Burbage

BB100 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kford Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > The non-emergency number is 101 Not in London it isn't. Or, at least, not in most of it. Hence BB100's bollocking. There's a long history behind the 101 "SNEN" debacle, which may be of interest to anyone with low blood pressure. It works in some places, but not enough to make it worth remembering.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James, thanks, but it's a bit like closing teh > door after teh horse has bolted. This problem > should not have re- arisen, it wasn't as though > they weren't aware of it. Didn't we have this same question earlier this year? And wasn't the answer that there's no point gritting while it's above freezing or when the snow's still falling, otherwise the grit just ends up under the ice? If so, both still apply. As for warnings, the Met Office has been sending out imprecise alerts for over a week, predicting snow would arrive at any time from the Sunday before last. As in February, they finally got the time right to within half a day only after the snow had started falling. If the council had paid any attention, we'd have no grit left and only blocked drains to show for it.

May I respectfully suggest that you don't nominate them for MHS Southwarks' contest for GP Receptionist of the Year 2010. For what it's worth, I've yet to meet a medical receptionist who didn't have a lemonish aura, a taste for loud interrogations or a mastery of the brush-off. But I get the feeling that's their job, and I'm sure it doesn't preclude a fondness for world peace or an ambition to work with animals. Nominations are due before 1st September.

Spacey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I very much agree! Please leave Dawson's Hill > alone, it's a peaceful haven, not a park. It's a nature reserve, apparently. A quick Google finds the Dawson's Hill Trust website which, among other things, shows you where to find the Zebra Spiders.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On the other hand - a 5% reduction in alcohol > related disease could mean 1,000 less deaths a > year, 10,000 less drink related crime and a major > reduction in A&E admissions over a weekend as the > result of binge drinking. Speculative and almost certainly wrong. The price of alcohol has never stopped drunkenness, merely shifted the balance between the on-trade, the off-trade, the black market and home-brewing. It's probably worth bearing in mind that moving violence from the public arena to behind closed doors may not be as effective a remedy now as it once was, either. If your sole aim is to reduce the amount of crime that's reported, and remove the 'alcohol-related' label from a bunch of A&E admissions, then this is a brilliant initiative. If, on the other hand, you want to reduce the burden on the health and social services and/or reduce crime overall, then it's not the best recipe. A little perspective may help. Alcohol Concern point out that 150,000 prescriptions to treat alcohol-related disorders were handed out in 2009. Against over 750m prescriptiosn overall. Something less than 7,000 deaths were directly related to alcohol (mostly from liver disease) against 500,000 deaths overall according to Alcohol Concern (or, according to drinkaware, in a fit of mystical shroudwaving, 'up to' 33,000). Our of 18m A&E attendances yearly, 250,000 are alcohol-related (according to the Institute of Alcohol Studies). These numbers are rising, but that may be due to the impact of expensive public-awareness campaigns on the people who do the reporting (the only thing that is clear is that expensive public-awareness campaigns are treated with much the same patronising contempt by the public as they attempt to deliver). But, even as they stand, it's not nearly as dramatic as the vested interests like to claim. The crime figures are more interesting. Not so much the 'alcohol-related' ones, but the 'drunkenness offences', the number of which, according to the IAS, has fallen dramatically over the past three decades. As the IAS nicely put it: "This is particularly clear from the Scottish figures, the most recent of which if taken at face value imply that drunkenness has virtually disappeared north of the border" This may give a clue to a sensible and progressive solution to the problem. But that's not what we'll get. The economy does much better when self-restraint is abdicated to the credit card and the police much prefer posting flyers to having quiet words with the potentially resentful. In the end, we probably will get minimum-pricing, especially with the support of an industry that seems more than keen to stop the supermarkets from forcing them to subsidise their marketing gimmicks. I strongly doubt it will do anything productive, however. Quite the opposite.

13th May, possibly.

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm70/7032/7032_iii.asp p.69 on the PDF (p.67 shows the old boundaries)

Pearson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, question to you lot: is there anyone else at > it already? Got any tips etc.... > (I remember most of the process but am also i bit > grey on some of the more important aspects.....) > > Help and advice sought! There's fair number of beekeepers in and about ED. More soon, I'd reckon, given the co-ops' launched Plan Bee. A good rule of thumb is a 20 foot clearance between the hive and places where neighbours are/might be, though this depends on neighbours. Levels of paranoia have subsided a little over the past decade, but there are still pockets of the community which foster astroturf lawns and the fond belief that gardens shouldn't have anything in them that the owner hasn't bought. It's also remarkably common for beekeepers to get blamed for everything from mosquito-bites to wasp-stings. Walworth Garden Farm is a good place, and the London Beekeepers meet there (second Sunday of every month at 11am). Some of them are relatively outgoing and can be tempted to talk to outsiders, so it's worth going along if you're interested. Alternatively, the Kent Beekeepers Bromley Branch meet in Sydenham (see here). Bees are kept at Brockwell Community Greenhouses (at the top of Brockwell Park between the tennis courts and the walled garden). In theory, the bees get demonstrated/inspected in the Presence of the Public every Sunday afternoon, but that's weather-dependent, so I they've not been up to much so far this year. But it might be a usefully commitment-free way of getting to see how a season works, and isn't too far away. There's also an observation hive at the Horniman, and, I think, hives at the Devonshire Road Nature Reserve in/near Forest Hill. I think they do talks and demonstrations from time to time, but I doubt they'll have got into gear yet, either. A small hive may be suitable for temporarily housing swarms or raising queens, but wouldn't be sufficient for honeybees in this part of the world. A healthy colony will easily fill, and likely outgrow, a National Standard brood box during the season, and many of us have to run double-box hives, or bigger hives altogether. For that reason (and for swarm control, which is an important task in a built-up area) you'll probably need a full size hive plus at least one spare (which can be a smaller box), together with room to operate both. Although some keepers do house bees on balconies, they're usually temporary and more of a whimsical adjuncts to a proper apiary elsewhere. It depends on the balcony though. Flat roofs and terraces can be ideal in their own right, but they obviously need to be strong enough to bear the weight and, ideally, have some way of sheltering or securing the hive from the wind.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > are you on Meow Meow Burbage ? Not yet. Just happy to help, as always. The real question you need ask your parents isn't why it's the Easter Bunny that delivers the Easter Eggs, but why it's hatched a paganistic pact with the likes of Tesco. The murky phantasms of European folklore sit uneasily, to my mind, in the ubiquitous grasp of the loyalty card.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When does the little furry blighter come, and why > does a Rabbit (that has live young) deliver > chocolate eggs.... > Forget the Easter Bunny and concentrate on the Magic Basket. It's a classic example of the misdirection that drives most sleight-of-hand illusions. This particular trick is notoriously difficult for even experienced conjurors which is, I suppose, why it's left to a fictional animal. Why the animal is a rabbit is not only open to speculation, but also to doubt. The celebrated Count de Gubernatis, in his book Mythological Zoology, makes clear the connection between the lunar fecundatrix and the hare (both sleep with their eyes open), and it is most likely that modern narrators, lazily reliant on second-hand accounts, are persuaded that the Easter Bunny is a rabbit only by the forces of plagiarism. Once the hare is accepted, however, then its identification with the fructiferous Moon and its relation to the paschal ovum becomes readily apparent.

dimples Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > when we last had a meeting for Belvoir road area > with tessa jowell I did bring this point up and > said could we maybe have yellow line painted round > each corner to stop this happening ? The trouble with yellow lines is they restrict the amount of parking space available and that's just not something councils are prepared to do. Not least because of the paperwork involved (as things stand, I believe it would require a separate consultation for each junction). The Highway Code, in a spurt of Tufty-era optimism, does recommend drivers don't park within 30 feet of a junction, but that has no legal status, and as far as I know, yellow lines round corners have never attempted such a distance, 2 or 3 feet being about normal. Such lines are rare in any case, because it's already an offence to park in front of a pedestrian-access dropped-kerb and they're about that width in any case. The only thing that could help is if our elected representatives at Westminster did something about it the next time the Road Traffic Act needs amending. But if the past forty years are anything to go by, they won't. John Peyton, in the early '70s, seems to be the last minister to attempt anything of the sort, pledging a ban on vehicles from parking within 20 yards of a junction. This, apparently, caused so much 'hardship' to tradesfolk before it was enforced, that it was amended to nothing swiftly after. I don't see any good reason why a minister of our enlightened times wouldn't duck the same issue similarly.

green army Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The council and police also tessa jowell have all > been told to no avail If, as I think, Ryedale is in a 20mph zone, then you'll have no luck. That's because 20mph zones are self-enforcing. Currently, the self-enforcement comes in the form of humps and cushions, though Southwark is leading attempts to relax the regulations and allow them to be self-enforcing by willpower alone (item 2, here). Of course, what Southwark puts on it's website isn't the whole story, and a slightly fuller guide to their thinking is on the Local Government Association' site (here) From that, you might imagine that the Police might play a role of some sort. But comments from the Met in Tessa Jowell's patch (here) make it very clear what Plod's response might be to any consultation. In other words, the current situation is as good, and probably better, than we'll ever get. But that's politics for you.

> Domitianus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > I agree that parents agreeing a practical > solution amongst themselves is positive. I am not > so comfortable with the fact that some appear to > be trying to 'enforce' this rather than seeing it > as a type of voluntary code. It's not a matter of comfort, nor of community relations, nor of positivity. Obstructing the highway is a matter for the police. If they want to campaign to have the status of the road revised, there are legal and democratic means to do so, and they are free to approach the proper authorities. As it stands, their actions amount to mob rule and should be condemned outright. paragraph removed following complaints The Administrator

There's an official route round Sydenham Woods, with maps on sticks and marker posts, which overlaps Dulwich Woods at points. I can't remember if it starts at the top of Sydenham Hill or the gate on the Sydenham side of the footbridge, but it's round, so it doesn't matter much - just follow the yellow arrows on the white-topped posts. Takes about a half-hour at a briskish waddle, depending on how good or fond you are of following arrows. It's not the biggest of woods, so you won't get lost for long. The dogs, kids, flight paths and South Circular provide a navigational hullabaloo. And, given it's January, you should still be able to hear the rasping wheeze of a jogger every ten minutes or so.

The 176 is usually a B7TL. The 12, I thought was bendy and the 37 is an Enviro400 (a newer and slightly quieter cousin of the B7TL). Re: chapter and verse: Back in 2006, TfL in written answers (p.65, middle) to the specific complaint of the noisy Volvos, suggested that all buses would be modified, and they all met EU specifications But, in mid 2007, in reponse to a similar question, the then mayor replied that modifications were being made, and TfL's specifications tighted up to avoid this problem in future. In October 2007, however, TfL responsed to an individual complaint. The response (assuming it's genuine) made it clear that modifications had been only made to some buses, were not likely to extend to the whole fleet and that the buses, even after modification, fell foul of EU regulations. Furthermore, this oddly transparent confession also pointed out that the TfL noise tests didn't count 'ancillary noise' and, in the case of the Volvos, ancillary noise was chosen to mean the racket the cooling fans make. Thus a good part, if not most, of the noise the buses make was deemed irrelevant for reasons which both Volvo and TfL are unlikely to elucidate. And that, as far as I can tell, is where the matter rests. Judging by Westminster's reponse (bottom of p.2) of to the Mayor's noise consultation earlier this year, progress is, at best, static.

If they're the old B7TL, same as the 176, then they're noisy. About the same as an angle grinder, or ten overflying aircraft. The residents of Kensington and Westminster (where they've been declared unacceptable by the council), have complained a lot, and TfL has ordered a bit of a tinker on some of the routes, but not all have been modified. Unfortunately, the buses passed their TfL noise tests, so TfL can't ban then without paying the operators lots of money, despite them exceeding the relevant EU limits. The tests have since been updated, so bus makers can't simply disconnect the cooling fans to pass them, but that's been little consolation for the past ten years. The B7TLs are, however, being phased out, and should be off the streets by 2040 or thereabouts. But in the meantime we have to live with them. One way of doing that is to remember that, thanks to a bewildered and incompetent management, some hugely expensive plutocrat-buttering wheezes, and the unaccountable loss of ?3bn of taxpayers' money, buses will soon be the only transport left in this quarter of London, and we should be grateful for their irritating rumble.

Those who follow the Barber blog will have noticed he's been very busy on our behalf. It can't have escaped everyone's notice that his campaign to rationalize bus announcements, with a specific fixation on expunging 'Dulwich Plough' in favour of 'Dulwich Library', remains top of his agenda. This might not be universally welcome and many, like myself, might prefer the Plough to be called the Plough, whatever upset it might cause among the lemon-face illiterates who pretend to run the library - for much the same reason as I'd prefer what Jowell calls 'the Harvester' to be calle 'The Grove'. I'm sure the Library is a useful local amenity, but Camberwell's 'Coldharbour Lane' stop isn't called 'Clap Clinic' and that, in my book, is a precedent. To be charitable, perhaps the allegedly murderous negligence that led to Lakanal House, the Peckham Inferno or, for that matter, Harman's neighbourhood masseuse, have distracted Barber from making his academically interesting contribitions. Or, maybe, he is really busy doing the useful things he was elected to do. I don't know and, not being a qualiied loonologist, can't comment. But, rather than carping from the sidelines, I'm only too happy to welcome his absence from this forum.

Sue Wrote: > > As I've suggested above - go to the top and/or > write to your MP. > > Surely more effective than posting (sic) about it > on a local forum??? Not usually. MPs shouldn't really spend their time fiddling with the post office. That's what Ofcom is for. MPs like fiddling with things, though, as it's easy for them to get answers and it makes them look, for a passing moment, like they're good for something. But, other than a mimeograph of a boilerplate apology, you'll not get much to show for it. If people stopped bothering their MPs about stuff like this and forced them to scrutinize national policy and legislation instead, we wouldn't be where we are now. Secondly, the Royal Mail will be delighted to receive your complaint, assuming it ever turns up. They will then tell you to fill out a P58 (The "Loss, Damaged or Delayed Inland Mail Report a Fault and Claim Form" available from all remaining post offices), which helps to shroud the scale of the problem in obscure bureaucracy. I don't just pay for stamps in order to be treated with contempt and indignity, I pay taxes, too. And seeing my money being openly squandered by the complacent incompetents who run and oversee this risible excuse for a universal service, that was once the envy of more than one Empire, is something I slightly resent. A public forum such as this, thanks to the power of search engines, will enable even a humble soul such as myself to forever link the names of Donald Brydon and Adam Crozier with the words "shoddy little rump of a failing service". In furtherance of that work, I'd like to add that the last piece of post I received from London Town took a majestic two weeks to travel the six miles it would take me, fat and unfit as I am, to walk in two hours. And that was First Class.

I used to do this route, before my commute got stuffed by a move to Camden. Though it was some time ago. By cycle, the quieter route is up the back, over Brenchley Gardens, Brockley Way, Eddystone Road, Brockley Rd, Wickham Rd, Friendly St, Brookmill Rd, Deptford Church St, Creek Rd, Cutty Sark - then walk through the foot tunnel (there are lifts, some of the time), and up Westferry Rd. Although a bit hilly (Friendly Street isn't), and not the most traffic-free of routes, it's as quick as any. The interesting alternative to the tunnel is up to Tower Bridge and along the Highway (or Cable Street), remembering to turn down Narrow Street before the Limehouse Link. When lazy, I'd get the bus to Lewisham and hop on the DLR. It was nearly always quicker than Forest Hill / London Bridge (possibly because the Jubilee line was intermittent at the time). The DLR was (and may still be) also good for those Wednesday/Thursday/Friday nights, as Lewisham's cabs are (or were) plentiful, not shy of the South, and reasonably close to ED.

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The worst year for honey bees was 2007/8. There > was a fairly major wipe-out, in the US and > elsewhere. This was not a figment of anyone's > imagination, Huguenut. I'll bite. It depends on who you talk to, and I'm slightly suspicious of figures compiled purely from those submitted by beekeepers who responded to a survey (there's a risk that the only folk who turn them in are the folk who've lost colonies). Even in the US, colony numbers were only affected in some areas, and seem to be back to normal. > 2008/9 has not been as bad. But many keepers are > still experiencing 25-30% colony loss. Which is > not to be sneezed at. And equally many are experiencing none. Or, at least, none that can't be explained otherwise. > There does not appear to be any single explanation > for what we are seeing, though I'd suggest > personally that the US experience is not > unconnected with the stresses that US > agri-business puts on bees. The USDA's National Honey Reports make interesting reading. US honey exports are up by around 30% from 2006, and imports have risen a little (though imports still vastly outweigh exports). The price of almonds (a crop that relies heavily on bees) has been sliding for the last three years in the wake of bumper harvests. The point at which commercial operators running on tight margins start lobbying governments comes a little sooner than for others. Especially, I notice, in places which have had odd weather (the last poor almond harvest may have been due to CCD, but a lack of water might also have been relevant). The price of packages of bees is still under $20, suggesting no great shortage, yet the price of hiring a hive for pollination has nearly doubled. In addition, reports suggest that growers are getting fed up with beekeepers fobbing them off with under-strength colonies. Whether that's symptomatic of sickly bees or folk watering down their colonies to maximise their income, is a cynic's guess. Whatever the truth, there may be more to CCD than meets the microscope. Definitive official statistics don't seem to exist for all US bees at present, but those for New York State show fairly large year-to-year variations, but a fairly steady long-term decline, of about 45% overall, since a peak in 1947, and a slight decrease is what you'd expect against that trend. The USDA's statistics department does release partial numbers each February. Recent ones go like this (numbers are thousands of colonies) 2004/5 - 2556 - 100% (relative to 04/5) 2005/6 - 2410 - 94% 2006/7 - 2392 - 93% 2007/8 - 2442 - 95% ('wipe-out'?) 2008/9 - 2301 - 90% ('not as bad'?) There's a decline shown, but year-on-year, it's not unreasonable. Although these figures aren't the whole picture, and only show honey-producing colonies, rather than those pimped for pollination, it's difficult to see why there would be much difference, given they're the same species. Either CCD is making moral judgements, or the bees used for pollination aren't being treated well. In that light, CCD is more likely to be due to commercial pressures than anything else, and slightly less deserving of taxpayers' money than it might be. > Varroa mite is not new. But it is now (as of a few > years ago) resistant to the so-called remedies > proposed by big pharma just 10-15 years ago. The remedies were pyrethroids, familiar to gardeners for decades. They were used because they worked but, because mites reproduce rapidly, and they were used haphazardly, the mites developed immunity quickly. That's no different from how MRSA developed, and the pharmaceutical industry isn't being blamed for that. > The UK bee research and monitoring efforts have > been seriously affected in recent years by > government budget. Posts were being lost (cut), > just at a time when things were going pear-shaped, > which has had a serious impact. Monitoring hasn't been much affected, as far as I know. In fact, through the use of GIS over the last ten years, and the development of BeeBase, monitoring here is likely to be better than ever. Research has suffered, chiefly through the closure of Rothamsted, but new initiatives are coming on stream. It would be nice to have lots of money spent, but we're not alone, and it's sensible to pool our efforts with European partners rather than spend lots of money replicating their research. New > money means the situation may be recovered, just > about. It shouldn't be necessary to make a big > public stink just to stop essential services being > cut. But that's so often the case, here and > elsewhere. The new money is for pollinator research, which includes moths and all sorts of non-honey bees. About a tenth of it's going to honeybee research, though what they'll research is still a matter of debate. As has been pointed out, the US did put serious money into CCD research, but to no great effect. I don't suggest the gamble wasn't worth taking, but spending more money won't necessarily 'improve' the results. > There continue to be issues with DEFRA and what it > is doing with government funds in this area (as > opposed to *research* funds for a range of sources > including some from government). BBKA has recently > walked away from one major bee-keeping government > project, for some very good reasons. ('Welsh > government and language' should perhaps not have > the same weight as 'organisation representing > 15,000 bee-keepers'.) In a sense, this whole > thing has galvanised bee-keepers into acting > together, whatever government plans. DEFRA's allocation of resources is a mystery unto DEFRA. But they did consult on, and published this year, a national Bee Health Strategy which has gained consensus in promoting best practice without unduly burdening beekeepers or panic-mongering. The Bee Inspectors, the resources and training provided by the National Bee Unit and the strategy itself are very good indeed and, to my mind, provide a robust framework for sustainable, inclusive beekeeping. That deserves some praise (though we should still complain about it, to keep them on their toes). On the other hand, the BBKA remains happy to endorse the products of the agrochemical business (presumably 'big pharma'), and there are more than a few awkward sorts who wonder why the BBKA is so cosy with producers of the nicotinamide pesticides that the French beekeepers are so upset about. > The only certainty is that bee-keeping is now most > definitely not hands off. If you do not monitor > and control for various diseases, continuously, > you will lose your hives. And even then... It never was, and the same applies to children and goldfish. Unfortunately, we live in a world where even Yucca plants can die of neglect. Apologies for biting so comprehensively. Sceptics in search of references will find most of the numbers scattered about at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu. I won't cite all the documents as I've got better things to do on a Friday night.

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The worst year for honey bees was 2007/8. There > was a fairly major wipe-out, in the US and > elsewhere. This was not a figment of anyone's > imagination, Huguenut. I'll bite. It depends on who you talk to, and I'm slightly suspicious of figures compiled purely from those submitted by beekeepers who responded to a survey (there's a risk that the only folk who turn them in are the folk who've lost colonies). Even in the US, colony numbers were only affected in some areas, and seem to be back to normal. > 2008/9 has not been as bad. But many keepers are > still experiencing 25-30% colony loss. Which is > not to be sneezed at. And equally many are experiencing none. Or, at least, none that can't be explained otherwise. > There does not appear to be any single explanation > for what we are seeing, though I'd suggest > personally that the US experience is not > unconnected with the stresses that US > agri-business puts on bees. The USDA's National Honey Reports make interesting reading. US honey exports are up by around 30% from 2006, and imports have risen a little (though imports still vastly outweigh exports). The price of almonds (a crop that relies heavily on bees) has been sliding for the last three years in the wake of bumper harvests. The point at which commercial operators running on tight margins start lobbying governments comes a little sooner than for others. Especially, I notice, in places which have had odd weather (the last poor almond harvest may have been due to CCD, but a lack of water might also have been relevant). The price of packages of bees is still under $20, suggesting no great shortage, yet the price of hiring a hive for pollination has nearly doubled. In addition, reports suggest that growers are getting fed up with beekeepers fobbing them off with under-strength colonies. Whether that's symptomatic of sickly bees or folk watering down their colonies to maximise their income, is a cynic's guess. Whatever the truth, there may be more to CCD than meets the microscope. Definitive official statistics don't seem to exist for all US bees at present, but those for New York State show fairly large year-to-year variations, but a fairly steady long-term decline, of about 45% overall, since a peak in 1947, and a slight decrease is what you'd expect against that trend. The USDA's statistics department does release partial numbers each February. Recent ones go like this (numbers are thousands of colonies) 2004/5 - 2556 - 100% (relative to 04/5) 2005/6 - 2410 - 94% 2006/7 - 2392 - 93% 2007/8 - 2442 - 95% ('wipe-out'?) 2008/9 - 2301 - 90% ('not as bad'?) There's a decline shown, but year-on-year, it's not unreasonable. Although these figures aren't the whole picture, and only show honey-producing colonies, rather than those pimped for pollination, it's difficult to see why there would be much difference, given they're the same species. Either CCD is making moral judgements, or the bees used for pollination aren't being treated well. In that light, CCD is more likely to be due to commercial pressures than anything else, and slightly less deserving of taxpayers' money than it might be. > Varroa mite is not new. But it is now (as of a few > years ago) resistant to the so-called remedies > proposed by big pharma just 10-15 years ago. The remedies were pyrethroids, familiar to gardeners for decades. They were used because they worked but, because mites reproduce rapidly, and they were used haphazardly, the mites developed immunity quickly. That's no different from how MRSA developed, and the pharmaceutical industry isn't being blamed for that. > The UK bee research and monitoring efforts have > been seriously affected in recent years by > government budget. Posts were being lost (cut), > just at a time when things were going pear-shaped, > which has had a serious impact. Monitoring hasn't been much affected, as far as I know. In fact, through the use of GIS over the last ten years, and the development of BeeBase, monitoring here is likely to be better than ever. Research has suffered, chiefly through the closure of Rothamsted, but new initiatives are coming on stream. It would be nice to have lots of money spent, but we're not alone, and it's sensible to pool our efforts with European partners rather than spend lots of money replicating their research. New > money means the situation may be recovered, just > about. It shouldn't be necessary to make a big > public stink just to stop essential services being > cut. But that's so often the case, here and > elsewhere. The new money is for pollinator research, which includes moths and all sorts of non-honey bees. About a tenth of it's going to honeybee research, though what they'll research is still a matter of debate. As has been pointed out, the US did put serious money into CCD research, but to no great effect. I don't suggest the gamble wasn't worth taking, but spending more money won't necessarily 'improve' the results. > There continue to be issues with DEFRA and what it > is doing with government funds in this area (as > opposed to *research* funds for a range of sources > including some from government). BBKA has recently > walked away from one major bee-keeping government > project, for some very good reasons. ('Welsh > government and language' should perhaps not have > the same weight as 'organisation representing > 15,000 bee-keepers'.) In a sense, this whole > thing has galvanised bee-keepers into acting > together, whatever government plans. DEFRA's allocation of resources is a mystery unto DEFRA. But they did consult on, and published this year, a national Bee Health Strategy which has gained consensus in promoting best practice without unduly burdening beekeepers or panic-mongering. The Bee Inspectors, the resources and training provided by the National Bee Unit and the strategy itself are very good indeed and, to my mind, provide a robust framework for sustainable, inclusive beekeeping. That deserves some praise (though we should still complain about it, to keep them on their toes). On the other hand, the BBKA remains happy to endorse the products of the agrochemical business (presumably 'big pharma'), and there are more than a few awkward sorts who wonder why the BBKA is so cosy with producers of the nicotinamide pesticides that the French beekeepers are so upset about. > The only certainty is that bee-keeping is now most > definitely not hands off. If you do not monitor > and control for various diseases, continuously, > you will lose your hives. And even then... It never was, and the same applies to children and goldfish. Unfortunately, we live in a world where even Yucca plants can die of neglect. Apologies for biting so comprehensively. Sceptics in search of references will find most of the numbers scattered about at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu. I won't cite all the documents as I've got better things to do on a Friday night.

You can use this for finding books. If you choose to reserve them, then you can pick them up from the desk without having to fossick in the creche.

We've got no boatyard, and it's miles to the nearest abbatoir.

Sparrowhawk it is, and a female by the look of it (though it might be a young male at a pinch). I think some of them live in the Dulwich Woods (you often see two of them sitting on the sight-screens at the cricket ground), but I've not yet seen an adult male. They kill pigeons in the woods, and you'll sometimes find crows finishing them off (suspiciously often, and I'd not be surprised if the crows weren't jumping the claim). The other birds of prey we're supposed to have are owls, but I haven't heard one for ages. We get buzzards from time to time, too, though as they're about a mile upwards, and don't stop, I'm not sure they count.

Guinea, surely? As for the pictures, Jubaea chilensis would be an appropriate symbol of the halcyon days of prosperity. The face of the note could commemorate a previous period of economic health, in which Dulwich was bought and a college founded on the proceeds of prostitution and bear-baiting, by featuring the head of a local bear.