Sue

DirtyBox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just made blackcurrant gin and didn't bother > sterilizing the bottles but then again it tasted > so good I drank the whole lot in under 2 weeks :-) Oh dear. I've done that in the past with sloe gin, but I've got about three litres of vodka in it (it was very embarrassing getting it in the Co-Op, I got some very funny looks when I asked for three litres of the cheapest vodka :)) ) Anyway, it's supposed to be for presents, hollow laugh :))

womanofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Sterilizing means either putting in a > dishwasher or washing in very hot water and then > leaving in a warm oven to dry out. I'm not sure that's sufficient? I have already done that, but I was going to use Milton as well.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > Rye Lane is quickly transforming becoming a food > hub that is a far cry to what it was before-- in > two years Rosie, Mr Boa, a new Vietnamese place, > Spike, Peddar, Blue Tit (which is hair but still) > have all opened in less than 2 years. > > Yes.. I saw Rosie why out walking the other day.. > > Todays Special:- Scrambled Egg on Toast.. ?7.00 > What a bagain eehh. ? Rosie's is great. Maybe try the scrambled egg on toast before moaning about the price? If it's crap and small, then you have a reason to moan. If it's delicious and a decent size, then you look pretty silly.

Don Simpson is a great mobile mechanic who would probably meet you where the car is at the moment. 020 8299 7387. Honest, reliable, helpful and very reasonably priced. He has kept my ancient Micra on the road for some years now :) Good luck!

I am making cassis from blackcurrants and vodka. They've been soaking for months and now I've got to add the sugar. All the recipes I can find say to use sterilised jars/bottles. Does anybody know, is it really necessary to sterilise them? Surely vodka is strong enough not to need it? I know you have to be very careful with wine and beer making to use sterile equipment, but cassis??? Is it because of the sugar? I don't want to waste all the effort (and vodka expense!) I've gone to so far. On the other hand sterilising things is a pain ..... :(

Thanks for this. Does "due to close" mean close in the near future, or close within the next year or so, or never close, I wonder?

Sorry, duplicate post

kristymac1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks All - bath water is great idea! Leave it a while to soak, squidge it around (wear rubber gloves), squeeze it out (make sure no bits are still identifiable) then put it all in a black bag in the green bin :)

kristymac1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry if this has been covered before, > I have a lot of personal papers which I need to > destroy (too many to shred unfortunately) - can I > burn them in a special incinerator bin or are > there restrictions against it? Another thing you can do, which somebody once suggested on here and I successfully tried, is to shove them all in the bath (or a bucket of water) and mash them up. You get a soggy mess which you could then bin (or, I suppose, use for a papier mache project!)

Sorry to be so dim, and I'm sure I must have missed something, but can the memorial itself not be saved and moved elsewhere even if the rest of the building is destroyed at some point?

I imagine Monday is their busiest morning for calls because people won't have been able to call over the weekend?

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A Cycle Hangar has now been installed on > Ulverscroft Road.. Whateley Road end.. > And woo hoo! I've paid my rent, my key is in the post, and I'm off to look for a bike! Now all I've got to do is remember how to ride one. I've bought the L plates :))

fruityloops Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > taper Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Just walked up Underhill, so had a good look at > > Area Z. There are quite a few trees that have > been > > preserved. Subject to sensitive re-planting and > > development, and no similar development in the > > more densely wooded area, I don't think it will > > detract from the cemetery as a public place. > > I live next to it... And there's hundreds that > they haven't. > > Penguin. I stubbed my toe on my bed yesterday, do > you think the council will be interested in taking > it away for me so it doesn't happen again? The council don't have a responsibility for public health and safety in your bedroom. They do have a responsibility for public health and safety in places which they manage, and rightly so. Or perhaps you think they should let everyone roam freely over the contaminated area of land, for example? I wonder if you'd be so anti health and safety considerations in a public place if you or a member of your family became sick, injured or worse as a result of the council failing in their duty in this respect?

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just walked up Underhill, so had a good look at > Area Z. There are quite a few trees that have been > preserved. Subject to sensitive re-planting and > development, and no similar development in the > more densely wooded area, I don't think it will > detract from the cemetery as a public place. That's good to hear. Blanche, your co-organiser - and apparently the owner of SSW's domain name - is still tweeting to the Goose's Twitter page and commenting on posts I have made on this thread in a personal capacity. I do not think it is irrelevant to ask you, as the apparent representative of SSW on this thread, whether this bizarre method of promoting your campaign is SSW official policy. I would appreciate an answer before this question too gets "lost in the backlog". Thanks.

Fox, out of interest, why would you lay wooden flooring? Don't you have floorboards already, underneath your carpets?

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Regarding Blanche's definition of what constitutes > a tree, I think this may be the case she is > referring to > > http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/general/news/stor > ies/2009/feb/2009-02-Week-3/judgementgives > > This ruling referred to growth within a whole area > covered by a Tree Preservation Order which as far > as I'm aware does not apply to the Camberwell > Cemeteries. Thanks for that. It's quite clear that that definition is relating solely to cases where there is a TPO. It also refers to a definition of a tree in woodland (am on my phone and can't double check) made I think by judge Denning, which defines a tree as being greater than a certain diameter and not including whips and saplings. Hope this is correct, I'll check once I'm on my laptop and its easier to have two things open at once. However it would appear that the "hundreds" of trees referred to by the CPG is an exaggeration.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ???? Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > DulwichFox Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > The Fox does not need to be narcissistic... People > just keep talking about Him.. ;-) > Foxy for God!

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sounds like someone left the gas on. Lit a match > and BOOM! Didn't that happen in a restaurant in ED not long ago, or am I imagining things?

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Plusnet has been owned by the BT Group since the > end of January 2007 - but is operated at arms > length. They are run as two separate businesses.

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue is this really about the Council's plans for > the cemeteries? > > I offered to answer by email because you and > others demanded replies to questions buried in the > backlog. > > I send and receive most SSW emails but sometimes > they are passed on to other members to answer - > yes of course, that's very common practice for a > community campaign group, or even a Council. > > I'm not on here all the time so as I've said I'm > happy to answer questions do send them over. But > do check they aren't on the FAQs first, thanks. > I have no quarrel with you, Blanche, so please don't try to pick one. I was trying to avoid being explicit, but since you ask, it's about offensive emails which at least one person posting on this thread has apparently received when they have emailed SSW at the address you give. Therefore I think people would like to be sure that it would be you who responded to their emails, particularly as you are ill. And though I can't speak for others, I suspect that most people posting on this thread would rather your answers to questions they have put be also posted on here, rather than given in a private email, otherwise they would not have asked the questions on a public forum. It is hard to have a proper discussion if certain relevant issues are taken away from the main place of discussion. ETA: And I am interested in your saying that people have "demanded" answers to questions. At what point does "requesting" become "demanding"? Also, questions were only "buried in the backlog", as you describe it, because they weren't answered at the time, in some cases after several requests. And now I have other things to do.

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a lounged thread for having a go at SSW. > Please can we focus on the issues here? It is not > constructive to harangue specific SSW members for > answers. I sent a private message by mistake. Please ignore it. I cannot see that anybody is "haranguing" anybody for answers. Following the banning on here of one of the SSW organisers, another "specific SSW member" joined the forum in order to continue to promote/represent SSW's views on here and to post on this thread. I cannot see how requesting answers from that person to perfectly legitimate questions relating to the relevant issues is not being constructive. In fact I would have thought that failing to answer such questions was not constructive, and was not helping a rational debate. Do you agree?

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry I won't be able to answer every question on > here, I'm just one person and still ill. You can call or email me though as said and > I will respond. People have emailed the email address you give and have not received a response from you, but from somebody else. So I ask again, how can people be sure that the response will come from you, as clearly more than one person has access to this email account.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From your experiences I'd ditch virgin pronto. > > I was on the virgin national service till December > 2014 getting 2mb/s when they informed me the > service was transferring to Talk Talk. I switched > and went to the Post Office on their premium > service (not fibre) and am pretty much continually > getting 6mb/s which is sufficient for my needs and > at ?8 + VAT per month is not a bad deal. I get about 6 with Plusnet at the moment, but I'm just changing to fibre with them for ?10 a month including evening/weekend calls. That's plus the line rental which I pay annually. Did a load of calculations re the BT deal (just ended) but negotiated the deal with Plusnet which was slightly cheaper. No TV (but I don't need that) but BT was Landline only. I've been with Plusnet for some years now, and their generally excellent customer service was another factor in my decision to stay with them. After reading this thread there is no way I would consider Virgin!!

Taper, I agree that a balanced solution is what is needed. The problem is that the group making the most noise, and trouble for the council and the diocese, don't appear to be willing to move even slightly from their position that nothing at all must be touched. Unless I have totally misread their statements on here and elsewhere.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------ the issue > of burials isn't going to go away, and I'm > starting to wonder if we aren't having the wrong > conversation. The debate between residents and > indeed with the council should maybe be more about > what happens to us when we die. Space is limited - > others have pointed out that leases on graves on > other cemeteries are still sometimes only 25 > years, and this problem will only get worse. > Perhaps we need to be discussing how we intend to > dispose of our sadly departed on the future, > otherwise this issue will continue. A very good point, but for the longer term? I doubt the council will hold up their immediate plans in order to debate this. It must extend nationwide surely and involve a great deal of consultation, though I have no idea exactly what would be involved. Legislation?