Earl Aelfheah

No one is suggesting that King's is going to be run on charitable donations. Marmora Man has pointed out that such a model of health care did exist in the past and (at least as I read his comments), seems to suggest that it is a feasible model for health care for the present. I disagree.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A tax funded, universal health care system has to > be preferable to one that relies on philantrophy. > > > RahRah - why is this so? I gave you some facts - > you have made an assertion but given no reasons. I gave my opinion, which is kind of the point of a forum. A hospital that is run on charitable donations is one that will find it very hard to plan, will be even more constrained by the whims of fashionable causes and will have to direct huge amounts of resource courting wealthy, potential donors. I find it very hard to believe that you would truelly like to see hospitals dependent on donations. The fact that hospitals were run on this basis for a long time, may be a fact, but isn't that relevant. It doesn't prove that the model is superior (in fact it suggests progress).

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just a point of historical fact. Hospitals in this > country have, for the vast part of their > existence, relied upon charity and voluntary > support. Barts was established in the 13th century > as a religious charitable institution, many other > similar hospitals followed in subsequent > centuries. The biggest nationalisation ever was > the "creation" of the NHS which took over > previously charitable and municipal funded > establishments in 1948. > > So for just over 60 years we've had a tax funded > (NOT government funded) health service against > several hundred years of charity funding. The fact that hospitals were run as charities for a large part of their history is not really that relevant. A tax funded, universal health care system has to be preferable to one that relies on philantrophy. I am surprised that so many are OK with King's approaching recently treated patients for money (assuming that this is what is happening, as portrayed in this thread).

The NHS is not a charity. I do not want to see it become one. It is a public service, which should be funded properly by the government. Police don't ask for donations after attending to the victims of crim. Neither do firemen after putting outa blaze. The NHS should lobby government for funds, not individual patients.

well they may not, but as a society we have to make the decision whether or not to make funding for healthcare a priority for politicians seeking election. The NHS is a shared resource and we should all contribute to it through a fair taxation system. I still don't think it is appropriate to ask patients for contributions.

What makes a yellow house 'funky'?

I completely disagree with, what seems to be the general view ,that this is appropriate. If the Hospital does not have sufficient funding then it should appeal to government for more money. The NHS should be funded through a fair and progressive taxation system, for the benefit of everyone. It should not have to rely on charity, nor should it be approaching patients for donations, in my opinion.

Sounds like the part bus option might be best. Cheers.

I just fancied starting the day with a bit of a jog, but it's too far to go the whole way. Thought I might be able to jog to a station and then catch the train for the last bit.

Does anyone know the nearest train station to ED which has trains running directly into Waterloo East?

I saw a cat. It was sat on a mat, eating a rat. Fancy that!

.... I agree that the current incarnation of the Vale is pretty poor. But a Wetherspoons? Stereforth - Don't muddle up JDW with an old skool boozer. They are about the blandest of the corporate chain pubs around (which you seem to rightly IMO, disaprove of).

ED has a nice collection of independents. The incursion of sh*testuff, Nero's and now a large and prominent Wetherspoons erodes some of the character of the place in my opinion. Some people may like these places - fair enough. But personally I don't.

How about installing chicanes? Or having a police person pulling over dangerous drivers?

So where there are a greater number, of brighter street lights being installed, should there not be consultation with people living in those streets?

Hi James, So where new street lights have been installed, there are fewer than before?

ED is very safe compared to much of London, as James' stats bear out. In fact it's pretty safe compared to lot's of places outside London.

Thanks for your suggestions. I'm surprised someone hasn't thought of opening one in Dulwich - I'm sure it would be successful.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not aware of any street lighting in SE22 being > so bright it looks like daytime. ...Ok, so a slight exaggeration - but only slight. On grey days, the evening can role round and there is little difference at street level (obviously you can still see that the sky is dark). There are certainly no shadowy corners - which I guess is what people find reassuring. Personally, I find it wierd. Streets need to be lit and I'm all for more efficient lighting, but why do we need extra lumens again? You've said that each lamp post gives off more light and a whiter (brighter) light. I believe that the old lamps are not being replaced 'one with another' (i.e. there are more of them). If they're brighter, shouldn't there be fewer? Surely any overall increase in street lighting should be subject to consultation as it effects those living there?

It's good that the council can arrange shields in order to deflect excessive light, but it might be worth questioning why such shields may be necessary. I would like to see the evidence that having brigher and brighter streets leads to a reduction in crime. If it's about fear of crime, sure I can see that people feel safer on a street that is as bright during the night as it is during the day. I'm not sure that's a good enough reason for creating a perma-day in SE22.

Southwark Council changed the street lights in the road were I live recently. It now never gets dark. Several people, on visiting my house, have commented on the fact that it is wierdly light at night. I imagine it's a bit like a Scandanavian summer, where the sun never seems to go down. Anyone else noticed this?

Southwark Council seems to be obsessed with installing speed bumps. How about enforcing the speed limit? I have an old Fiesta and going over one of those bumps, even at 15 mph is uncomfortable. The guys speeding down the road in their BMWs / 4X4s won't give a monkeys if there is a hump there or not (actually, careering over them at speed is probably considered more fun). Speed bumps are such an unfocussed and lazy response to dangerous drivers. It also increases CO2 and creates a lot of noise for residents.

Cowling and Wilcox just over the hill in Camberwell is great for art supplies / stationary.

The Castle sells Scampi Fries, has a pool table, a dart board and a juke box. Unfortunately this once ubiquous model is a fairly rare one for pubs nowadays. It's a shame that they have installed so many plasma screens. You would have thought that the one, huge pull down screen would be enough to satisfy even the most dedicated box watcher (but then I have a bit of an issue with TVs in pubs generally). As well as Scampi Fries, I believe they have Frazzles. They also do cheese sandwiches wrapped in cling film behind the bar. Brillant! Probably be turned into a bad bar in a few years.

Hi does anyone know of a good soft play facility near Dulwich, other than Peckham Pulse? Thanks