Penguin68

Absolutely none (or not so as you'd notice). Certainly in London. Wood-burners are an AB purchase, and in socialist London there is little or no sympathy for their pain, the older and arguably more polluting vehicles are owned and operated by C2DE families as an element frequently of necessity, particularly for tradespeople and families in the less-well-served by public transport outer London areas (between the M25 and the South and North Circulars). The actions of the Mayor in extending the ULEZ hit the poor (or at least much less wealthy) and hence the natural outcry. Actions against wood burners would be broadly applauded (even, perhaps, by some of the more aware wood- burning classes). And (I was there at the time) - there was no real outcry against the introduction of limitations on domestic coal burning in the 1950s as part of the Clean Air acts. And that hit everyone, not just the despised rich.

Could they be sending out different slips to those registered as having been born in the 21st Century? They will know who these are as you must register you dob.

I'm afraid there is no evidence that air quality has improved since, and as a consequence of, the most recent expansion of the ULEZ. Certainly London air quality has substantially improved over time (indeed even over the last 20 years) but this is not wholly attributable to, even, the initial ULEZ, let alone its two expansions. Build quality of vehicles has massively improved, even outwith the introduction of full and hybrid EV. This has led to lower emissions. Probably a ban on wood burning stoves would have had a greater impact on air quality than either of the two ULEZ expansions. Of course in theory removing older vehicles should have an impact on air quality, everything else being equal, but it isn't. And the less an area is built-up (thus trapping emitted particles etc.) the more any impact of ULEZ is dissipated away from London such that any concentration of emissions is lost, thus massively ameliorating their health (ill) effects.

One of my first jobs in BT (pre-privatisation) was to undertake international comparisons of domestic servicer quality in leading countries (the unexpanded EU, Japan and the US) - benchmarking studies - in cooperation with the domestic carriers. I can assure you that at that time BT (operating by then entirely separately from the GPO) was in no way a world leader - partly at least because it had a negative Public Sector Borrowing Requirement (PSBR) which meant that, far from investing its operating profits in new technology and indeed old, it was required to lend the government money (over and above the corporation tax it paid). It had been investment starved for some time - and it very much showed in the service quality we could offer our customers. At that time only France Telecom had worse service provision times, for instance. Ours were measured in weeks and months, in some areas theirs were measured in years! The service quality offered to customers soared after privatisation, when BT could use its own profits and raise money in the open market to invest in the network and services. And prices fell as the Regulator held BT prices to an RPI - (minus) formula - so that our prices had to fall in relationship to general price levels, over a number of years - it was RPI -3 for some considerable time. Following BT privatisation (the only one that has ever worked!) customers got much better service, at a comparatively cheaper (and cheaper every year) price. [And, as an aside, Oftel, as it then was, has been the only effective regulator of privatised industry in the UK. Don Cruikshank, the Regulator, was clear that when and until proper competition emerged, he would act as a super competitor to force BT to act in a competitive (non monopolistic) way.]

The number of real SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicles - meaning a modified car body on a truck chassis) is exaggerated (understandably) by a large number of cars now having bodies styled to look like classic SUVs - but in fact being made on a car chassis - these are no heavier (but see below) than the estate cars and people carriers they, in the main, replaced, equally 'bulky' but in a different way. Additional weight is also given where cars are hybrid or electric - because of the additional battery weights. The impression we all have, helped by the all pervasive Nissan Qashqai, is that everywhere there are SUVs, but that isn't really so. More modern cars in general are heavier than their predecessors because of the additional safety etc. builds required of regulation. But this isn't a 'chelsea tractor' issue. It's about preferred looks and style. What I have noticed, and commented on elsewhere, is that actual repair of pot holes, when it is undertaken, is very ineffective., with them reappearing very quickly. A man with a bucket of tar and a spade to knock it down really isn't sufficient.

You can always run an ethernet cable yourself, or get someone to do it for you, from the fibre box that will have been installed to wherever you want your router. Run it under carpet etc. An 18 metre cable for instance would cost about £36.

BT Openreach has now run fibre to most (I think) of ED - so FTTP from any supplier reliant on BT Openreach at 1000 MgB - the local cable company - was NTL but now trades as Virgin Media - offers higher speeds, but there have been real service issues at times. FTTC (hybrid fibre and copper for the last leg) has been available for a long time - best speeds around 60-70 MgB. 5G coverage patchy, but there is some.

I was due for a (surgery requested) routine FTF medicine check this morning - cancelled at 7:20am by the FHRGP surgery. 'Apologies, staff sickness - schedule another'. Amazingly I got to the top of the phone queue 12 or so minutes after 8.00am - but was then told it would be impossible to book another appointment now - there were none showing, and I should call back in 3 weeks ('or so') time to try to book another, when appointments were next likely to appear. Perhaps explains why I got to the top of the queue so fast. So - perhaps Forest Hill Road Group Practice should be off your list as well? It wasn't a GP I was due to see, by the way. Not actually seen one of those since before Covid, but I did speak on the phone to someone who might have been a qualified GP a year or so ago. But only recently (qualified), I'm guessing.

I am not, myself, a festival goer, but neither am I particularly incommoded (I do live locally) whilst the festival is on. Neither do I feel particular vitriol towards a council trying to milk its assets at a time of revenue shortages. However I am concerned about value for money. The council is not a natural venue operator, nor, so far as I know, do they buy-in expertise to manage venues. Nor do they seem in any way expert at managing out-sourced suppliers, if the Nunhead 'park' fiasco is anything to go by. Or the constant revisiting by their 'preferred' supplier to pot-holes repaired, it often seems, only seconds before re-appearing. They seem to set no challenging date for restoration of the park amenities, nor am I convinced that the restoration costs are entirely covered by the fees they charge - and I do not believe their planned vandalism to create better drainage (and excise established trees) has been properly costed as part of their venue management, as opposed to park maintenance cost lines, therefore meaning that their venue clients are getting improvements paid for by general rates, but not, over-time, paying for these, as a properly managed venue business might expect. The fact that they do not disclose any real details on their venue business pleading commercial confidentiality does not fill me with joy, either. So I object to their leasing out our parks on the basis that I don't think they are doing or managing it well enough, and they certainly aren't able, or willing, to demonstrate the contrary. A commercial venue operator might be judged by e.g. its profitability - but this isn't an option for a Council side-line.

I suspect quite a few vets went into the work hoping to make money. They weren't forced to take the corporates' shilling when they sold their practices. It may be that newly qualified vets don't like it. As doctors (GPs) who can't buy into partnerships don't like it. Salaried vets and GPs get paid less, but that doesn't mean they don't want to be paid more.

There are genuine risks for engineers working on cell towers, I believe, but the microwave effects attenuate very swiftly with distance meaning that those consumers, and residents, served by the towers are effectively risk free. The worst impact is aesthetic rather than medical, and the communications and computing etc. benefits offered by 5G tend to mitigate these for most people who have and use mobile telephony. Considering what else is out there in our built environment I personally don't think aesthetic objections trump the utility of better communications infrastructure.

Do also remember that, whilst this is the original there is an unrelated FB presence with a (very) similar name, which might also be prayed in aid.

Actually that supposes too convoluted a motive for them. Cash and cash handling costs money, including maintenance, stocking and providing cash machines; fully electronic transactions are far cheaper and more cost effective. It's about costs, mainly.

I also met cockatiel man in the coffee shop at Sainsbury DKH. As well as Whately Road.

I think the hard or far left would be more accurate, Marxism per se isn't a Labour Party or socialist requirement, and that allegiance he has only recently - well dropped, I think, rather than repudiated. I think the hard or far left would be more accurate, Marxism per se isn't a Labour Party or socialist requirement, and that allegiance he has only recently - well dropped, I think, rather than repudiated. Not sure why this posted itself twice in one box. Apologies - it wasn't that good!