Earl Aelfheah

I hate speedbumps and Southwark seems obsessed with installing them. I'm sure their proliferation in London has contributed to the commensurate increase in the number of ridiculous psuedo military vehicles on the roads. Anyway, that said, I think that this particular road (going through a park as it does), is one of the very few cases where speed bumps are probably justified. Southwark - just stop putting them everywhere else!

.

Average for three bed house is more around the 500 mark. Still stupid money, but then so is everywhere else. There will either be a short term crashnor else a long term stagnation IMO

I hadn't, but guess it's because of the school? Must get a lot of foot fall.

Unbelievable racket. I don't agree that this goes on everywhere, it's quite extreme. Anyone got idea on what to do about it?

Small correction to my last post - I believe the noise team work later on Friday / Saturday and so on those nights they may typically stop dealing with new issues around 1 - 1.30 (although it will depend on how busy they are). I'm sure everyone will have different experiences of the service, but that's mine.

The noise team stop work at 2.30. They are generally very busy and so in practice, stop going to new call outs around 11.30 - 12.00 in my experience. So unless you log a complaint before this time, they're unlikely to be able to help. As this is the time most people start getting back from the pub (and therefore the time that disturbances start), it's all a bit unsatisfactory. They used to be 24 hours, but to save money decided to reduce their hours, choosing to keep the daytime service, rather than the nightime one (seems like an odd decision to me). Anyway, good luck. pipsky2008 suggestions seem sensible.

Southwark noise team no longer work at night, so of little help unfortunately. The type of people who act this way are unlikely to be reasonable so be careful goi ground and trying to reason with them. Best bet is to get a group of neighbours together and goi g around together.

Gavain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > also a fire hazard If only there were handy bottles of liquid randomly deposited around ed, then this may counter the risk

It?s not cheap to buy frozen cheese and ham sandwiches, or to snack on frozen Yorkshire pudding wraps. As for Doner Kebab pizzas ? yes, they?re cheap, but no one should be eating this stuff. Let?s be clear, Iceland is no working class hero. You can live far more cheaply buying fresh produce and making hearty filling food. I know that not everyone has the know how to do this, but places like Iceland remove any impetuous to learn such essential life skills by offering a false alternative (empty calories and potential long term health problems).

Great event.. Thanks to those who organised it. Re. Cupcakes (or 'cups of sickly icing')... This fad has to come to an end soon surely?

... Also, bear in mind that the Yorkshire pudding wrap is actually describe as a 'snack'. I don't know the fat and calorie content but that seems pretty irresponsible.

There are plenty of examples. Frozen cheese and ham sandwichs are just one, doner kebab pizzas another (?1 at Iceland). You won't find these in Sainsburys (for example). Take a walk around Iceland and look at the type of cheap, highly processed convenience foods they specialise in. Yes, in my opinion they are one of the worst offenders when it comes to peddling this type of junk. (edited in order to point out this beauty)

Just for an example, look at their 'Ultimate Snack' range..

Iceland may sell one or two basics at a good price, but the majority of their stuff is truly appalling, for both health and environment. There are a number of low cost supermarkets which cater for those on a budget without such disregard for quality / nutrition. Personally, I won't shed a tear for their closure.

When in doubt it's usually safe to assume that there are no trains on any given Sunday.

I suspect that overall M&S will prove more popular than Iceland, though clearly not everyone will be happy to lose the latter. There is always going to be pressure on parking and the more popular the shop the greater the traffic. Not sure it's a good reason to stop popular shops coming to LL.

Interesting article on the (lack of) evidence re. amber necklaces form teething.

Great policy, well done Harris Boys. My advice would be not to get one. They are unnecessary and it's only an issue because so many parents do buy their kids mobiles. Don't be part of it. h1981 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My son is year 7 at Harris Boys East Dulwich. They > are not allowed mobile phones as long as they are > in school uniform, ie not just when at the school, > but also travelling to and from the school. As a > result, apparently, it is "known" that Harris Boys > do not carry mobile phones and are subsequently > not a target. Although I was a little edgy at > first, my son being uncontactable on his school > commute hasn't been an issue.

Prices going through the roof?

You would still have seperate threads. I'm asking for a new section, so they don't all get posted in the 'general' area. ratty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have to disagree, I find the individual threads > much better to see at a glance. One quick look > tells me that Henslowe and Choumert got blagged > and that there was a personal attack near the > station. Handy.

But it's worse having post after post about various 'incidents' in the general discussion section. At least with a dedicated section you can choose whether or not to read a constant stream of crime reports.

Please can a new section be created for those who want to report, or read about crime in the area?

The important point to keep hold of is that you are not alone. Some parents are lucky enough to have children who sleep easilly and often, but just as many do not. Things will get better however. Hang in there.

I agree that in general employers need to be more flexible. It's unfortunate that so few employers see the mutual benefit in being so. I have to say however, that in my experience, most local authorities are pretty good when it comes to accomodating flexible working requests. Certainly relative to many private sector firms they could almost be considered exemplars of good practice. I do not beleive that it is helpful to force businesses to accomodate any and all requests regardless of how it may impact on operations. This is unlikely to help anyone's cause in the long run. To ensure that businesses are genuinely considering requests and exploring options which can work with the needs of the business, seems reasonable. The weakness in the current legal position of course, is that the actual decision itself isn't really examined, simply the process. But if tribunals were to second guess actual decisions, they would effectively be taking on the role of proxy manager. In such a senario, you could just as well cut out the middle man and have decisions go straight to a judge. I can see therefore, why the law only goes as far as it does. My unease with the situaiton described above however, is that it isn't a case of someone going after a really bad employer who simply refuses to even contenance flexible working, but a local authority who has considered the case and tried to offer some options. The real issue when it comes to getting back to work after having a child are the cost of living (in particular housing) and the expense of childcare. If you want to make a real difference then lobby your MP to change policy in these areas. Don't sue local tax payers.