peterstorm1985

At Christmas our postman seemed to think that the paper recycling box was a great place to 'hide' parcels when we weren't in to receive them. Up to a point that's true. Not so great if you go away on holiday and the recycling collectors leave the box at the end of the path with the discarded 'non-recycling item' on show for everyone to see. Fortunately one of my neighbours noticed and took the package for us. The problem with Royal Mail is that they are only allowed to deliver to the address on the package; all other delivery companies simply hand the package to my next door neighbour who is always at home.

Thank you expat; that was very helpful Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > *tired sigh* > > peterstorm I'm not claiming that the forum fully > represents the views of ED. I'm saying that it's > as good if not better than all the alternatives. > In terms of practicality, timeliness and value for > money. > > WTF is it with some of you guys? What would you > prefer? > > *shakes head* Sorry if I have disappointed you to the point of such weariness Huguenot- I was simply trying to get some certainty of numbers to end that potential sidetrack. Also, notwithstanding the far greater numbers of viewers/responders on this forum I was trying to add a note of caution to arriving at a conclusion from such responses. Whether it is 2000, 4000, or whatever number that consider the question here, it will only be from those who use this form of communication and that ignores certain sections of the local populous entirely. True representation of the demographic - which may be by a very small response rate - is far more important than quantity of answers.

karter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Come hugue be fair with words for once. 15000 > registered users not regular users right? I wonder if Admin could give some stats on the regular users - I'm sure it wouldn't be more than 2000 at most. And what is regular? I've viewed and posted a lot in recent months but I sometimes go months at a time without accessing this forum (and so there are at least two discarded usernames that are probably still 'registered' but I've lost access to old email addresses so can't get the password that I've since forgotten). But, more importantly, forumites are IT users, which means they are a very particular section of the local demographic. A significant minority of ED don't have internet access and, of those that do, I'm sure there is a higher percentage that have never been on this forum. I'm not suggesting that the outcome of a vote amongst the whole of the local populous on this particular subject would return results any different from a vote on the forum but I don't think you could ever rely on this forum to fully represent the views of ED.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Yes it's despicable how our lunch of a tuna > sandwich means the death of millions of other, > probably perfectly edible, fish, but blame that on > the EEC, world trade agreements. Hugh is not going > to influence this debate one iota. How can you blame the "EEC,world trade agreements" for all the perfectly edible fish that get discarded? Quotas may be an unwieldy and failing attempt to resolve an international crisis but vast quantities of fish are discarded, not because of quotas, but simply because no one chooses to eat it (and so make it commercially viable). And why is that? Because far too many people are too narrow minded to have anything but a tuna sandwich for lunch. If you don't choose to eat anything but a single species then you must take personal responsibility for all the other species that suffer as a direct consequence. You can't blame a national or international government body for what you have for lunch. They don't have any control over your stomach, or your hand as it reaches to the tin on the supermarket shelves.

seanmlow Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sorry, I don't think anyone in their right > mind would drive through a crossing when a child > is in close proximity. If they did this, having > someone standing there with a stick to stop them > is hardly going to act as a deterrent to a madman > like that is it? > Sometimes I think it may be as simple as the fact that traffic lights - that the driver is concentrating on - are quite a few feet from the ground. Small children are pretty close to the ground and don't get seen; if there are railings alongside the crossing, children waiting to cross can become invisible (particularly at dusk/in bad weather). Lollipop signs are in the same range of view as the traffic lights so they are far more noticeable. It isn't always madmen that endanger children, sometimes just those with less peripheral vision.

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't get why anyone would want to throw a party > for the service men and women. Grot that a bit > like saying "sorry it's so rotten over there, but > we're thinking of you whilst having a great old > time". Can't agree more. If you want to show support for the troops, next time you see a serviceman/woman back from active service, make a point of walking up to them, shake their hand and then buy them a beer/box of chocolates/lunch. That will make them feel appreciated, not a party in their absence.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > 'The Royals' cost us 62p each last year Thanks for the numbers Bob. If you multiply 62p by the number of years you expect to be a taxpayer, then divide by the number of Royal weddings/jubilees that prompt an extra Bank holiday, I reckon that's pretty good value for each day off produced. If anyone has the figures for how much tourist income they generate that would be useful; I suspect it's a healthy multiple of the amount spent on them. Outdated they may be but so is Shakespeare and all the rest of Britain's history that draws the crowds. I'm no royalist but I am a pragmatist so I'm happy to raise a glass to the continuation of an institution that brings in plenty of dollars/yen etc. I vote for Goose Green.

Lollipop people are useful at stopping children from crossing the road when the green man isn't showing. The Townley road crossing is inherently dangerous as the traffic lights can be seen from some considerable distance, and some drivers coming down the hill speed up when pedestrians approach the crossing, presumably in the hope of getting through before someone presses the button and the traffic lights turn red. Without the lollipop people, children are tempted to cross without waiting for the green man, with potentially disastrous consequences. Two lollipop people may be excessive but there is definitely a need for at least one at this crossing.

I find it very odd that the title of this thread is "aspirational supermarket" and then the suggestions are M&S or Waitrose. What's so aspirational about them? OK, so they are much better managed than the Co-Op and the prices are hardly different if you compare like for like goods (I find the Co-Op to be shockingly expensive compared to Sainsbury's). I'd happily say yes to either but only if it replaced the Co-Op store. I can see no value simply in having another supermarket on LL. We don't have the parking spaces. That said, if you're thinking of a redevelopment of the police station, the footprint does provide the possibility of underground parking, and if this was a planning requirement then I might be persuaded. If persuaded, my vote would be for M&S as it's product range is narrower and less likely to destroy the local independents

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi DiD, > Southwark Life is delivered to every home every > month so not sure an extra leaflet is required. > Southwark Life is delivered to every home every month but contains such utter tosh that a high percentage of householders put it straight in the recycling bin without reading it (straw poll of neighbours confirms). If this dreadful magazine was replaced by a leaflet of some value, as suggested by DiD, then I would be very happy.

There is a massive difference between chuggers (who are usually paid) and those who give up their spare time to shake a tin on the street. Very heartening to see a positive posting amongst all the moaning on this forum (and that includes me before anyone picks me up on it).

This sounds like a very unpleasant experience. I'm never keen on charity chuggers. But at least when they're on the pavement it's obvious who they are so you can make a choice to speak to them or not. To catch you off guard like that is not reasonable and I'm not surprised you weren't happy. I know that the Co-op do sometimes allow charity workers to stand in the entrance but I didn't think they could approach anyone in the store. Probably best to send a letter to Co-Op head office to complain.

Prussia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Yes they give money to charity BUT they are also > meant to be a place where you can buy SECOND HAND > items which are priced as second hand items. There is a clear view by one section of this forum that charity shops are 'meant to be a place where you can buy SECOND HAND items which are priced as second hand items'. Whilst there are some charity shops that have been set up to provide low cost clothing, the MIND shop is not one of them (it's worth looking at their website, and that of Oxfam and the Red Cross, to see what the purpose of the charity shops is stated to be). There is no law requiring that they set the price below the original cost of the item, and there is nothing in the MIND shops advertising or charity literature to say that they do (The Red Cross does mention 'grab yourself a bargain' which could be construed to suggest it but the rest of the wording indicates that this is just a slogan). The value of an item is what someone is prepared, or able, to pay for it; what it cost previously is irrelevant. If you don't like the prices in this shop then don't use it. If they have an empty shop for days on end they'll soon change their pricing structure. If they keep turning a healthy profit then they won't.

Ann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > .......Surely charity shops > should charge appropriately. To try and sell a > second hand coat for ?40 to me is ridiculous when > high street prices can often be less....... Was it a nice coat? I admit to buying the odd thing in Primark but they don't last long - better to buy good quality second hand. Sometimes the Mind shop staff will get the pricing wrong but if they manage to sell a coat at ?40 rather than ?20 then that's an extra ?20 in the till to be spent on the charity's purpose. It would be interesting to know what the Mind shop takings are each week compared to the other charity shop in Lordship Lane but I suspect that they may be quite high. I have a gift aid card for the Mind Shop (they were the first charity shop in the area to introduce it so they get all my second hand goods) and I get notified on a regular basis the amount that they have received for my donations. Having seen what price was put on goods that I had previously given to the other charity shop and almost wept at the waste I am regularly chuffed to see how much Mind have managed to flog my stuff for.

Gimme Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >................................... Although > there is perhaps also a view that people of > limited means don't NEED fashionable clothes, and > it is just aspirational marketing that makes them > think that they do... Good point - 'Fashion' is completely unnecessary and damages our environment. If everyone who wore 'fashionable' clothing recycled their clothes by sending them to the charity shop when the next fashion came along then it wouldn't be so bad, but they don't. Far too much perfectly good clothing goes to landfill in ordinary domestic rubbish. Perhaps if more of us took good quality clothes to the local charity shops there would be the 'pile em high sell em cheap' volumes that would allow the prices to be reduced (as Applespider's post), thereby helping those in local need as well as furthering the charity's aims. Unfortunately, it may simply be that those who manage the shop on a day to day basis don't have the fashion/retail knowledge to tell if something should be ?5 or ?50. Or perhaps they do - just because the original price was low doesn't mean someone might not pay more for a particular item of clothing. The cross-over between second hand and 'vintage' is somewhat arbitrary in the eyes of the buyer.

cmck83 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I always thought it was a bit of both to be > honest. There have always been some small/independent charity shops whose purpose is to provide low cost clothing etc for the local community, particularly in areas generally perceived as deprived, but if you look into the history of the major charities, that have high street shops, their use of the 'charity shop' is quite clearly for the income provided. Most charity websites explain what the charity is for - do a quick google search now and you'll be hard pressed to find any that say that their shops are provided to benefit the purchasers of the donated goods rather than (or in addition to) raising cash to further the societies' expressed intentions.

I have always understood the mainstream Charity shops to be the exact opposite of what marianne1 suggests. Oxfam, in particular, is and always has been a development charity raising funds for work overseas, consequently, the purpose of their shops has only ever been to make a profit to allow them to do vital work. Of course there are many who need a low cost clothing supplier and charity shops often provide this, but that is a handy by-product of the mainstream charity shops not their purpose.

doubledipper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But, in the interests of not having a brick > through my window, I gave him 6 quid for a cloth. > I can understand the natural desire to pay to make them go away but each time someone buys something it just encourages them to try again and not everyone can afford to pay them off. I say NO before they start their patter and shut the door very quickly. If you do get caught in conversation, how about asking them for their name and address "for the police report" and can they look up (point to an outside light if you've got one) "there's a camera in it, they want us to get a good photo".

Great summary. I'd advise against suggestion 7 at this time of year. If you come back via Streatham Common at the wrong time of day the waiting room may be shut and it's far too cold on that platform for what can be a twenty minute wait.

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Looks like Thames Water has chosen a rather odd > moment to notify some of us of "essential work in > your area". > > On this road, we've got the water off for 6 hours > on Wednesday 6th. YMMV. Sorry, but why is this an odd moment? Essential works have to be done at various times of the year - or it could even be that the latest very low temperatures have caused some additional damage that needs work all of a sudden.

zeban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes I did think that, just not sure the best way > of reaching out to people Probably best to speak to everyone you know, whether friend or shopkeeper and see if they can make the introductions. Or contact Volunteer support

Probably a family of foxes. The rabbity smell might be remnants of their lunch

Lying Toad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Next time you are putting wood outside, please PM > me as I use it for the open fire - seriously, no > kidding - it beats paying for wood at the local > garage! I guess I should use the non-emergency number to alert the authorities of this admittance of breaking the law? Smokeless zone

From TFL website, you will need zone 3 on your travelcard if you want to use buses in zone 3 "Use Travelcards on buses in all zones and trams if your Travelcard includes Zones 3, 4, 5 or 6" travelcard zone for buses

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Was it on your private front garden, or on the > pavement? > > Vans drive round the local area all the time, > looking for scrap metal and other valuable items. > I always thought that if it's on the pavement, > it's fair game. This is a very important point of difference. If the box was on private property then it's clearly theft but if it was on the pavement then it could reasonably be thought to be rubbish. As the OP has put the registration number of the vehicle, and so the person who took the item can be identified, I think it essential that we know where the box was.