first mate

Hmm, given current ambulance times, train strikes and unreliable public transport I suspect a car is exactly what you might need to get to hospital fast in an emergency.

Well, it has only been going a few years but, yes, since they are now extending the period for which they want to control part of the park I think it is fair to ask questions. It does not look as though much if any money goes back into the Rye, it is used to fund other projects. Those projects may be worthy but that is not the point, festivals should use the park for a few days here and there, not for weeks on end in high summer.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jul/05/revealed-how-london-parks-are-partly-privatised-festivals-wireless-finsbury-park

I don't think how much money they can make out of the park necessarily justifies hiring it out for private use for weeks on end in the summer months. The Gala Festival business owners do have their sights on having control of a large slice of the park for much of the summer. I would hate for that to happen. We have so little green space in the city, we should treasure it. Where, on the one hand ,you have a Council producing LTNs and banging on about parklets and creating green spaces, how on earth they can contemplate supporting Gala's moves to get more and more of the park for private hire is beyond me.

I think they are testing the waters as they have expressed the desire to license part of the park throughout the summer for other events. I've said it before, and I know others disagree, but it is a slippery slope to privatisation of a public space. What is wrong with having the odd very limited event but for the most part using the park as it was originally intended- a green, natural space that is the lungs of the area? A Labour Council should not be colluding in moves to privatisation.

How many weeks will that section of the park be closed off, in total? Is there a link to the application, it would be interesting to see the detail?

I would also be interested in knowing the answer to this as waiting for a vital piece of mail. I imagine there are just heaps of mail jumbled together at the sorting office. I also fear that one way to manage a huge backlog and effectively catch up is for a lot of older mail to just go missing forever, perhaps "falling off the back of a lorry", as an RM Customer Services person helpfully suggested to me.

Thanks LA, your interpretation is correct. In the same way, I suspect the majority of cyclists (especially those who do not want to dismount because of the alleged difficulty of walking in cycling shoes) are using this as a through route to get from one destination to another as easily and quickly as possible. The access to that route has been enhanced for them but removed for Blue Badge holders. I note that EDV mentions pedestrianisation and, as discussed elsewhere, will all able bodied cyclists therefore be expected to dismount and walk through the pedestrianised bit, whether they want to or not?

But access has very recently been removed, primarily to enhance access for cyclists and other able bodied groups, but disadvantaging a number who are disabled and rely on car use to live and have some equality of access, that is not the same thing as demanding 'unfettered access'. I am also interested to know how genuinely wheelchair friendly this area is, given the tables and chairs and certain cyclists whizzing through and unwilling to dismount as they are wearing cycling shoes. I am not convinced and to compare this to an enormous space in central London does not help.

Good points LA. I guess the central headache is how physically to disbar most cars while letting some through. Camera control seems the only real option. But the headache is of Southwark Council's own making and they need to find a solution that is fair and transparent.

It is really difficult to get a Blue Badge these days. You have to be very disabled to qualify and to get one. If the council has really said this then I think it has to be a potential breach of the rights of disabled to equal access. To say the rights of mothers and children trump those of the disabled is not right, not in my view anyhow.

Yes, she does seem to have tried. It is alarming that the efforts of our local MP are apparently so ineffectual. The local postal delivery service is nothing short of appalling with zero accountability. I spoke to RM customer services and was breezily informed that there was no way to trace standard mail or contact the sorting office. Mail sent out before the 21 December that was still undelivered was now classed as officially missing. It may, he explained, have fallen off a lorry or suffered some other mishap. And, no, there would be no compensation as the 'contract' is between sender and Royal Mail and it was for the sender to raise the issue with Royal Mail. Of course, if the sender is a government body that is not going to happen.

I see the point being made. However, without hardcore evidence, it is a leap to suggest that our MP had something to gain from the sale. After all, she wrote to RM protesting the sale of the ED sorting office.

I also do not see how a vaccination hinders natural resilience in this case, given that flu is a virus that mutates regularly? Surely a vaccination aids resilience in that it starts the immune system to build defences against certain flu variations and thereby other variations? Your defences are still natural and the same? Yes, you'll probably have a stronger immune response if you contract flu but the risk there is you become very ill as well. The current rationale for having a jab is to avoid placing pressure on the NHS with admissions or Dr visits that might be avoided. Seems reasonable to me. The only downside, in my view, is that vaccinations are generally less effective the older you get, but that is only because our immune systems decline anyway.

I have had woeful service since before Christmas but it has reached new heights. Also expecting two extremely important items of mail. A relative expecting the same but who lives elsewhere has received theirs. This is one indication that the problem is not nationwide and that a level of service has been maintained elsewhere, despite strikes. My own perspective is that major problems followed the closure of Sylvester Road. Does anyone know what the issue is at Peckham and whether anything is being done to sort things out? Letters sent out seem to arrive it is incoming mail that is the problem and this all does seem to point to an issue with Peckham sorting office.

Random fireworks at 12:20 pm. Anyone any idea why?

FWIW, I think yours looks more like a Field mouse, but am no expert.

If a brown or Field mouse, back legs will be much longer than front legs and it will likely have whiter fur on belly.

The speed of spring traps, if they work correctly, echoes what I was told by a rodent expert. If the back or neck is broken it is likely a fast death. If brown mice, creating a protected outdoor shelter in the garden, stuffed with wood shavings or similar, might be an option.

I'm not sure about 'humane' traps. Taking a highly social creature a huge distance from familiar territory and releasing it to certain death in other ways is probably no kinder in reality.

The current, rundown astroturf is useable by all completely free of charge. Is the smaller replacement recreational area also going to be completely free of charge? If not then my view is this is a loss to the community not a gain. My strong suspicion is this will become block booked by local schools and school clubs that will be able to fund the charges, more so because schools like the new Charter and the various local Harris schools have little in the way of useable playground. Moreover, the area will be available for hire by any relevant organisation throughout S'wark. Don't wish to seem negative but just not sure about this.

So the proposals for development are upheld? The old astroturf will be repurposed, a smaller recreation area built and for 'special reasons' it has been deemed okay for sections of MOL to be used as part of the redevelopment. The legal rationale for the latter is that there are plenty of other parks and green spaces within walking distance. This decision is supported by Mayor and GLA. So, precedent re repurposing of MOL now set? Bravo Southwark. Of housing stock to be built as part of development roughly a quarter to be social housing. Have I understood this?

Saving the facade was meant to be part of the plan from the outset. It is a local landmark and part of local history. Sounds like yet another example of poor management of building work. Had bulldozing the whole lot been on the cards from the outset it is unlikely the new build for the school would have garnered enough local support to get underway. Perhaps leaving the facade until last was a deliberate approach and there was always an intention to get rid of it? With other schools in the borough closing because of dwindling roll numbers we should not be in a hurry to lose the chateau. The new build is functional but hardly of any architectural merit.