Jump to content

Recommended Posts

it will flash back to burn the fingers of @SouthwarkLabour.


I doubt it. The 'fury' you read about in these pages represents only a small number of the electorate. There would need to be very clear campaigning around a single issue to make any difference, and it is most unlikely that sufficient non Labour and non Lib-Dem votes - for just one candidate, to succeed - could be mustered. Lib Dems broadly support Labour as regards being anti-car (that's anti private car ownership, a stated Labour policy).


You need a cause as big as Independence (vide The Scots Nats defeat of incumbent and entrenched Labour party 'couldn't give a damn about the electorate' local and national politicians) to make any difference.


Southwark is not a 'swing' council in that way. At least, not about a car issue.

Well, it does make sense. Having blocked off part of MG to traffic the last thing you want is nasty, polluting school coaches damaging children's lungs at the school entrance. Better to send them onto a main road and increase pollution there and it will also teach those drivers commuting through to work a jolly good lesson...how dare they pollute the local area with their fumes and damage children's lungs, don't they know there's a school there.
All 3 with engines on......idling for over 30mins. For LTN supporters..when it suits ED Grove is a main transit road, so no stopping allowed, other times it is a school road so coaches can stop and idle on a double yellow. As long as the nice houses, with nice gardens and nice people can have peace and quiet and NOx levels below 20 then that?s all that matters. Who cares if the independent measurement of NOx and traffic on ED Grove as measured by the not so independent council have both increased by at least 25% since the gated communities got what they wanted....

Assume these are a one off coach for something related to Charter? It isn't ok for them to leave engines idling - have you contacted the school about this? Assume they're for a trip or a fixture or something as they obviously don't have coaches daily.



Not sure that any LTN supporter would be suggesting that coaches should stop and idle - in fact know of many who have spent years discussing/ reporting the foundation schools to their coaches manager to work with them to stop this.

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Seems to cut both ways.

>

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I have absolutely no reason to think you?ll

> accept

> > any data that does not show what you want it

> to.

> > You?ve dismissed TfL data, freely available in

> > it?s entirety. You?ve pretty much rubbished all

> > the research on active travel. I could produce

> a

> > glossy pamphlet with ?open everything to cars

> and

> > the air will be clear and traffic a thing of

> the

> > past? if you want 🤷 in fact I think One

> > Dulwich already have some.


I must of missed the research that shows an increase in road capacity reduces the number of car journeys and increases active travel. If you can point me to it, I'll look at it with an open mind.

I see that Lambeth gated communities are now going to have CCTV and policing spent on them to keep the unwashed away from the peaceful q?white areas.....more and more like an American gated community everyday that passes. Rosamund Kissi Debrah must watch on with deep despair.

Out of curiosity - which coach firm?


If it's the same firm that regularly serve Harris Boys on Peckham Rye, it's pointless asking them to switch their engines off - you get ignored at best and told to "f'off back on your bicycle" at worst. And reporting it to the coach firm doesn't make any difference. Believe me I've tried.

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I see that Lambeth gated communities are now going

> to have CCTV and policing spent on them to keep

> the unwashed away from the peaceful q?white

> areas.....more and more like an American gated

> community everyday that passes. Rosamund Kissi

> Debrah must watch on with deep despair.


That?s funny a ?gated community? is what One Dulwich/DA is pushing for! A permit system where everyone in Dulwich (whatever that means) gets a permit, which would allow the ?washed? to drive in and out of their nice neighbourhood into poorer areas of town. Of course the unwashed won?t be let in as they won?t have a permit.


Where?s the equality in that you ask on behalf Rosemund Kissi Debra?

  Quote
Still...they should be on Melbourne not ED Grove.


Even when Melbourne wasn't filtered, you wouldn't have got a coach down there. The buses (back in the days when the 37 went along it) could barely make it round the bend. Certainly now it is filtered at the ED station end, if you put a coach in there it wouldn't be able to turn around - putting three coaches down there is not an option.


Second the comment about reporting them. Email to the coach firm with the school and Southwark environment copied in as it's both noise and air pollution. You're right, complaining to the drivers is usually a waste of time.



  Quote
I see that Lambeth gated communities are now going to have CCTV and policing spent on them to keep the unwashed away from the peaceful q?white areas


Maybe if the anti-LTN'ers would like to stop pouring engine oil into planters, spray painting signs and vandalising cameras, that money could be spent elsewhere?!

https://brixtonblog.com/2021/07/council-to-act-against-ltn-vandals/


Pouring engine oil over plants is just despicable. Honestly, one (heavily anonymised) photo of a Clean Air for All poster next to a massive SUV, the forum goes into meltdown. Repeated vandalism costing tens of thousands to fix and your complaint is that the council are spending money on trying to prevent it?! Not that people are committing criminal damage and (rather ironically) polluting the very streets they seem so keen on "protecting"? I think your ire is aimed at the wrong people...

It?s Rosamund Kissi Debrah, have some respect for a real clean air campaigner and at the very least have a go at getting her name right and I?m not a member of one Dulwich and they don?t speak for me or I for them. CCTV and extra policing for a failed project is ridiculous, especially when told there isn?t enough money for proper air monitoring. LTNs benefit a few, wealthy rich areas, who have a high car ownership and nice bike racks on their SUVs.

Interesting point about coaches. I've seem sitting their idling, for example outside Horniman museum. Asked them to switch their engines off and the driver has ignored me. These are school buses for heavens sake. You save fuel, money and reduce your emissions. I've had the same response from cops sitting their with a takeaway, with the engine running. Sad that small measures like switching your engine off, or smoother use of the accelerator and brake pedals, will reduce emissions yet many couldn't give a monkeys. I've discussed this on the lounge before - difficult to enforce and more needs to be done to encourage. Schools tend to be pretty good at no idling zones.


Not directly relevant to LTNs but very relevant to air quality and climate change.

exdulwicher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Still...they should be on Melbourne not ED Grove.

>

> Even when Melbourne wasn't filtered, you wouldn't

> have got a coach down there. The buses (back in

> the days when the 37 went along it) could barely

> make it round the bend. Certainly now it is

> filtered at the ED station end, if you put a coach

> in there it wouldn't be able to turn around -

> putting three coaches down there is not an

> option.

>

> Second the comment about reporting them. Email to

> the coach firm with the school and Southwark

> environment copied in as it's both noise and air

> pollution. You're right, complaining to the

> drivers is usually a waste of time.

>

>

> I see that Lambeth gated communities are now going

> to have CCTV and policing spent on them to keep

> the unwashed away from the peaceful q?white areas

>

> Maybe if the anti-LTN'ers would like to stop

> pouring engine oil into planters, spray painting

> signs and vandalising cameras, that money could be

> spent elsewhere?!

> https://brixtonblog.com/2021/07/council-to-act-aga

> inst-ltn-vandals/

>

> Pouring engine oil over plants is just despicable.

> Honestly, one (heavily anonymised) photo of a

> Clean Air for All poster next to a massive SUV,

> the forum goes into meltdown. Repeated vandalism

> costing tens of thousands to fix and your

> complaint is that the council are spending money

> on trying to prevent it?! Not that people are

> committing criminal damage and (rather ironically)

> polluting the very streets they seem so keen on

> "protecting"? I think your ire is aimed at the

> wrong people...



Also I would suggest reporting the coach company to the school - they are the ones who pay for their service so the company will probably listen to the school if their contract is at risk because of their behaviour.


I completely agree that damaging anything is utterly abhorrent and such a feeble and weak attempt at protest. But Ex- the lunatic fringe of the pro-lobby has been at it just as much as the lunatic fringe of the anti-lobby - the repeated vandalism of the signs people have put into their gardens and "Love LTN" graffiti all over East Dulwich.


So you can't pin this just on the anti-lobby - there are complete idiots on both sides.


On the subject of the school issue in the area it was interesting how things have gradually got quieter and quieter on the local roads as more and more children have been forced to self-isolate in the latter days of term over the last couple of weeks. I really think the council should have made a concerted effort to work with the schools to help resolve the Dulwich traffic issues before throwing in the roadblocks - it's clear that the coaches are a continuing issue and so are parents doing the school run. Maybe, if the LTNs have to be removed, they will return to addressing the school issue.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I would hope that those managing pension funds that have invested in TW have already seen the writing on the wall and are investing elsewhere.
    • a white fold-up bicycle if you think it might be yours message me with name of bike
    • Thats the problem, I dont have a solution, but I can see disadvantages of some of the proposed solutions.  Not selling it to a foreign company is my preference but after that I have no idea of the best path / solution with the least impact for all. Whats your view Sue ? 
    • Login Search: Lost: Coco, Mastiff, Male, in South East (SE21) 199549 Alerts Sent: 150 Click to See How You Can Help Views: 32 Poster Image Extra Image Name:Coco Dog ID:199549 Gender:Male Breed:Mastiff Age:Young / Puppy Colour:Brown Marks/Scars:white chest, also small white mark on the top his back Special Conditions:None Microchip:Yes Date Lost:13 Aug 2025 Where Lost:94 clive road Postcode: SE21Show on map Town/County:London, Greater London Region:South East Other Info: Not specified Created:13 Aug 2025 Listed by:luis View PosterDownload Poster ShareTweetPinEmailShare Poster Image Extra Image Sightings and Information Please post if you have more about this dog. Log in above or register to leave comments or to like them. Please note that DogLost cannot be held responsible for the content of any other sites mentioned or linked to here. 13-08-2025 11:48Jayne - Founder Doglost. DOG LOST Local members alerted. 13-08-2025 11:27DogLost System   Sorry to see that "Coco" is missing. • If your dog is microchipped please let the microchip company know that your dog is missing and check that all details are up to date. • Owners targeted by a malicious hoaxer demanding money for the return of their dog should phone the police on 101 immediately and contact admin@doglost.co.uk • A photograph of your dog is essential for the website. If you have not already uploaded one, please do so by Logging in and My Dogs. Alternatively you can email it to admin@doglost.co.uk quoting the dog's DogLost ID number: 199549 • Obtain a missing poster by clicking on View poster above. Posters are very important so start postering now! • You will need to be logged in to upload photos, edit your dog's details, or add comments. You can add comments by clicking on Click here to add a comment. • Contact dog wardens, vets and local rescue centres, and in Scotland, the Police. Give a detailed description with any distinguishing marks/scars or send them a copy of your DogLost poster. You can find vets in your area here. • If your dog has been stolen inform the police immediately and obtain a crime reference number (CRN). Send an email to stolen@doglost.co.uk. • If your dog is picked up and taken to rescue kennels, it can be legally re-homed after seven days. Visit rescue centres in person and do not rely on checking by phone alone. Other people may not recognise your dog by your description, so give them a DogLost poster. • Keep us updated by keeping your dog's page up to date and check for posts from helpers who may have suggestions and possible matches or sightings • DogLost is free and anyone asking for money to find or return your dog is not volunteering for us. If you are concerned about an approach you have received, please email admin@doglost.co.uk   Dogs Lost|Dogs Found|Dogs Reunited Homepage|Contact|Terms|Privacy|FAQ Reuniting Dogs with their Owners © 2025 DogLost Website Application Development by AmplifySales
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...