Burbage

JenSpen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure there is a valid reason why there > are no pedestrian lights there, but I can't > imagine what it is. In another thread a while ago, it was suggested that the Grove junction has been earmarked for modernization, which may include an accommodation for pedestrians. The work isn't yet scheduled, but a preliminary announcement on the development of a framework for assessing the priorities of such junctions was announced only nine or ten months ago. A quick skim of the associated paperwork, however, suggested that allowing traffic to flow freely round the Grove junction is of vital importance in maintaining the Battersea Rise tailback, so although the pedestrian phase might be restored, I very much doubt they'll be handing out lights. The pedestrian phase (a bit when the lights are red for all vehicles at the same time) disappeared from the Grove junction some time ago. Around the time, older readers may remember, that the 'flashing' phase of pedestrian lights gave way to the contemporary 'blank' phase which is much less confusing for those with intermittent vision. And around the time that a TfL attempt to impose a better 'pedestrian model' caused the greatest simultaneous traffic-light failure in living memory, since which, understandably given the ensuing chaos, TfL have wisely ignored pedestrians wherever possible. Although that's not necessarily the reason why pedestrians outside the Harvester are deemed expendable, it's certainly the most socially acceptable that I can imagine. In any case, I have taken the liberty of delving into the orange narcissism of a local councillor in an attempt to direct his mind, which is currently wandering on a quaintly disturbing crusade, to this very issue.

I did notice a certain disturbance up my end today and wondered briefly what it was, but not urgently enough to stumble to the window*. Applespider makes a useful point, however. Although I've crossed there every week for a year and not got dead yet, it's a particularly murderous junction. Since at least February, it's been on the map of 'sites without pedestrian phases', marked as requiring modernization, suggesting TfL might be going to do something about it. I am pessimistic. The reason for this pessimism is that the Grove** junction used, until fairly recently, to have a pedestrian phase (a fraction of a minute in which all the vehicles were supposed to be stopped), but this has vanished. Turning the phasings back, and possibly upsetting the more infanticidal motorist, is presumably an option, but clearly not their favourite, so they put it on a map instead. Blinkered optimists might thing that being on the map is a good thing. But there are 140 other junctions on the map, all of them against the Department of Transport's guidelines. And, although TfL were very keen about compliance, they were only this bold: Our next step is to develop a framework for selecting which of these should be prioritised for review. This will be based on an analysis of pedestrian accidents at these junctions, current traffic volumes and consideration of what effect providing a pedestrian phase would have on traffic operations and congestion on the road network and how this might be mitigated. This information will be made available in spring 2008. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that's not three steps from fixing anything. That's just about working out how to work out which ones are going to get on the list they'll be having a think about considering. Naturally, no such report has emerged (see here), and frameworks still butter no parsnips. If I had a conscience, I might think of stirring TfL with some sort of campaign, but I'm allergic to futility and have seen enough vacuous boilerplate to last a lifetime. I have no objection, however, to any bright young optimists following this up. Not, if my experience of bright young optimists is anything to go by, that they will. *None of the following is about buses or Crystal Palace Road. If you don't like it, skip it. **The Grove is the large and proper pub that lent its name to the junction and is currently being forced to masquerade as a peeling 'Harvester'.

Happened to me once. I was a trainee teacher in a northern town and, in the ordinary way of things, had spent a couple of months on practice bus duty. In the absence of other guidance, I'd assumed my job was to stand outside the school at looting time, making sure kids got on buses and went away. When they'd all gone, I'd give the word and the rest of the staff could scuttle to the car park and leg it. One afternoon, I'd given the word and settled down for an hour's practice detention. About fifteen minutes in - it can't have been more than that as I'd only scrubbed half a desk - I was summoned to the front gates to look at a burning bus and a clump of kids and to work out what to do about them. On the downside, even after he'd put the fire out, the bus driver wasn't very chatty, and his friends on the recovery truck didn't say nice things. And I had to persuade my practice colleagues to forgo the cheap whisky and ferry kids around instead. They didn't say nice things either. But on the upside, the bus company refused to run the bus for the rest of the term, which both annoyed the council and improved our truancy rates. I don't reckon anyone thought of summoning police or fire brigade. We saw enough of the police as it was, the fire was out, and the chances of nailing down an identifiable suspect was nil; in those days, buses didn't film the passengers all the time. I don't think we even put it in the incident book - nobody was hospitalized, and that was, as a rule of thumb, what you had to do to get in it. So, all else being equal, I'm with jimmy two times.

LibraCarr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A person wearing the > uniform of his employer is deemed to on duty > whilst wearing the uniform. Not necessarily. It's not true for prostitutes or workers at Sainsbury's, but it's probably true for surgeons, abbateurs and the myriad employees of Abercrombie and Fitch. Service personnel are somewhere in between. Only last month, servicepeople were encouraged to wear their uniforms in public more often, whether on duty or not. And, if your rule was true, the folk at the Cenotaph would get an annual ticketing. Anyhow, a couple of years ago, faced with an unaccountable loss of public confidence, the Immovable Plod asked all the creatures of the Met, very nicely, if they wouldn't mind wearing their uniforms more often, and patronize local businesses, rather than lurking in the canteen. Which is why you have the PCSOs parading their cheerful anoraks and inflatable stab-jackets in the chicken shops and poundstretchers. I'm not sure if it does much to increase the public's confidence in the Met, but it has clogged the streets with uniformed snoopers and botherers which is, I'd wager, what the Immovable Plod's political masters were after.

I'm not sure about the economics, but it might be cheaper to hang a helicopter over three boroughs at once and pretend it's a patrol than it would be to divert human resources to sit in cars. After all, there's no point in a visible police presence when nobody's awake enough to notice. By using helicopters, Plod can supply the requisite watchful eyes and audible reassurance while freeing up valuable human resources for core functions, such as fobbing off callers, perforating citizens and assisting employment lawyers. In addition, helicopters, though noisy, are much less likely to mow down children in the street, which is arguably a good thing. As for air ambulances, CAA regulations are strict enough to make it very difficult for them to fly at night. Even those with the necessary special equipment inside still need to have appropriately equipped and staffed landing places. So the majority of them, including the London air ambulance, are a bit pointless after dark. Police helicopters, like police cars and firearms officers, are exempt from all known regulations, and therefore can do whatever they like, provided it doesn't involve landing or saving lives. RAF helicopters can also fly at night, but only do so when the national interest requires them to ferry a toff to a party. Unfortunately I cannot speculate on the Ruskin Park incident as the loftier salons of Denmark Hill are still closed to me, but should the Southwark News ever stretch to a gossip column I'm sure the truth would out.

I'm not sure I agree with Jeremy. The Croydon-Wimbledon tram doesn't seem particularly quick to me, and much if it goes through fairly low-density/low-congestion areas (such as the South Norwood Country Park). The fact that Croydon-Wimbledon isn't a major commuter route may also be significant. It's probably great for people who live a few stops from one of the centres, but I'm not sure the benefits are particularly widespread. The assumption about signal priority is optimistic. It doesn't seem to be the case in Croydon and trams seem as subject to congestion as anything else, despite their little bells. The other problem with trams is that you can't divert them, so burst water mains, house fires, sieges, roadworks, traffic accidents and power or signal failures can bring the whole service to a halt. As for unevenness, tram rails are often embedded in the road surface, and do shift noticeably with time, and there doesn't seem to be anything to stop drivers slamming the brakes on when they get a chance. I am however, in favour of the CRT project. I was persuaded by one of the promotional colouring books they were handing out at last year's Thames Festival (South Bank, this year's is Tomorrow and Sunday), which has been an enduring source of challenging amusement, and not, as I originally thought, the sort of pointlessly cynical propaganda that happens when a half-wit gets a budget.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh who bloody cares. I do. I went there to advise them on something, and was fascinated. The space is used for a variety of community projects, from music to horticulture, both therapeutic and otherwise, that would cost the community a lot more than a one-off fee of half a million to provide. But the history of the place is stronger. It's not quite the 'impeccable Victorian Building' it was when it closed over twenty years ago, but it's still an impressive building. There's a lot of social history behind it, and there are still people living in Southwark who were in the spike when it really was a spike, who can tell some interesting tales. True, the land may be valuable as flats or offices (though, being wedged between two rail lines, I wouldn't envy the purchasers of whatever fibreboard extortion might erupt), but they've had 23 years in which they've done nothing with it, and, if flats are so important, there are plenty of parks which could do without a corner. If Lambeth can use bits of Brockwell Park for bus lane and Bromley put flats in Crystal Palace Park, I don't see why Southwark couldn't raise the money by putting Burgess Park under concrete, especially if they'll be putting a tram through it. Surely a vibrant, creative community facility, is more important that a bit of shoddy grass. After all, most dogs would be perfectly happy to empty themselves at home. Two relevant links: http://briandeer.com/social/london-homeless.htm (a Times article from 1985) http://www.george-orwell.org/The_Spike/0.html (The Orwell essage 'The Spike')

The point with the nuclear option is that the government can squirrel the money away in a PFI scheme and guarantee the EDF people a decent premium (by getting Ofgen to regulate prices upwards). In short, the goverment wouldn't have to pay anything out and the British public can carry on subsidizing electricity for French consumers. In return, we get a supply of energy secure against all but the most unheard-of and far-fetched events, such as strikes in France or political unrest in the Ukraine. There is a catch, though. British Energy (the pseudonym de jour of the company that owns the existing plants), has been run like the Forest Hill Baths, and is a filthy, leaking, toxic liability. The government had beamishly presumed that EDF would be happy to buy BE; by putting the new plants where the old ones were, they'd avoid any nasty planning nonsense. What they forgot is that the French don't take much notice of planning issues, and are able to spot a filthy, leaking etc. when they see one. So the government's currently in the business of talking to potential stakeholders regarding cleaning things up. However, as (a) they've just had a lot of their 'secure' containment devices condemned by the Inspector and (b) the people they're talking to are the same as can't empty a bin two weeks in a row, the future of nuclear is likely to remain the underfunded, half-baked, mismanaged, political and financial abyss that it's been since it last looked like the Future. Even if all that gets sorted out, EDF are currently having problems building nuclear plants at all, on account of hiring unqualified welders who have interestingly bodged some of the more sensitive stuff. Given that both of the UK's welders are on indefinite secondment to Dubai, I don't expect they'll have better luck over here. Unless, that is, they can get guarantees that their work won't need to be checked. Tidal energy is, for an island with a big coastline and choppy waters, a really good idea and, if not a mature alternative to the atomic alternative, a very sensible option worthy of serious investigation. After all, we have the best locations, the best tides, the best scientists, proper marine engineers and a real need. But against it are stacked many more pressing projects, such as nationalizing railways, buying broken banks and hosting fortnights of footraces. Given a choice between securing the energy supply and buying a better image between elections, any government (and not just the current maliciously ignorant, short-sighted and unarguably evil bunch of grubbing inadequates) will always choose the latter. The picture isn't entirely gloomy, though. Many foods don't need cooking, and human manure burns well if it's dried for long enough.

Amelie Wrote: > Provided you didn't open the fridge/freezer and > let all the cold air out the contents should be > fine. Thanks for the reassurance. I've just had my bit of fish, and all is well. So far.

"In jest, eh? Upper East Side. It's a real rib cracker that one." Almost as funny as East Dulwich Rye. More relevantly, does anyone know how long the outage lasted? And how likely is it that the things in my fridge will now poison me?

I had an infestation of moths a few years ago. They can hide away in just about anything and are almost impossible to eradicate either chemically or mechanically. I tried cedarwood lumps, mothballs and lemon-scented candles to not much avail. Anyhow, the damage is done by the larvae, so by the time you notice them flying about, it's too late. They do have two weaknesses, though. They aren't imune to spiders, and they are picky eaters. Since I converted my wardrobe to polyester and gave up dusting, I've had no problems.

There seems to be some confusion over what GPs are expected to do. It turns out there's a website that can show you, approximately here: http://www.qof.ic.nhs.uk/search.asp Apart from the thrill of being able to compare meaningless numbers about your own GP with any number of GPs you have nothing to do with, it provides a sobering breakdown of what GPs are 'assessed and rewarded' for. As you can see, once they've made a diagnosis, they've got to chase you up and give you leaflets and stuff or they lose points. In addition, there are some intriguing combinations - assessing depression, for example, only scores points if the patient already has high blood pressure or heart problems. All together, it looks like an incentive for them not to do any diagnosing if they can help it and, if they can't help it, to prey only on the afflicted. I'm sure it's not quite as bad as that, but it doesn't look too sane at first glance. The government has been making noises about putting GPs into polyclinics - and if they'll be anything like the walk-in centres, I'd be in favour. Efficient, competent service on a wide range of things (including first aid), without trips to A&E or points for lectures and leaflets. However, as practices are supposed to be run as hard-nosed businesses, I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up being rented out for estate agents or coffee shops, with just a token quack in a booth. Perhaps this tele-doctoring is a step in that direction.

It's been a week since I requested further information from the consultancy concerned, and I haven't had a response yet. As the deadline for responses is 8th April, and I really can't make my mind up, I invite suggestions as to whether I should: (a) Go with my gut instinct, that this is a mostly unnecessary and largely cosmetic make-work scheme for the council and their glossy consultancy, and strongly object to the proposal, the patronizing letter and their inability to provide any evidence to back up their tawdry, transparent and corrupt proposals? or (b) Go with my conscience, and support this brave attempt to give neighbouring children the chance to grow old enough to shoot each other? If anyone has managed to worm out any information, I'd like to know. Things like comparative accident statistics for the existing 20mph zone (the one with Crystal Palace Road in it), why Etherow Street deserves a cycle-unfriendly speed hump or whether speed indicator signs would be a better use of the money. If, on the other hand, they have a blanket policy of wasting everyone's time, I'd like to know that, too.

seanmlow Wrote: > > I think they may be in for a shock soon - one of > these days they will get nutted! They're working around that. Face recognition software and the nice biometric identity cards will make patrols unnecessary, and they'll get a robot to hand out fines. That, I hope, will free our hard-working PCSOs from their social control responsibilities and enable them to offer real community support - telling people the time, hauling old folk across roads and generally keeping an eye out for criminal nonsense - what Plod used to do before they learnt to love paperwork and shoot Brazilians. In the meantime, the War Against Behaviour is being fought by whoever's cheapest. It's now a whole decade since Blair announced his cashpoint plan for tramps, and yet there are still people drinking and smoking and whistling in the street. In other circumstances we'd probably have the military involved by now, but in their absence the PCSOs are the next best thing, especially given the difficulties in recruiting Specials

I've got a sequinned teatowel, too.

436 goes Paddington-Lewisham, 36 goes from Queens Park (Kilburn) to somewhere else (Crystal Palace?) via Oval and Camberwell. The 436 is, despite being bendy, probably the quickest way to get from South-East London to Paddington and, given the way the new plans for Crossrail meticulously avoid being useful, and the Cross-River Partnership's exciting Cross-River Tram won't actually cross the river (crusty old-timers tell me there was a tram tunnel beneath the Thames somewhere near Waterloo, but it seems the authorities have lost it), it's likely to stay that way. Since Livingstone's been mayor, the bus subsidy has increased from ?50m quid per year to well over ?500m, so it's hardly surprising there are more of them.

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dont u need a "special" license to go carolling > these days? In short, possibly. You need a licence if you're providing regulated entertainment. The Ministry of Song 'n' Dance (DCMS), helpfully opines that "to be 'regulated entertainment' the entertainment must take place in the presence of an audience and be provided for the purpose of, or for purposes which include, entertaining that audience." Note that it is the intent with which the law is concerned, not the fact, and the audience does not actually have to be entertained. Or willing. Happily, there are exemptions. 'Spontaneous' music-making is one of them, such as when people sing Happy Birthday in a restaurant, or whistle in the Gents. Again, the DCMS obliges, stating "Most carol singing is either spontaneous, incidental to other activities or part of a religious service and is usually not, therefore, licensable." However, thanks to the bright spark who posted the idea to the forum, the EDF Carolling will not be spontaneous, nor, unless you can nab a vicar from somewhere, is it likely to be part of a religious service. Which leaves the 'incidental' approach. The DCMS helpfully claims: "...a group of carol singers (players) outside a shop could be construed as incidental to the activity of people going about shopping and therefore exempt from the requirement for a licence." That might, on the face of it, fit the bill. Until you consider that any construing will be happening in a court, and will happen long after any Plod with an eye for the overtime will have banged you up for criminal singing. So, it would seem best to get a licence. Specifically, you should get a Temporary Event Notice. But you can't. That's because, mnemonically, TENs have to be applied for ten days in advance which, for Christmas Eve, will have been yesterday. So, despite any good intentions, you're scuppered. Or that's what I thought. Abandoning the mealy-mouthed circumlocution of the DCMS and going for the meat of the Licencing Act (2003) itself, I found something, in Schedule 1, part 2, para 11, that might help. It states that: "a performance of morris dancing or any dancing of a similar nature or a performance of unamplified, live music as an integral part of such a performance", is exempt from the regulations. That may seem, at first glance, irrelevant. But, as it happens, the Licencing Act (2003) does not care about the quality or authenticity of such performances. It doesn't give a fig whether a morris dancer is registered, or whether the rug they cut dates from the middle of last century or the middle of last week. And that's the problem solved. Find a bloke with a beard, tie bells to his legs and, as for as long as you keep him jumping, you've got yourselves an exemption.

Both Asset and AllforNun are right. I used to go through Camberwell and hit the Vauxhall Bridge head-on, hang right and up past the Tate (Atterbury St, Marsham St, Broad Sanctuary) to Parliament Square - mainly because E&C isn't good with a hangover, and hangovers always follow the route most travelled. But I've just had a look at the 14km route that TfL's Journey Planner recommends, and it includes Vauxhall Bridge, which is a fairly good indication that the Lambeth Bridge route will be better. Happily, it includes no other streets that have been, or are likely to be, recommended. After getting to Parliament Square, I prefer Horse Guards Road (past St James' Park) to Whitehall. If you've got a thing for bendy buses or bearskins, Whitehall's fun, but I prefer pelicans. Then right and through Admiralty Arch, turn sharpish left, along to Piccadilly Circus and up Regents' Street. Come to think of it, that bypasses Parliament Square (you turn left off Broad Sanctuary into what might be Little Sanctuary, nipping up past the Red Lion (?). It's a cobbly bit, and interesting when it rains.

Personally, I reckon there's a need for a gentlemens' outfitters, a decent tobacconist and a bicycle shop. But I suspect I'm in a minority. I'm quite fond of tropical fish shops. There used to be one, called Alpha Aquatics, but it disappeared a few years ago, presumably because the harsh wind of fashion now favours babies over guppies. Others have suggested that ED is short on chintz, and that the frumpier end of the fashion market is uncatered for, but, happily, I'm insufficiently informed to comment. I think Mockney Piers has the best idea in terms of economic sustainability. Though I'd respectfully suggest that, rather than a direct competitor to the Crystal Palace needle emporium, a rehabilitation clinic would better serve the area without detriment to its social cachet. Unless we've already got one.

Ms Jowell's activites are published in advance on her website. The following link, at the time of writing, has her opening a school in just under two years' time: http://www.tessajowell.net/working_hard_for_you Advice session are also publicized on the site, with the next one in East Dulwich being on 26th October, where members of the public can queue up for an hour and a half for the chance to be swiftly patronized. Although Ms Jowell is no longer officially part of the Cabinet, and thereby no longer bound by the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility, her roles as Minister for the Olympics and London, and as Paymaster General (a position granted apparently without irony), would make it difficult for her to either vote against the government or display conscience. Members of the public who subscribe to her email alerts will receive notification of when the next digest of tub-thumping tedium is published. As an added bonus, they'll get advance notice of the activities of those minions who've drawn the short straw on canvassing in the area. With a possible election not looming, this might be of more interest to some than others. Her facebook profile lists 140 friends, mostly professional.

A long time ago, in a youthful summer, my bicycle suffered a spate of punctures. I got through a lot of patches, a good few inner tubes, and had to splash out on a new tyre. The man in the shop said it was sad, but only to be expected, what with the state of the roads and the rain and the building work. Shortly before Christmas, the local paper reported that the proprietor of a competing bicycle shop had been miserably fined. He had, apparently, been hiring urchins off the street, and giving them pointy things to play with. There's no moral to this. And I'm sure there's no relevance, either.