nxjen

Or if you can walk to the corner of East Dulwich Road and Peckham Rye you can catch the 343 to London Bridge

Doesn?t Really Maria sell most of this?

As you heard about it in the Herne, perhaps it should be called Herne Village. And maybe as it?s at the bottom of a hill it should be called Herne Hill. Oh, hang on ...

?It seems our local historic ties with Indian/Bangladeshi eateries is slowly coming to an end. A heritage going back over 40 years now. If we continue to lose these cherished stalwarts of LL it will be the beginning of the end.? Unnecessarily alarmist! Lordship Lane has four Indian/Bangladeshi restaurants, together with two in Grove Vale, one on East Dulwich Road and the takeaway down by The Plough. Since I moved here, new restaurants Tandoori Nights and Memsaab (and its previous incarnations) have opened. True we?ve lost Curry Cabin but Jaflong hasn?t closed just moved a short way away. Should we lose more, there are many factors to consider including the upcoming generations? desire to to work in other areas than these traditional South Asian businesses.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Larry the cat is the obvious choice > > He won't roll over at the first offer of a belly > rub.... He will for Dreamies, everyone has their vulnerabilities ...

I?m considering getting a water meter installed but I?m wondering how watering the garden in summer with a hosepipe affects usage. Can anyone advise?

This isn?t a rumour that you?re starting by any chance?

Please don?t anyone say Ricky Gervais. Philomena Cunk seems to have a good grasp on complex issues. I guess Sheldon Cooper is ruled out as he?s American.

At one stage, the building where Franklins restaurant is located, at no. 157, was a pub called The Victory but I have no idea if it was called that in the early 1990s.

And it will probably happen next year.

There are many weeks, particularly in winter, when there is no garden waste to go into the large brown bin. When the green bags containing food waste are put in the otherwise empty large brown bins, it means the guys collecting the waste have to dive in to fish out the green bags, a most unpleasant and extremely inefficient way of collecting the food waste. It is far easier to empty the smaller outdoor brown caddies.

I believe the house and its land was not included within the boundary of the park when it was formed at the end of 19th century when Homestall Farm was purchased by Camberwell Borough Council.

?Whether the land is then alienated and becomes the school's...? Most unlikely to happen as the ownership of the Common and the Park is governed by all kinds of legal covenants. For the same reason, it?s unlikely the reinstatement of Peckham Rye Lido and the larger associated scheme which is currently proposed, is unlikely to happen.

You can sign up for the subscription at any time during the year before the end of March but if you don?t have a subscription your garden waste won?t be collected from the beginning of June.

Davis - Have you read your own post? ?... people hold a variety of beliefs of the world and themselves and when these beliefs are contradicted by observable information it creates an anxiety. However, to resolve this anxiety the habitual response in many people is not to alter their beliefs to confirm to the new information, but rather to alter or deny their observations so they can maintain their beliefs.?

Doris Day aged 97.

Their last facebook post was in November of last year. https://www.facebook.com/peckhamlido/?epa=SEARCH_BOX In it, they say "It's been much more complex than we expected" which given the ambition of the project, going far beyond rebuilding the original lido, comes as no surprise.

The outdoor food caddies have efficient fox proof locking mechanisms

Nice idea though it is, I doubt it would have any effect. Those who allow their dogs to poo without picking up have little relationship with their environment or with the community and the message of the poster would be unlikely to register let alone acted upon.

?Foxes more of an issue (squidgy)? Not always, had some very hard and knobbly deposits left on my window cill recently.

Do you mean the self check out near the greengrocer section is for baskets and the one near the notice board is for trolleys? I?ve never seen a sign that indicates this.

?There is no other rational way to deal with the 63% who chose not to participate. It's illogical to conclude that someone who wanted a CPZ would not bother telling the council that.? Statistics is based on data, not on a subjective view of what is considered rational or illogical. In this instance, I suspect a large proportion of East Dulwich residents who did not express a preference either way are not car owners and wouldn?t be for or against a CPZ.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When you look at it like that 32% of 37% of East > Dulwich Residents actively asked for a CPZ. > > That means that only 11.84% of East Dulwich > residents actually want a CPZ. > > The poster should therefore have said - "88.16% of > East Dulwich residents have rejected a CPZ" No because you?ve included the 63% of East Dulwich residents who did not respond to the consultation in with those who reject the CPZ. It?s not a binary situation, for or against, there is a large majority of East Dulwich residents who aren?t bothered either way but cannot be included in the stats for rejecting the CPZ. And I think you know this.

?Would you accept 'Two thirds of those who expressed an opinion in a consultation survey of residents in streets which might be impacted by a CPZ proposal were against any proposed CPZ'? - and in what way does this (really) differ from '67% were against' - other than being somewhat more clunky in expression?? The poster states ?68% of East Dulwich residents rejected ...? which as only 37% responded to the consultation is quite an extraordinary claim. This is how it differs.

Actually I didn?t imply 75% were for the CPZ but it seems that this is what you?ve inferred. The reason I have calculated the percentage of residents who are against a CPZ was to demonstrate that the figure of 67% (or maybe it?s 69%) who are against a CPZ quoted on the poster is most clearly an even bigger load of rubbish.