Alex K

The driver of Royal Mail van LB05 LLJ has just now -- 1320, Saturday 16 October -- hopped out of his vehicle, walked briskly to my neighbour's door on Abbotswood Road, and... has not rung, has not knocked, has only pushed a slip of paper through the cache-sexe on the letterbox and pootled off again. Without a glimpse of the slip of paper, of course I can't be sure. It might not be a notice to go pick up a parcel on Silvester Road, or at the Forest Hill sub-station. But is it others' impression as well as mine that Royal Mail parcel-delivery attempts are, too often, nothing of the kind?

We use hardy orange -- Poncirus trifoliata. This plant is winter-hardy, withstanding ten degrees of frost in new money, and is armoured densely with three-inch spikethorns. It's a slower-growing shrub than is pyracantha, but one pruning in late spring suffices to keep it in line. White bloom (not fragrant) in spring and orange, non-edible fruit in late autumn, a handsome grass green all year around. I recommend it, planted close against your boundary fence; you'll lose a yard of garden, but your perimeter will be impenetrable. Again, it's all about convincing a chavlet that next door looks like the easier mark.

@Horsebox, who asks if I've ever been in Franklin's -- yes, but only once, and that three and a half years ago. You'd be right to demur that I didn't give it a fair chance and that my impressions are out-of-date. Apologies. That single visit indeed left me with the impression "poncey", but I'd have done better not to air it.

I'm not British (well, I carry the passport, but the Daily Mail would narrow its eyes and look me up and down whilst interrogating me about the cricket and my allegiances). So, great British pub culture, meh. If you say so. 'S not bred in MY bones. The Fox on the Hill is a place to re-fuel. Franklin's is a place to dine. A lot more folks can see their way clear, financially, to dropping in at the Fox than to dropping in at Franklin's. Indeed, the latter can be off-puttingly poncey. For those of us (touch forelock, cringe in acknowledged inferiority) who live on the St Francis estate rather than in the leafy purlieux of Lordship Lane, to have another cheap 'n' cheerful place to eat and drink close at hand is not a bad thing. What else is a stroll away for us gamma-minuses? Il Mirto, nom nom nom, yes. But there's a bit of pull-up-your-socks before going there, or so I feel. It's a special place. Takeaway fish 'n' chips and halal chicken 'n' ditto, oh Lord Jesus no. Domino's Pizza, see response to takeaway fisn 'n' chips and halal chicken 'n' ditto. A Thai place on Melbourne Grove that disappointed severely eight years ago... no, never been back, can't be arsed; yes, it was THAT bad. When of a dark winter evening the dusk closes in at 1530 and my motivation and willpower are slopping about my ankles like a dropsical old lady's lisle stockings, I'll be glad to walk across the street from the station (rather than up through that little park to Sainsbury's for a Taste The Difference heat-a-meal) and to settle in for a couple of pints and a cheap main. The Vale in its present incarnation just... well, it isn't old-slipper easy, at least not for me. Maybe a Wetherspoon's will be. Onward and, one hopes, upward. Everything that rises, etc., and into the noosphere with us all.

Taro-kun, I lucked into the St Francis estate ten years ago. Brilliant place to live: Good neighbours, Sainsbury's as my corner shop, and transport to everywhere. Not only that, it's getting better -- see comment on IL MIRTO, above. Welcome! Enjoy your time in East Dulwich. Venligst (or however you say that in Japanese) --

The bomb damage map is fascinating -- in large part because so many gaps in the streetscape, filled with post-war buildings, do not appear to correspond to recorded strikes. On the right-hand side of Grove Lane heading down toward Camberwell Green, for example, I had thought that the blocks of flats marked a loss of Georgian housing stock. Not the case, it seems.

Odd, isn't it... When I was six I was given my first pocketknife. A boy needed one. Why? To cut things with. And to play mumbly-peg, in which the game consisted of throwing your knife to stick upright in the ground closer to your mate's foot than he could throw his to stick near yours. And to practise all the tricks of flipping an open knife from hand to knee to hand to knee to hand, for the bravado and prestige. Lost arts.

@????: I suggest that "Tu quoque" is not likely to convince many people. (That things could be the same, or worse, elsewhere seldom means that one should not pull up one's own socks. **grin**) A famous slogan in the United States is "My country, right or wrong!" (Rather like "My mother, drunk or sober!") This is an incomplete citation, however: The original statement was, I believe, "My country, right or wrong -- when right to be kept right, when wrong to be put right". I prefer the original. The acknowledgement "when wrong to be put right" is not always a "liberal cultural cringe", it seems to me; rather, it recognises the beam in one's own eye (as well as the mote in one's neighbour's). We can all work, I trust, at being not just more tolerant, but also more accepting.

"...legislation emphasises that all schools are legally obliged to safeguard their pupils... Both children are below the 9 years-of-age threshold currently recommended by the local authority (Southwark Council) for crossing the road independently. Moreover, Bikeability, the government-approved, cycle-training organisation, itself does not recognise a child's ability to cycle unsupervised and independently until they are over eleven years of age. Legal advice confirms that we would be failing in our safeguarding duty not to raise this concern with the parents..." To me, this reads as if fear of lawyers, or of those who might make out that Southwark Council's recommendation is a command, who might insist that abilities not recognised by Bikeability do not exist, has led the school to act. I'm reminded of T H White's parable of the antheap in which everything not forbidden was compulsory. I hope that the school, having raised this concern with the parents, will content itself with a response of "Thank you for your concern; we have explored alternative travel arrangements, as you put it, and believe that they are not satisfactory; these are our children, we mean to rear them as we see fit, and on this point we must agree to disagree."

The headmaster may have been between a rock and a hard place. Who knows what his personal inclinations were? But - as the original SUNDAY TIMES story said - after other parents expressed concern, he was moved to act. Backed by conviction, "expressions of concern" can be... emphatic. A hypothetical: "Denounce these parents to child services, sir, or be denounced yourself as failing to comply with Southwark's 'guidance'." A bad position to find oneself in.

It's been wet, wet, wet in Hungary this spring -- so maybe the hill towns near Eger or the settlements along the "wine road" south of Pecs between Siklos and the Danube, centred on Villany, are not the best bet for the bustle and fun of an early grape harvest at the end of August, with the cellarkeepers selling half-fermented new grape juice, murci, by the pitcher from their doors. Hedge your bets north of Lake Balaton with hot springs, and yes, wine, in the Badacsony region. A hire-car will take from Eger up to the near-mountains of the Felvidek, modern Slovakia -- or from Villany up to Pecs, this year's European capital of culture -- or from the Badacsony hills down to the Balaton shore for swimming and boating. Fares to Budapest are low. Go!

@Growlybear: You wrote "Or is it too old fashioned to make your children your first priority if you decide to bring them into the world?" This has made me think. We are privileged to watch only a few marriages "up close". Mine is childless (although not by choice, and yes, to our regret). So I'm foreclosed from understanding what I might make my first priority, had I children. However, I did watch my parents' marriage. I don't think that I'm dishonouring Mum and Dad to say that they made each other their first priority, and that we seven children -- although we knew that we were loved and cherished -- were very aware that this was so. "Your mother wants it" or "Your father wants it" trumped any "I want it" from one of us kids (I'll spare you examples). Our home revolved around them, and not around us children. Perhaps their approach, making each other and their marriage their first priority, was even more old-fashioned than that of making one's children one's first priority...

@ mumofthreegirlies: Indeed it seems that the headmaster is only following protocol. My amazement followed from two aspects of the story. The first, that such a protocol is in place (it seems to see, in children walking to school, only risks and no benefits); the second, that other parents pressed him to intervene. "Only risks and no benefits" may be hyperbole. However, my own family's private brand of dysfunction -- I think that to write of the normal, healthy family is oxymoronic -- strongly encouraged looking toward benefits and away from risks, and so my sympathies are with the Schonrocks. I'm all in favour of "it takes a village" child-rearing. (When as a child I played where I shouldn't my mother or grandmother had heard about my misbehaviour from a neighbour well before I came home wet and muddy. Mrs Bates was particularly observant at tattling, as I considered her interventions then. It seemed to me bitterly hard that I never got away with anything.) If I saw a child ambling into traffic I hope that I should have presence of mind enough to pull her back forcibly and to deal calmly with accusations of "You laid hands on my daughter!" if they later arose. But for less emergent matters -- one must be very careful not to stray over the line between "helpful" and, with a tip of the hat to Mrs Bates, God rest her, "meddlesome".

Fuschia, thank you for the TELEGRAPH link -- Peckham Rose, I hope that you can follow it to see another version of the report.

Today's TIMES; but their new webwall makes it impossible to link effectively. A few column inches below the fold on the front page and nearly all the fifth page above the fold. Perhaps if it's picked up by another news provider without a webwall I'll see it. If I do, I'll supply a link.

The Sunday TIMES (4/7/10) reports that a local couple, Oliver and Gillian Schonrock, whose 8- and 5-year-old on their own cycle a mile from their West Dulwich home to Alleyn's junior school, are to be "referred to children's services" -- by the school's headmaster -- for endangering their daughter and son. I'm happily childless; so I never should have dreamt that to allow one's children to make their own way to school and back, in so benign an environment as that of the various Dulwiches, could be construed as placing them at risk. What really has me boggling, however, is another statement in the article -- that this act by the headmaster was in response to pressure from other parents, who disapprove. If the Schonrocks follow this forum: Sir, ma'am, bravo to you both! I walked the mile and a half to school from age five years till age eight, when my parents thought that I could handle my bicycle adequately; in the summer holidays, from age eight till I left for uni, I bicycled to the various farms around our village where day labourers were needed and where I was happy to work. Nothing went wrong. I was not an encumbrance to my parents, needing to be ferried everywhere, and I am grateful to them for letting me try my wings.

What was that Billy Wilder song? "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong"? Though Cate, the Irish, and the Dutch Say it don't amount to much A zillion sushi lovers can't be wrong...

Into the letterbox today a flyer from a Nunhead Green establishment -- "Na Pura". Portuguese, it seems, but hedging its bets with pizza and grilled chicken options. It looks better than Nando's. Is it?

When I enquired of Mr Barber he responded briskly -- I turn out not to live on his patch, so he referred me elsewhere -- dear IAMHERE, your experience (although surely disappointing) seems, in the light of others' impressions, to be a bit of an outlier. Please try again and trust to better luck the second go.

And now, "me three" -- a parcel this morning, by Royal Mail (Sunday! Royal Mail!) about which I'd rung the shipper with my concerns only the day before. Really it does seem that a backlog may be dissipating.

Almost a hundred years! Are house re-numberings during that interval unlikely?

Amazing what we sort through and understand, because we know what was MEANT. "Poor cat... I had a cat that got seriously shot (as yours has been, philiphenslowe). It turned out to be our next door neighbour" writes A, B enquires "Can I ask what prompted your neighbour to decide to shoot the cat?" And yet syntactically it is the CAT which turned out to be the next door neighbour. -- Working as a translator makes you ask all the time -- Could the author REALLY have meant THAT? And then, shaking your head, saying -- No, impossible. This MUST be what was intended... Gin and tonic: Wellspring of all psycholinguistic analysis.

From the site to which ianr refers above. I have attempted to highlight an important bit of text: A complaint must be filed before a magistrate if the dog and owner are to be controlled. That would be up to Meredith most directly, I reckon, as anyone else's version of events -- other than the owner's -- is at second hand. **Dogs Act 1871 Although over 100 years old now this Act is possibly the most effective piece of dog control legislation available to enforcers. Civil proceedings are brought at a Magistrates? Court and this can be done by the police, local authorities, or individual members of the public. This legislation should always be taken into consideration when enforcers are investigating any incidents relating to dogs or when concerns are raised over an allegation of irresponsible dog ownership. Furthermore, it can be particularly effective when dealing with attacks on other domestic pets or livestock. Section 2 Section 2 requires that the owner is brought before a Magistrates? court on a complaint and if the Magistrate is satisfied that the complaint is justified they can make any order they feel appropriate to require the owner to ensure that the dog is kept under proper control or in extreme cases destroyed. Importantly this is regardless of whether the dog is in a private or public place. Note proceedings mustbe commenced by way of a complaint. **Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 In addition to any civil order made under the 1871 Act, the 1989 Act allows a Magistrate to disqualify an owner from having custody of a dog for any period the Court thinks fit. The 1989 Act also provides enforcement provisions for breaches of any control order imposed on an individual under the 1871 Act. **Metropolitan Police Act 1839 and Town Police Clauses Act 1847 These provide for offences for anyone to allow an unmuzzled ferocious dog to be at large (i.e. not under proper control in a public place) and attack, worry, or put in fear any person, horse or other animal in any thoroughfare or public place in the metropolitan police district5, or any street in a town. One might argue that the dog in question was not ferocious. The cat will have had its own opinion on that point.

And already: A further response, with officer ID. See below. Thexwinglessxbird, any thanks should go to you for providing the link that I followed. I must say that this speed and responsiveness from the police surprise and impress me. From: [email protected] [[email protected]] Sent: 24 November 2009 16:28 To: Alex K Subject: Ref 2384 Dear Alex K I am the Citizen Focus Inspector for Southwark Police. As part of my remit I have had sight of your communication to the Central Police Confidence Team. The officer, 827MD, has been identified and I am in the process of communicating with her line managers and responsible staff who were on duty at the time of this incident which I understand to be around 9.47am on Sunday 22nd November 2009. I will also speak with the officer concerned. At this time please consider me as your local point of contact regarding Southwark Police and actions taken by our staff. My contact details are shown below and I will respond further by E mail as soon as I have anything further to communicate. Yours Sincerely Chris Lewis _______________ Citizen Focus Inspector Southwark Police Station -MD 323 Borough High Street London SE1 1JL w0207 232 6653 ext 26653 m07765 194053 [email protected]

A response, of sorts: From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] [[email protected]] Sent: 24 November 2009 11:16 To: Alex K Subject: Your 23 November email : dog savagery e-reported : Contact us - Send us praise or complaints c01-00003990 We acknowledge your 23 November email in connexion with an internet-reported dog attack issue and related alleged Met inactivity. Your email was sent to the local borough command for review and for response to you directly. The direct response is scheduled to be made to you within ten calendar days of 23 November. Regards Peter Barra Citizen Focus Policing Programme l TPHQ l Metropolitan Police Service MetPhone : 63169 I Telephone : 0207 230 3169 l Mobile 07802 I Address Room 822, New Scotland Yard, 10 The Broadway, London SW1H 0BG