-
-
Latest Discussions
-
This would be no problem for me. -
As a regular early morning walker I've generally found the main gates on College Road open by 6:30am, at least on weekdays. I guess that's when the park keeper arrives. The other gates are a bit variable in opening times. -
By Lee Scoresby · Posted
Thank you to those who have replied. Tho, with the exception of Sue's post, I find these comments bizarre and depressing - what dark confused times we live in. The tables outside the Blue Brick were in fact mostly within the cafe's curtilage. But there were complaints, and Dan the owner did not help himself in his reluctance to address the matter. What I find extraordinary here is the lack of any moral proportion: the nuisance there was relatively slight; and people were not being forced every passing minute into busy oncoming traffic. As to complaints. How is this situation not self-evident, for some hours, several evenings of every week. Would a diligent local authority need to receive a complaint? Must we prod Southwark to do anything, ever? And in fact, am I really alone in doubting Southwark Council's willingness to consider complaints and other feedback? Local governance is democratically deficient at every level in this country: a) Despite heroic 'social work' by some ward councillors, these foot soldiers are heavily managed by party apparats. b) Councils are governed by committees which exclude most councillors. c) Is it fanciful to imagine that senior local-authority officers tend to have, shall we say, their own agendas? Sally Eva, how is 'Lee Scoresby' not my name..? 'First mate' has the hopeful idea that "The EDT will have to start managing its clientele better." The EDT is a money-making operation. (Companies House lists one officer, Steven Michael Kenee.) The EDT would be happy to have its customers all up the hill, round the roundabout and in your front garden if they could get away with it. This is why companies have to operate under rules, and these rules need to be enforced. Where to begin with these other toxic little reflexes, all ignoring the actual problem to which I refer - which is real, dangerous and preventable - and substituting something else. CPR Dave: The assumption that I am elderly. (And gee, CPR, what other phobias do you suffer from? People of colour? Gay or trans people? Immigrants? Red hair?) You affect to believe that my real wish is to deny "young people" the chance to "enjoy the local amenities." Sue answers you eloquently. How, ArchieCarlos is this "satire or ragebait."? I do surely find the situation angering. And how 'claresy' is my post and not the endangering of pedestrians the problem? In fact, further to Sue, one need not have either a disability or be carrying, pushing or caring for someone or something to have the legal and moral right to move freely on a public footpath. Yes, Jenijenjen [your 'real name', obvs], I have posted over a number of years. Say what you intend clearly about these previous posts, so that other readers can judge, rather than alluding to them obscurely as if they somehow invalidate the matter I raise here. Good grief. LS -
What a vitriolic post!
-
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now