Burbage

Pugwash Wrote:

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

> We used to be regular customers at Badgers for

> many years but noticed that when they branched out

> to selling meals, they stocked less and less

> bakery products especially bread.

It seemed to have lost its niche as a general baker when the Sainsbury's appeared. Though the core range (cakes, pastries and sandwiches) stayed more or less the same, there were notable disappearances. I know many were sad to see the green fondant frogs disappear, followed by the framlingtons and, eventually, the currant buns. But the eccles, the turnovers, the cornish pasties and even the spinach and ricotta slice, kept going throughout.

I don't know about the sandwich side of things, but it seems to have been well-used as a cafe, and the wooden terrazza out front has been very popular with the funeral directors, who can keep an eye on the door of the church while guzzling their elevenses. Inside, it became an actual place, a temperant alternative to the Plough and more nourishing than the Library.

I hope it'll do well. The new owners have extended the kitchen and hope to concentrate on the food, rather than the bakery which wasn't doing well with all the competition. But the Badger Bakery will live on, to some extent, with its name immortalised in the railings. I don't think they'd noticed as, when I asked, they said they were next-door's railings, which clearly makes no sense. But senseless or not they will, until rust takes them, bear witness to the commercial archaeology of one of Dulwich's most recognisable minor junctions.

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

> Unfortunately, like Brexit here or gun control in

> the US, ID cards are one of those topics on which

> it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion,

> as it triggers well-engrained, atavistic yet

> totally unfounded fears against a police state ?

> unfounded because ID cards wouldn?t provide the

> state with much more information than it already

> holds (think of HMRC records, DVLA records, credit

> bureau data accessible by the police, GCHQ

> snooping, etc.)

I think the fears have a good practical basis. Consider the last experiment at foisting ID cards on people, a project that was estimated to cost up to ?20bn, with the LSE estimating that once the traditional over-runs and sleight-of-hand underestimates were taken into account, together with the long-term running costs, the cards would cost around ?300 each.

The scheme was eventually cancelled by Theresa May, after about ?300m had been spent on providing 15,000 ID cards to the happy few that wanted them (at ?20,000 a pop). Nobody's quite sure what happened to the National Identity Register it was attached to.

Nor, indeed, the principle of 'joined up government' that was behind it. For the main point of the ID cards wasn't so much to give those with identity problems access to a low-rent version of a broken passport, but to enable government to grab a bunch of public money to do what it should have been doing already; namely joining itself up.

As we now know, though the point may have passed us by in the thrill of recent headlines, the government is incompetent, disorganised, ignorant and untruthful. We know, for example, that the Borders Agency doesn't keep records of the passports it checks. It doesn't even count people in and out. It does have personal performance targets for deportations, though. Which may, or may not, have a bearing on why 60% of those detained are found to have been unlawfully detained (we can only assume the ?4m annual compensation paid out comes from a different budget).

Meanwhile, just a little further up the road, we're selling visas to Russians, laundering the money of anyone with enough of it, flogging sweetheart tax deals to 'non-doms' and letting anyone register a fraudulent company, with no checks at all, for a modest fee (unless they confess their fraud in the public interest, in which case they're prosecuted with a diligence the CPS reserves especially for government critics). While other regulators sit on their hands, claiming hundreds of whistleblowers, and millions of leaked documents, are not to be believed.

It's not the fear of a police state. It's the fear of an incompetent government, bought by hostile interests, handing our entire existence - access to law, healthcare, employment, housing etc. - to transnational outsourcers who will happily hold it hostage, if they don't balls it up completely, if they think there's money in it.

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> That's just vile. I only hope that the attendant

> bad publicity will be enough to make them realise

> they've f'ed up.

Pull the other one.

Greendales IP LLC is registered at "The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Centre, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, New Castle Country, Delaware 1, United States of America". In other words, it's a brass plate in a tax haven. 'Bad publicity' won't touch it, much as it never touched the landowners (IIRC, Greendale Property, reg. in Isle or Man, ownership uncertain, but which has a controlling interest in Champion Hill Investments Ltd, which has many of the same directors as all the little Hadleys).

Moreover, Greendales IP LLC legally and properly registered "DHFC" and "The Hamlet" on 17th October 2017, using the same firm of lawyers, so it's not as if this wasn't premeditated, or a rash lapse of judgement on either part. This is all very deliberate.

Whether Meadow knew about this isn't clear, though it does depend on who they're working for. Some of the previous owners of the land haven't been entirely straightforward (this, this and this make interesting reading) and, as we don't who owns Greendale Property, we don't know they're not still the same people. Bankruptcy, suspicion of fraud and outright disappearance might suggest it's not but, judging by the City pages, those are no bar to a career as a 'wealth creator'.

However, it's wise to give them the benefit of the doubt. What happens next is anyone's guess. But Peter John, the Leader of our Council, appears to be up to the challenge, hinting at buying them out, and thus may find a way to rescue them. After all, he's done more than most to help Australian property developers, and the Isle of Man's much closer to home.

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> Work trials are essentially the ?actual interview?

> for a position in the hospitality industry.

As so many of my childhood heroes are discovering, a long tradition of exploitative behaviour is no defence.

muffins78 Wrote:

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

> In a nutshell - without doubt - all hours worked

> should be paid at least National Minimum Wage!

Sadly not.

Which is why Stewart McDonald (MP, SNP, Glasgow South) has today published a Private Members Bill aimed at altering the Minimum Wage Act so it also applies to work trials. It's called the Work Trial Periods (Prohibition) Bill*.

Private Members Bills aren't guaranteed to get very far, especially if they're opposed by government who can 'talk them out' without a vote unless at least a hundred MPs turn up to the "second reading". That's scheduled for March 16th and, if it passes then, it'll go to a scrutiny committee and then back to Parliament for a final vote.

I don't know if Helen Hayes, our MP, is planning on turning up on March 16, but I'm sure she would if enough of us ask her to. Her contact details are at http://www.helenhayes.org.uk/get_in_touch

* http://www.stewartmcdonald.scot/news/worktrialsontrial/bill-banning-unpaid-work-trial-shifts-published-by-glasgow-south-mp/

hpiening Wrote:

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

> We had a man knock on our door this afternoon

> claiming to be sent by the landlord for a gas

> check. He looked a bit dodgy so we sent them away

> and checked with the landlord, who hadn't sent

> anyone for a check. Has this happened to anyone

> else?

There's a lot of this about. And, on a related not, the market's awash with photoID cards, both fake and genuine, thanks to landlordly obligations being outsourced to the gig economy, so don't trust anyone who turns up without an appointment, even if they don't look dodgy.

Either way, you needn't check with the landlord before refusing. Although gas checks are a legal requirement, the landlord has no right of entry without your consent. That means they (or the letting agent) must try to arrange an appointment, in advance and in writing, saying who'll be turning up and why. If they haven't sent letters, you shouldn't let anyone in. And even if they have, you're still entitled to refuse entry - but then they'll have a defence if they're done for not carrying out their obligations, so it protects you both.

Sqiggles Wrote:

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

> I cannot believe the route for cyclists coming

> south along Dulwich Village. I sat in a car last

> night and watched a cyclist cycle up the inside to

> join the little cycle lane, before realising in

> was a dead end and there is no room (with the

> waiting cars) to get into the cycle box at the

> lights.

This is a common problem, caused by a misunderstanding of what these 'cycle lanes' are.

The cycle lane is *not* there to be used and cyclists *should not use it*. It is there because, thanks to DfT rules, Advanced Stop Line boxes must have a feeder lane (i.e. a place where the stop line is broken so cyclists can legally move ahead of it), and that feeder lane must be on the left of the carriageway, usually painted in the gutter.

It is, of course, confusingly pointless. And as clearly and wilfully murderous as it was when the poisonous incompetents came up with the idea in the '90s. The problem with cyclists going under left-turning vehicles is well known, even by the blinkered charlatans in the Department for Transport. But still councils (and TfL) pander to the lethal prescription, and paint the little lanes of death, often applauded by the despicable idiots leading the cycling campaigns, who thoughtlessly praise even homicidal 'infrastructure' for its 'awareness-raising' potential.

The only sensible way to cope with this is for cyclists *never* to use such lanes but, as advised in the highway code and elsewhere, to adopt the same road position when approaching a junction as any other vehicle, queueing in the lane where they can be seen (and see), rather than running up the gutter or racing the lights for the stop box. At least in the lane a cyclist can be seen and so, though a great many motorists will hoot and holler, they're much less likely to die by mistake.

ianr Wrote:

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

> How informative of the broader issue can the story

> of any single house be; however interesting,

> telling or instructive?

You don't know till you've looked. But there's a finite number of types of problem (practical, financial, legal/regulatory or personal) that can affect any one development, and so any one is likely to represent a decent chunk of the whole.

Seabag Wrote:

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

> 2nd referendum is on the cards

I'm not so sure. It would be a nice gesture, but it wouldn't:

(a) change the government's non-existent strategy to reach an unimagined destination,

(b) change the terms of Article 50,

© provide Labour with any more clue than it already hasn't.

At best, it would waste three months getting a result that wouldn't make any difference.

For what would a referendum be on? Accepting a deal that doesn't exist? Or rejecting it and guaranteeing 'no deal'? Both end us back very much where we started, but with a lot less time on the clock.

Even if there was a 'no Brexit' option (which neither Labour nor Tories would back), there's no guarantee we'd be able to do it. We could ask if the rest of the EU were minded to allow it, and even get a ruling from the ECJ. But who would do that if not government or opposition? And, besides, it would only take one tiny, disgruntled country (other than ourselves) to knock it back, so it can't be guaranteed.

What we need is for government to get a plan together for what they want; a plan that includes a fallback of revoking Article 50 if agreement isn't reached.

We're not going to get that, even with a referendum. Partly because of first-past-the-post, partly on account of transnational interference, partly for reasons of political greed and partly because we live on a resourceless, unproductive little insularity, a-swarm with the viciously stupid. So the best thing kind-minded people could do for the future of our continent might well be to start sending rude postcards to Kim Jong Un, signing them 'Theresa May'. Assuming Boris hasn't done that already.

Or perhaps we should settle our differences, stand united behind our mayor's message and tell the good folk beyond the M25 it's time they were building a wall.

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> So you still don't understand how the EMA works?

> Back to your echo chamber then...

>

> New jobs coming to the UK are fantastic; why

> wouldn't we be in support? Genuine question.

I suspect the reasoning is that (a) Leavers are right (don't ask, they just are) which means (b) Remainers must be wrong about everything so © everything Remainers do, say or think must be harmful to the interests of the nation and therefore (d) anything that isn't harmful (jobs, flowers, babies etc) must be abhorrent to Remainers.

This isn't logic as you might understand it, but it is the logic of the hate-sheets. It's logic that appeals most strongly to those darning string-vests in mildewed bedsits simply because they have been conditioned (possibly by Thatcherism) to be the useful optimists of Capital, cheering on every tax dodge, fraud and fiddle in the belief that, if they do, then the day will surely come when they too can have a bank account in the Caymans. It the logic of sea-lions clapping for fish in the hope of getting the whole bucket, and no less demeaning or futile.

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> As everything it does is POST AUTHORISATION it is

As it is responsible for doing the authorising, most of its work is on that.

If you really want something to complain about, the shocking educational standards of the mid twentieth-century would be worth a look, but only if you feel up to it.

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> As an example of EU bureaucratic nonsense the EMA

> excels. For example, the EMA has been useless in

> regulating the sale of antibiotics (the biggest

> threats to humankind are microorganisms) across

> the counter in most EU countries.

As that's not its job, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't good at it.

The EMA's job is to evaluate new drugs and decide whether there are any good reasons why they shouldn't be on the market. If they aren't any, they authorise them for sale in EU member states.

Once a medicine is authorised, however, it's up to member states to regulate sales. That's what the UK's MHRA does. And, presumably, equivalents in Spain and Cyprus.

Your beef is with those regulators, and not the EMA. As would have been clear if you'd read the EMA website, skimmed the Wikipedia article or spent a moment thinking about it.

The EU agencies do things that all states would have to do anyway but, because they're costly, time-consuming, bureaucratic and/or expensive, are easier to do all at once in a central place. Such as evaluating medicines and collating statistics on an EU-wide basis.

They don't do things that have to be done on a state-by-state basis, like regulating individual member-state markets, because they're all different, and there wouldn't be any saving in time or money or paperwork.

I hope that's clear. And if there's anything you've been tempted to believe, but couldn't be bothered to check, don't hesitate to ask. There's nothing wrong with displaying ignorance. What's wrong is to mistake it for knowledge.

PS. The EBA is nothing to do with the Eurozone, which is why it's in Britain. What it's about is ensuring that banks operating across Europe aren't flaky enough to pose a risk, can't weasel round regulations by picking-and-choosing different rules in different member states, and compete fairly with counterparts in other states. There are many reasons for not liking it much, but none of them are good reasons.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> The absurdity of offering the

> government of the day carte blanche to alter laws

> as they please has been pointed out continuously

> by all opposition parties but how, precisely, is

> this to be altered as long as the government

> plough ahead with their DUP chums?

Will of the People, innit?

The DUP support will evaporate soon enough. Whatever the Tories decide on the Irish border, it'll annoy the DUP. The only decision that wouldn't is no decision at all - the apparent 'hard border' consequence of 'no deal'. But even if we hit 'no deal' IRE, the EU or a majority in NI won't stand for that.

Effectively, any solution involves NI becoming at least partially independent of UK. As the Conservative and Unionist Party and DUP won't go for that, as their names imply, it won't happen with them in charge.

So, as things stand, it will be up to a different government to adopt the Varadkar proposals. But by that time, the Brexit clock will have rung, leaving our laws in tatters and every other aspect of Brexit - citizens' rights, divorce bills and trade agreements - blowing in the wind. For Her Majesty's Opposition is aiding and abetting the anti-democratic power grab just as cravenly as the DUP.

In short, Brexit is a very bad thing indeed, and it'll be just as bad under Labour as the Tories, for people, animals and everything.

No ducks, or geese, in the Dulwich Park (Boating) Lake this morning.

Have they been eaten, or is the 'hostile environment' to blame?

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> What the f... is TM hoping to achieve by declaring

> we will leave the EU on such a date at a

> particular time. 11 o'clock. Why not 10.30? Why

> bother say anything? This whole thing is worse

> than a farce.

1. 11 o'clock at night in London amounts to midnight in Brussels.

2. I can only think of two reasons why May is making law what she intends to do anyway. The first is that she's not planning to be around by then and wants to leave an undeletable chunk of stupidity for her disloyal partners. A bit like revenge-porn.

The second is that it's been done before, in the Referendum Bill of 2013, when the Tories wrote the pledge to hold a referendum into law because, then as now, they weren't exactly in power and were perennially terrified that their venal plans to hold the country hostage for the convenience of their vile paymasters could be easily overturned by anything approaching democracy. Happily for them, we still have first-past-the-post, and most still vote for useful idiots, based solely on the colour of their badge.

If history is any guide, Meadow Residential LLP will cease to exist very shortly.

Although Hadley Property Group still soldiers on, I'm unsurprised to see that Hadley Development Management Ltd (the outfit that Hadley set up to make the pledges to DHST) is already dissolving itself. Some firms just aren't made to last.

eddeal1 Wrote:

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

> not one person has said i have room in my house i

> will take this human in.and try to help him.

There will be reasons for that. Although it would be nice to live like humans, those of us in London, and plenty of other places besides, must be realistic and understand that we live in an economy.

For that reason, taking someone in is a non-starter for the 60% of us renting, as the tenancy would almost certainly prohibit it. Some tenancies can be amended, I understand, by crossing a lettings agent's palm with silver, but councils are, despite the rumours, less easily swayed. For non-renters, permission would be needed from freeholders, mortgage lenders and/or insurance companies first, which may be expensive or unobtainable. It would also, for the sake of prudence, require the drafting of a lease and, even if no rent changed hands, potentially affect your benefits, television licence and water bills, depending on circumstance. It may also require require safety regulations to be complied with and, in some circumstances, the council to be informed.

In other words, it's a grand pain in the backside, and that's before you've considered how long you'd want this new relationship to last, and what you'd do if things got awkward. That doesn't just mean a thorough knowledge of eviction procedures, which it might be useful to acquire in any case, because if the authorities considered the person had made themself intentionally homeless, the council would no longer have the obligation to house them that it currently does (assuming, that is, that whoever it is was a Southwark resident previously, and it's not some other council that bears the responsibility) and you might do so, instead.

That is why homelessness charities exist. It is also why none of them ask the public to take strangers in.

red devil Wrote:

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

> The Commons Brexit Committee grillings are often

> far more informative and revealing than the staged

> pantomime of PMQs.David Davis being quizzed on

> Brexit this morning...

The whole unwatchable spectacle has gone straight to VoD at: http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a96133e5-b6bd-4455-8e2e-5f2d4c6b1f5c

mariannamanson Wrote:

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

> Hi just been made aware of NaNoWriMo

> (https://nanowrimo.org/dashboard) this year and am

> really interested in joining the challenge ? any

> one else on here taking/taken part?

Yes. I'll be (trying to) write a novel. I tried it a couple of years ago (and didn't get past 27k), but there's no harm in trying again.

> On the website it says the designated

> 'ComeWriteIn' locations which host Nanowrimo

> writers and was wondering if anybody knew of any

> in the area?

>

There don't seem to be any. I think you have to start organising in August and I've only recently started paying attention to the reminders. I've made a note to suggest places next year, though it depends on who the Liaisons are and where they're based, I'd imagine.

apbremer Wrote:

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

> I was told by a postman that Royal Mail are not

> now allowed to display their various daily

> collection times as our Masters in Brussels have

> deemed it "la competition injuste" and banned it.

This is nonsense, and collection times are displayed on most post boxes.

It depends where you are though. The pillar box on Eynella Road, shaded by gingkos and scented with roses, pledges to be emptied at a handy 5pm, or thereabouts. The box at the end of Friern Road, on the other hand, lurking by a struggling shrubbery rancid with dogwater, claims the last post is 9 o'clock in the morning.

There is a reason for this, and that's because the Royal Mail is monitored; from time to time, people put letters in boxes and count how many working days it takes for them to turn up. By making the last post first thing in the morning for the bulk of its round, the Royal Mail gets a apparent day of grace, which means it can charge a first class stamp for a second class service. But, obviously, it can only get away with that on certain streets. Those, apparently, that have more fallen leaves than others.

JohnL Wrote:

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

> Theresa Mays speech

>

....

>

> Actually the content was OK

I suspect opinion will be divided as to whether there was any content, and whether what there was counts as "OK".

Precious little on Brexit, except the subtle shift of focus - they're all diligently planning for failure now, presumably because the other sort's not gone too well. The rest, apart from the apology for the disastrous election, seemed cut and pasted from her first speech as PM last year. Which, you'll remember, was all about helping the 'just about managing' buy houses, get decent jobs and so on, about which we've heard nothing till this punctuated re-run.

The cough was probably helpful. It was difficult not to feel a little sympathy, despite the dutiful applause of her flapping crowd of dentured groupies, and that possibly made it all sound more sincere than back then. But the proverb about words and deeds still seems relevant.

Sue Wrote:

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

> Take care people. Might be cheapest option for

> you, but probably isn't. Don't sign anything you

> can't get out of!

Bear in mind that, even if they say you can get out of it, you'll probably have to go through a lengthy formal complaint process to do so, and they'll be charging you all the while.

There are, I suspect, two possibilities here. The first is that suppliers like Opus Energy have finally broken with the 'rogue' agents and brokers who've not officially been working for them* (they refuse to divulge details, but the brokers wouldn't do it if they weren't getting paid), and those rogues have scuttled into the domestic market. Though Opus is a business supplier (so doesn't have to give out complaint statistics) I suspect repeated attention from the energy ombudsman has become expensive. Energy firms, even domestic ones, aren't supposed to doorstep customers at all, but it's not at all clear if those rules apply to brokers.

The second possibility is that, though government funding for the Green Deal has dried up, there's plenty of Green Deal work to be had for anyone who can flog it. The finance must now come through the providers, but with interest rates of 7% and more, tied to the household electricity bill rather than an individual, the returns seem virtually guaranteed. Even investors with the right sort of cash would be tempted by that, I'd imagine, keeping salesfolk (or their gangmasters) happy, even if the deals aren't so obviously good for homeowners.

Even if they are lousy for homeowners, they're excellent for landlords who can use the scheme to finance (at their tenants' expense) any improvements their properties will need to comply with next year's efficiency requirements. Landlords being what they are, however, it's probably a little early for the rush to have started, leaving the chancers to try their luck on random domestics in the meantime.

Either way, it's well to be suspicious of them. And, for that matter, of comparison sites which are also in it only for the money. If you are tempted, remember to check the rates, and terms, with those advertised on the supplier's own website, if only to make sure they exist.

* See https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.opusenergy.com - where Opus has at last begun to respond constructively to the unhelpful negativity of their customers.

Hustings will be held on Tuesday, May 30th at 7pm at the East Dulwich Community Centre, Darrell Road, SE22 9NL*

*It's a little-known and surprising secret, but by simply remembering "day, date, time, location", almost anyone can successfully arrange an event, meeting or appointment. Coincidentally, and begging the administrator's pardon, this technique, together with four other essential habits of moderately effective people, is covered in my personal-coaching course "Think Yourself Adequate?", details and prices of which are available on application. For those not ready to make that step, an occasional series of "What, When, Where" workshops, for small non-judgemental groups, could conceivably be arranged.

dbboy Wrote:

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

> You say you are FOCC, well in my book, that quite

> simply makes you ACCOUNTABLE, so I ask again;

A more immediate question might be what's happening to the collected signatures? Who holds them now, was a fully-compliant Fair Processing Notice issued, and were appropriate contact details provided?

Such minutiae are often overlooked, but Data Protection doesn't just cover electronic data and SSW/FOCC don't appear to have either a privacy policy or a physical address. As I'd hate anyone to get into any more trouble on account of such minor lapses, I'd suggest they sort that out first.

As for the other questions, if it's nothing more than a bunch of people (an 'unincorporated association') then then they don't need to publish anything or be registered anywhere (except with HMRC, should they sell anything or take money from people/organisations under the FOCC/SSW name). As far as the public is concerned, FOCC/SSW is just a name, it's not a legal entity, and therefore cannot sue anyone, be sued or (for that matter) organise petitions. That is all done by the individual members as individuals, each of which is exactly as accountable as any other individual would be, except for the directors, who are personally legally liable for the consequences of any actions taken in the name of the organisation.