tell Alexa to turn the TV off in the room I've just left - that's how useful I find it). If you have any other recent kit, then it might be worth brand matching so you can use a single remote for all devices. At 40", don't go out of your way for 4K/UHD as you won't notice much difference at that size. And WiFi is useful but you'll get better streaming and fewer settings to mess around with if you can plug it in with a network cable. Stay with a good brand that is known for TVs - Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, LG, Philips. You'll get seemingly good brands in Tesco or Asda for ?100 less (Bush, Polaroid, etc) but you'll get half the quality for a small saving.

Are you saying that this is an overdevelopment as you feel that Lordship Lane is being over developed. Or is it an over development as it's being developed over Lordship Lane? If it's the former, then the title should be changed to "development" as "overdevelopment" is just an opinion.

Why on earth will another vintage, hot food and artisan goods market "attract people to the area?" There's plenty of these markets in Clapham, Brixton, Forest Hill and, erm, just up the road on North Cross Road. If it really must be another market, it needs to be a proper old-fashioned working market - fruit & veg, meat, fish, provisions, etc., sold at competitive prices so that it is a facility for the wider community, not somewhere where you can get a sausage roll for ?5 and a "previously loved" C&A dress for ?50. It also needs to be up and running by 8am so local users can get what they need for the day before heading to work.

My water bill went down a lot when I moved to a meter, even though I resisted having a meter as long as I could. The only problem was that the mains sprung a leak between the meter and my boundary, so there was a lot of arguing with the water company about the responsibility for the cost of the water, but they paid up eventually.

> Funny, half the posts are positive and half are > trying to find a hitch. They have to find a hitch if they aren't going to be able to moan about the buses idling outside the cemetery any more. It's a great development and shows how far technology has come - it isn't so long since hybrid double deckers and electric single deckers were state of the art. I'm not sure if the "old chestnut" comment referred to the Honor Oak Park suggestion. I've never seen it on EDF before. Seems like a sensible idea, as it would double the opportunities for getting back to the area from the City on the Overground. I would think it's been considered before and I can't see how it would be easy to turn the buses around down there. Now that the buses are electric, it must be easier to make buses that can travel both backwards and forwards (with reversible seats like old trams) or can turn on a sixpence like black cabs.

Being anti-cyclists who jump red lights, or cycle through zebra crossings while pedestrians are crossing, or who cycle on the pavement, or through pedestrianised areas, or without lights, doesn't mean you are anti-cyclist or pro car. I'm quite anti-drivers who do these things too. There's just fewer of them.

I tried that too but lasted less than a week. They wanted me to post stuff from a Post Office counter. Eff that for a game of soldiers. Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Re monitoring, some years back, they used people > who sent and received items to and from different > areas. > > The items were not recognisable to Royal Mail > staff (in theory) and the addresses were hand > written. > > I did it for a while. I was "paid" in books of > first class stamps, and sometimes commemoration > packs (not sure what they are called). > > I had to record when particular items were sent by > me, and when others were received. Some I had to > post over the counter and get proof of posting. > > I got fed up with it after a while 😀 > > But I still have loads of first class stamps. > Handy for cards 🤣

Isn't it fair to assume that the parade of anti-LTN signs on EDG and Dulwich Common indicate that traffic hasn't reduced on those roads? They would be foolish to leave the signs up if the LTNs had improved their quality of life so much.

we have evidence in the form of traffic > data - which shows traffic is significantly > reduced for the largest section, between Melbourne > Grove and Townley (where the Charter school, > health centre and Dutch Estate is). Is that because all the traffic that used to use Townley Road / Melbourne Grove / East Dulwich Grove to avoid Lordship Lane now goes down Crystal Palace Road instead?

Ha. I'll try not to get sucked in. But.... as I have seen on CPR.... Driving - obvious. It's far busier than it used to be. There's always been a bit of congestion around the nursery but it's the streams of cars that is the problem. When 10 vehicles going one way come across 10 vehicles going the other way and one is a bit too wide or one driver refuses to pull in a bit (I've never understood that) then it all grinds to a halt. Cyclists - it's got busier due to the Spine route and people returning to work in the City. I guess many of these are just passing through and not local residents but they weave in and out of the waiting traffic, cycling on the wrong side of the road when there's traffic coming down the other way, and try to squeeze through gaps while the cars are trying to manoeuvre into spaces to let traffic pass the other way. So the LTN has made it more dangerous for those cyclists. Pedestrians - it's just not as nice walking up CPR as it used to be. Maybe I'm comparing a cold grotty winter day with a lovely spring morning but it's just not a pleasant experience walking up a road next to gridlocked traffic with cars belching out fumes and builders shouting obscenities at each other and blasting their horns. Makes me want to drive. I know we need to do something to reduce unnecessary car journeys but this isn't it. It's just funnelling traffic that didn't previously need to be on CPR onto CPR and p*ssing everyone off.

I haven't paid a lot of attention to the LTN stuff as I walk far more than I drive. But I read up on it a bit last week after the South Circular was closed. It seems batsh*t crazy to close off so many local roads to improve the conditions of a few households on said roads, while the conditions on the through roads have become hugely worse - for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Did anyone really think it through? I walk up Crystal Palace Road almost every day, and occasionally drive when I have a car load. The stretch between The Actress and The Great Exhibition is rammed now and all it takes is for a John Lewis sized van to try to get up there and the whole thing grinds to a halt. So when I drive, I occasionally head around Darrell or Hindmans Road, so how long will it be before they want the roads closed off, and then the traffic moves across to Barry Road and so on? It won't be long before there's only a few through roads in the whole area. And who on earth thought that the closure in Dulwich Village is a good idea? Dulwich Village streets that are only accessible from East Dulwich? Utter madness. I'm sure this has all been said before but I can't be bothered to read through hundreds of pages of arguments. Just my two-penneth.

Some good acts on the lineup this year. Looks like it's growing.

I hope you're of reasonable fitness > because I need to be at work for 9:15am. > Smug alert....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnFAAdOBB1c

> There is currently a Traffic Regulation Order on > it specifically preventing it. You can't just go > "oh that doesn't apply for a few days", there is a > legally binding process to go through. If that is the case then the contingency planning should have highlighted this as a risk and given the Council the power to suspend the cameras as required. It just highlights the fact that the various road closures and bus gates have not been thought through properly.

It doesn't need much effort at all. I don't think that anyone is saying that a few changes could completely relieve the effects of a major leak or other blockage of the South Circular. There's no need to update sat navs. No need to divert main road traffic through Dulwich Village or Court Road. Just turn off the cameras and move the planters for a few days and post this info on Southwark's website and social media. It would make a lot of local people's lives easier for the few days, and take a little bit of pressure off the South Circular. But the issue isn't whether stuff can/can't be done, it's the Council (or maybe just a rogue Councillor) stating that it isn't the Council's responsibility, which leaves me wondering if they have any contingency plans if the South Circular was closed for a longer period of time, or if a more significant blockage occurred.