Burbage

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > just common sense needs to be used in my opinion > or > maybe Green Cross Man can do some work at the > junction :) I can't agree. In law, as opposed to the Highway Code, oncoming traffic on the public highway means any sort of traffic (including humans, horses and handcarts) travelling towards you on the road (including both carriageway and footway). In other words, at the mouth of a junction, you should not expect an oncoming pedestrian to give way to you, as many commenters here manage to do, just because you'd find it convenient. It's for that reason, mostly, that I don't think it's pedestrians that need re-educating. Even if they were, the Green Cross Man is not an educator. He's a propagandist, hired to give the misleading impression that it's their own fault if pedestrians get killed. It is a very powerful message, but it's also very false, and the reason we accept it is because, otherwise, we'd have to acknowledge that the motor industry, like the gun trade, wouldn't like the publicity if its customers took responsibility for their actions, and have managed to buy an alternative to the law.

SLad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The new equipment may well not have been signed > off as safe yet so i can't imagine how stupid > those parents have to be to allow their little > ones in there. Hopefully the fence is reinstated > or the new section opened fully soonest. That's possible, but I'd think it more likely that the fencing is there, as has been is in other parts of the park, to allow the grass to grow over the new landscape. All the new slopes will need something to hold them together, and grass does that quite well, but only if the root systems are allowed to develop properly. If that doesn't happen, you'll get a lot of erosion and mud, and further costs to put it right again, which will mean less money for maintaining other things.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whether the result of incompetence or design, the > impression might be given that there is an unholy > alliance between developers and planning.... That's a little unfair. Developers are in the business of making money. And, for that end, they employ a whole industry of architects and consultants and weaselish representatives that does nothing but game the planning system by breeding applications like cockroaches and sending them out, all at once or piecemeal, in the certainty that, thanks to consultation fatigue, political infighting, old-fashioned corruption or simple blunders, enough of them will eventually get through to make a lot of money, no matter what the locals, or their elected representatives, think And, if they don't get permission, they'll just do it anyway and apply for permission afterwards, knowing that the council won't want to be seen making people homeless or closing down new businesses, In this case, the developers put in an application and got it refused. They then put in a slightly more modest application, which got through on a technicality. Now they're adding back the bits of the first, in the hope that councillors will have forgotten and residents either won't notice or will be used to the idea now. It's a gamble, but the odds make it worthwhile. There's nothing legally wrong with that. The rules don't prevent gaming the system, and developers, like money, have no morals. And there'll be no shortage of greedy crumb-catchers arguing that, without the persistence that money allows, we'd have no progress at all. You don't have to look futher than the nearest war memorial to see what's wrong with that. In effect, it's the defeat of the democratic process by the sheer weight of borrowed money or, put another way, the sale of the sacrifices of previous generations for an IOU worth next to nothing. And it will be next to nothing because if one thing is certain, despite any mendacious lather about 'investing in the community', it's that the profit will be extracted as swiftly as is legal, if not more so. Sure, some developers claim to have local connections, and may even register a company locally to handle the scam and obscure the businesses behind it. But that, to borrow a phrase, is just the lipstick on the pig. All this may be obvious to anyone with half a mind, but councils can't refuse everything just because developers are, on the whole, shafty illegitimates. They have to go on what's put before them, and give the benefit of the doubt unless residents keep alert and put forward clear and cogent objections to every scam. Sadly, residents don't always keep alert. That's understandable. Not just because it's hard work that takes time, but also because we're lulled by the incessant celebrations of hard-fought wars into thinking we long ago defeated the the foot-soldiers of dictatorial kleptocracies, and need worry our pretty heads no more. Which is why we're now living in the looming shadow of the obscenely hubristic outpost of a slave-trading nation and busy constructing a city-state for another oil-rich power's embassy. There is some poetic justice in that, being a taste of our own colonial medicine, but it's also abject surrender. We didn't make enough of a fuss, and so allowed the powers that be to succumb to the evanescent promises of notorious improvements to transport hubs and tranches of what never turn out to be affordable housing. In much the same way as, instead of reaping the Olympic Dividend, we still find the bill for the long-dead games wrapped up in our council tax demands. Appearances are always deceptive and the impression of an unholy alliance between developers and planners is no exception. What's really happening is that developers are exploiting the greedy or defeatist laziness of residents who, lulled by the concept of democracy, have forgotten democracy's a struggle. Or, in short, it's not their fault. It's ours.

It's this one It's not been decided yet - open for standard consultation till 15th May.

i*Rate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would just like a simple statement about the > chemicals used by them on the streets as a response > to my enquiry. Allow me to make your day: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200089/street_cleaning/3621/weed_control

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let's not pretend that one more bike on the road > automatically equates to one less car. What about six?

cathy p j Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- ... with the > consequent loss of a parking space. Loss of a parking space? What on earth do you think a hangar is for?

Pocket Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So? from that brilliant list of proposed artworks, > this is the winner? Was this the one voted for the > majority, or was the decision based on other > factors (such as cost)? Personally really > disappointed - there were other more exciting and > engaging options presented, and it seems the > safest (and most bland) concept was picked. All in > all rather dull... Yes, they won. And rightly so, to my mind. They have a certain mystical presence, albeit a turd-brown mystical presence, and they're approachable. The other entries - a sort of tin spider, a concrete stump and, to be uncharitable, a hole in the ground - had their merits, but weren't noticeably more interesting. The hole (or amphitheatre) was quite popular, especially among those from the bottom end of the park, mainly, I think, because it was well away from the bottom end of the park. It was a nice idea but fundamentally just a hole. The selling point was the threat of theatrical and artistic activities that would go with it and that, I think, is what did for it.

There's an interesting data protection issue here. If you ignore the soft soap, what she's doing is giving her list of constitutents, compiled from correspondence directed to her as an MP, the chance to opt out of having their names and email addresses snaffled for use, in a personal (or political) capacity, for her mayoral campaign. I'm not sure that's permitted, especially given it's not clear who will be storing or processing the data. The mailing system seems to be running from a domain called endthegreathousinggiveaway.com, a domain registered to Pete Robbins, a former Labour Councillor in Lambeth, so it's difficult to tell whether it's a branch of the Labour Party, a campaign office or entirely personal. That said, if she's using addresses culled from emails sent about parliamentary casework to her personal address, that might be OK, though it seems contrary to both the data protection principles and the guidance of the Houses of Parliament. But it's interesting to see that her email address seems to have changed - her former personal domain (tessajowell.net) has been shuttered, on grounds of her no longer being an MP, and a new domain registered at the end of last year (tessajowell.com), and it's that that's being used as the contact for these emails. So, either way, it looks like some shuffling has been going on, which might raise some interesting questions, especially as her data protection register entry only refers to her work as an MP.

hertburs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is bizarre that TFL can go to so much effort > covering up the traffic lights It's not bizarre. If it affected motor traffic, TfL would have to list it on http://public.londonworks.gov.uk, publicise the closure and provide signage, alternative signals and/or diversions, as appropriate. But as this only affects pedestrians they don't have to give a monkey's, and so they don't. This isn't really their fault. They don't mnake the rules and regulations. They're put in place by MPs and assembly members who, with a few futile exceptions, view pedestrians with a combination of disgust and horror. Walking about is all very well as a hobby, but it doesn't put money in anybody's pockets and that, I'm afraid, is what counts.

Incidentally, Dulwich Holdings Ltd, which claims copyright for the website, doesn't seem to exist at Companies House. There is one registered in nearby Jersey, though, where it seems to share an office (or at least a brass plate) with one or more of BNP Paribas' numerous offshoots, and a ton of other outfits. It's difficult to find out much more about them, except they have been a client for Four Communications, a pricey-looking PR outfit that has offices in 'the UK and the Gulf', has won an 'Agency of the Year in the Middle East' award and describes themselves as EPIC, with 'core values' and everything. None of which means anything much, and I wouldn't dream suggesting there was anything shadowy afoot. But if were thinking, as was probably intended, that Dulwich Holdings was a reliable local developer rather than a bit of an offshore bank, you might have another surprise in store.

Flashpotata Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I registered with the developers but have not > received a response yet... > It will take some time, I think. The chances are they won't have fixed any prices yet. What I guess they're doing is seeing how many people register, which might be a lot, even if they've already sold some off-plan. Then they'll suggest a price for one or two of the properties, see how many respond, rack the price up, and round and round till there's only as many bidders as properties. That's how the first price gets set, after which the next one gets 'released' with that price as a floor, and another round of 'bidding' goes on. By trickling them on to the market, they keep a pleasant upward pressure on the prices, which is why they'll probably never issue an 'asking price'. They may issue a tempting 'guide price' to encourage interest, but that won't mean very much. It won't even mean much when they ask for proof you've the money, or a mortgaqe offer. That's just to check you're genuine and they're not wasting their time (your time, on the other hand, is a different matter). There is also the risk that the whole process is just a price-setting exercise, and there's a string of corporate buyers lined up who've agreed to pay x% above what the 'market price' turns out to be. But you don't know that, and they don't have to tell you. The only way you'll ever know is if the properties turn up on the open market a few months later. It's a bit of a cynical process, and can be very drawn out. It's not unknown for properties to stand empty (and deliberately not quite finished) for months or years. As appreciating assets, they have good investment value, and with interest rates what they are, more worth sitting on than selling. Not all such sales are so complicated, but I notice that you're not dealing with developers. I'd guess they've done their bit and gone. Now you're dealing with a 'selling agent', in the shape of BNP Paribas, who isn't your average local estate agent, and an 'asset management' company. If you thought new-builds would be simple, you're in for a surprise.

The problem is that Photoshop doesn't like Lightroom as a source for batches and Lightroom can't understand Photoshop Actions. That leaves two main ways of doing it. Neither are particularly elegant, but better than nothing. The first is to run Photoshop batches (File > Automate > Batch) using a Folder or Bridge as a source. If you use Bridge, you'll have to have Bridge running and the right files selected (preferably copied and pasted to a separate folder first, something that's easily done in Bridge but not, for some reason, in Lightroom). Alternatively, you can add a Photoshop action as an Export Action for Lightroom. Simply ceate a droplet in Photoshop with File > Automate > Create Droplet, choose the right action and then save the droplet in the Adobe/Lightroom/Export Actions folder (assuming you can find it). You can then choose that action as a post-processing function when you export from Lightroom.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm dubious to how they'll be able to keep the > post office open after 5.30pm on weekdays and the > proposed Saturday and Sunday times without extra > staff provision or the franchisee training up > Costcutter staff to do the job which is currently > managed by one person. It'll only be a post office in the sense that it'll have some scales and be able to take some sorts of parcel. It'll probably be just a box on a counter, like the yellow bill-paying things, and so will be as open as the shop is. It might, perhaps, be a self-service Post'n'Go kiosk, but that might be a hope too far. Once you've taken most of the handling of cash, cheques, documents, forms and leaflets out of the equation, there's not a lot left for a post office to do. If you then cut the range of stamps down to two, print the rest on demand, and rule out awkward parcels, it can almost run itself, with no need for extra staff or, for that matter, much training. In reality, it's a smoke-and-mirrors way of announcing another closure, from a very similar playbook to the newly-privatised Royal Mail's cunning wheeze of revising the 'latest posting time' on pillar boxes to 9am (7am in some cases); a stunt that effectively gives it another sluggardly day to hang on to your letter before it's deemed to have breached its target. Sure, it'll be called a Post Office. But it won't be a Post Office as we know it. It looks innocuous enough, though, and as Councillor Barber seems pleased, I guess it's a wheeze that has worked.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please see > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s38770 > /Lordship%20Lane%2020mph%20zone%20proposal.pdf Right you are, sorry.

bluecanary Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ................Not been able to find > anything similar for Lordship Lane although did > find the public notice and traffic management > order > And you wouldn't expect to. Lordship Lane is managed by TfL and thus excluded, as it says in section 2 of the order you link to. If TfL are required, or minded, to consult they will usually do so independently of the council.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well they took out Saddam and Gadafi so why not > this mob ? In short, because this lot have more money. If we started taking out people merely because they were murderous, slave-trafficking scum, half the developments in London would still be on the drawing board, and the City would have to find an honest way to make a living.

There is a London-wide 'Mobile Recycling Service' - a token gesture in the form of a van with bins in it - that pitches up roughly according to the timetable posted here: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/10070/recycling/2534/mobile_recycling_centre You can take printers and other small appliances to it. But where it says Dulwich Library, it means the car park of the Plough. It also says 10am to 1pm, but it's safer to assume 11am to noon.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Recording taken this afternoon near Dulwich > Library. > > Volume isn't precise it's not actually as loud as > the recording but it gives an idea. > > And that particular Aircraft was faster than most. Are you sure it wasn't a 176?

Done that. 1067, now.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shouldn't the police be asking questions of the > people who buy platinum scrap? > > Or am I just naive? Yes and no. On a practical level, they could do, and probably will. But I doubt they'll get many answers, as it wouldn't be difficult to lose a few thousand extra convertors among all the cars that are scrapped each year, and where there's money, as the banking crisis showed, there's impunity. On a theoretical level, Plod has better things to do. it's of course dreadful that people can't leave precious things unattended in the street all night without having their bits nicked, and the police have a responsibility to reduce all crime, even those that are practically invited. But, given I have to carry my pushbike up three flights of stairs on account of Plod's decades-old indifference to the bicycle-theft epidemic, I fail to see why the better-heeled and lazier, who insist on cluttering the gutters with the noisy, smelly junk they're too mean to properly garage, should get preferential treatment.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why does it bother you? If you've bought > recently, people can very easily estimate how much > you had to pay. Well, yes. But that only works if it's a normal transaction, reflecting the market price at the time. But as MrBen points out, transactions aren't always normal. Sometimes people have reason to want to lie about the price, over- or under-estimating it depending on whether they're trying to borrow money, get divorced, avoid tax, claim insurance, whinge about council tax, diddle a relative or anything else that still passes for economic activity. Some properties go for surprisingly low prices. Forced sales do happen, of course, but a knock-down private sale can be a neat way to disappear taxable income or inconvenient assets, whether criminal gains or the sort of pile that might keep you off legal aid. Some go for surprisingly high prices. Those significantly above market rates - which estate agents love, despite the delicate stench of palpable fraud, because they push up the reported market rates - don't happen just because some people have more money than sense. They can happen because it's a way of moving money from one person or company to another without it being too obvious. Stamp duty is less avoidable than it was, but it's a smaller hit than corporation or income or inheritance taxes might be, and is, though you have to be a bit clever, a great way to minimise outgoings. The tax regime, despite appearances, is a nice little earner for the chiselling scammers among us, and serves the legal and property industries very well indeed. This isn't entirely surprising, given that both MPs and their Whitehall masters tend to be selected, as they have been for centuries, from a restricted pool of privileged property-owners who, as the expenses scandal showed, have a vested interest in loopholes.

There are signs, and there was a consultation, and there are bits on Southwark's website to explain it. But, in short, some floods in 2004 caused the owners of houses in and around Dulwich Village to put in insurance claims of over ?1m. This has, as you'd expect, raised the premiums considerably, to the utter distress of everyone. To relieve this distress the Council and Thames Water have, between them, decided to donate around ?4m of the spare money we've paid in taxes and water bills to a Grand Scheme of Flood Defences, with the aim of turning the Park into a swamp when it rains, rather than letting the rainwater gurgle down the hill and frighten the rich folk. As far as I know, the insurance industry has not offered any financial help, presumably because the claims are no more than a historic blip on their radar from which they're handily profiting. Thames Water has been more generous, but as it's them that are doing some of the work, they can probably afford to be generous. Besides, a tax-deductible donation to a community project looks good in a way that fixing drains, especially drains that haven't flooded in a decade, doesn't.

It couldn't have happened to a nicer chap.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Estate agents... I'm sorry, but this thread is about things that cause you irrational rage.