Siduhe

It's been there since just after Christmas - prior to that it was located about 300 yards up the road, not in controlled parking like it is now. It has CZ plates from memory. It is a bit of pain being parked near the junction as the buses have to pull out a bit to go round it. I also don't understand why it isn't being ticketed as it seems pretty clearly in the area where you only have a certain time to park. Maybe the owner has left a note on it?

La Cave de Bruno. Nice people, nice wine, like the fact you can buy a bottle to refill and they're really good about showing you new stuff to try. Directly responsible for my Pineau addiction.

HopOne, that's understood. I've posted elsewhere about the significant differential pricing between burial costs for Southwark residents and those outside the borough which seek to address this. The point I was making is that edborders says people should support the campaign so that "families can visit their loved ones in beautiful [surroundings?]". However, this only applies to families of people who are already buried, not anyone else in the borough. I find it an odd proposition to make that people who want to visit their dead family members in lovely surroundings should support the campaign, when it's actually against any new burials.

I may be misunderstanding, but isn't your group against any new burials in the borough? So yes, families can visit their loved ones who have already died, but not any new loved ones who die in future - they'll have to travel outside the borough to do that?

I don't need them to make sense to anyone else. But it seems to be fine to criticise people for holding beliefs whereas it wouldn't be at all acceptable in this day and age to do the opposite. Have a debate all you want about whether green space is more important than burying dead people but it's the assumption that wanting to be buried isn't and can't ever be legitimate, whereas wanting green space is.

Couldn't agree more. I don't expect anyone to feel the same way about the importance of being buried as I do, and I get why this people feel strongly about sustainable end of life options, but it would be nice if it worked the other way round too.

I mentioned on the other thread why burial is important to me from a religious/cultural perspective - if you're Catholic it's pretty important - but I have no issue for re-using of my grave after even 20 years. It's the burial that's important, not keeping the headstone or the space for my exclusive use. I recognise it's not the way of the world these days and seen as ridiculous by some (bit harsh, there Otta) but that's how it is for me. One thing I don't understand is why burials still take place "lengthways" - wouldn't it be more space efficient if we buried people "feet first"? There must be some reason, but I have no idea what it is. Edited because I can't spell

Is there any chance that someone is piggy-backing off your wifi or that you have a virus which is downloading stuff in the background? If you're using more of your download allowance than you think you should be, and speeds are low, that could just be an issue. Try changing your wifi password and using the strongest kind of encryption and see if things improve. We have BT Infinity but I'm not aware we've ever hit a download allowance. Our download speeds are around 35Mbps via the latest homehub.

kiera Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Siduhe. I think you'll find that none of the > reclaimed plots currently or recently being sold > by the council for new burials are on consecrated > ground. Similarly, all the planned new grave > spaces in Camberwell Old Cemetery will be on top > of public graves and public graves are on > unconsecrated land. The priest will bless a grave site which has the same effect - that's what I meant, rather than expecting whole parts of the site to be set aside.

mynamehere, Thanks for asking. The Catholic church banned cremation up until fairly recently - many take "dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" as a literal instruction. Even though that position has now changed and cremation is permitted, scattering of ashes contravenes the requirement that remains must be placed in a container and then buried in consecrated ground. Organ donation is entirely permitted though and I'm signed up as a donor. I also have made my arrangements so that I can hopefully have what I want without any cost or expense to my family. Again, I do get that religious burial isn't important to many people these days, and I think it would be useful to debate what the right balance is between woods, recreation, remembrance and burial plots. When there's been a reasoned debate on here or at the meetings, I think it's been pretty helpful. What I'm trying to convey is that burial is really important to some people and (speaking for myself) it's a shame that a lot of the useful debate is getting lost in the hyperbole.

My understanding of the plans is that they will create some 4865 plots. Those plots will be available for sale for people in and out of the borough, but there is a pretty hefty non-resident premium. For example the standard 50 year lawn burial fee for 2015/16 is ?2010 and for non-residents the same service costs ?6030. Fees are said to be used to maintain the existing services and cemeteries. I'm not sure how that can be said to be a massive sell off to people out of the borough, but we obviously have different views on that. As one of those people to whom burial is important for religious/cultural reasons, I find the debate about re-use of graves a bit odd. I have no issue with re-use of graves, it's the fact of the burial in consecrated ground that's important to me - not the headstone or the fact that other people might be buried on top of you 50 years later. I've said that several times on here and at the meetings, and been told that I'm an anachronism and need to move with the times, so I guess there's nothing more to say on that. However, the idea that the best strategy to stop the Council's plans and to preserve the woods is to create a hue and cry about reuse of graves or the fact there isn't equal provision for all religions is a misnomer to me. Campaign all you want to preserve the woods for recreation - it's a perfectly valid view to take even if I don't agree with it in these circumstances, but don't try make out that this is driven off genuine concern about burial provision for people in the borough of Southwark - it's clearly not.

If it's a US recipe - 240ml. https://www.dovesfarm.co.uk/resources/conversion-tables/us-cups-conversion-table/

They do collect mattresses - see http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200084/recycling_and_waste/1667/bulky_waste_collection/2 I think the issue may be the size of the mattress but as Lowlander says this mattress appears to be within the limits. I hadn't appreciated they make you register for an online Southwark account before you can use the bulk collection service and the only way to book the service appears to be online. Not very helpful for those who may not be so tech savvy.

Here you go. I can't find the actual decision where they decided to keep the lights (but re-phase them) on the Southwark site, but someone else may have better luck. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,727555 http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200431/street_improvements/2585/forest_hill_road

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And as though no decision yet on the planning for > the 2 extra flats ? That's my reading of the info on the planning portal too.

This was discussed a while back - I will try and find the references for you (I posted about it on here, but there were some formal communications too) - Southwark Council, supported by the councillors for the relevant ward, decided to keep the lights for safety reasons and because it wasn't accepted they significantly adversely impacted traffic (so the positive safety reasons - particularly for pedestrians - outweighed the said-to-be small impact on traffic).

Not all the documents in relation to the appeal appear to be available. I can't see Southwark's statement of case for the appeal - just the developer's response to it. But the process looks to be that the developer appealed on grounds of non-determination (i.e. Southwark didn't meet the 8 week deadline), Southwark is objecting to the developer's appeal, and the planning inspector recently visited the site as part of considering the appeal.

We were contacted and interviewed for a National Statistics Survey around this time last year. If you are randomly selected they do have to go to lengths to try and contact you, and our interviewer did come round quite late one night as it was the only time we were in (having left several notes for us). That said, our interviewer had our full names and address from the electoral roll, so if the guy at your door didn't have these details, I wouldn't take him at face value without more ID.

My journey home via Blackfriars/E&C has also been much quicker in the last few days. I don't think it's the road layout so much as the fact there's less people and less traffic than normal. Not everyone seems to be back after the New Year yet (quite a few people away in our office until next week, for example).

I live nearby and agree with what's said above. Oddly enough, I don't find this an unsafe junction to use as a driver, because of the speed bumps, the build out where the bus stop is and the parked cars, it's difficult to get up any speed travelling up to this junction on Underhill. I guess it helps that I know the road layout and that I have to give way to Dunstans so that's my automatic mindset (that I have to stop). However, I have seen cyclists and motorcyclists (scooterists mostly) take the junction (travelling on Underhill, crossing Dunstans) at speed. The hill and the ability to avoid the bumps mean that they can get across a lot faster than a driver can. I do think though that the road markings are pretty clear about where the right of way is.

Another idea - in the spirit of co-operation - for local residents who may not be so familiar with the fixture schedule - could residents sign up for an email from the club with a reminder of evening games say 24 hours beforehand. Doesn't change the noise but allows them to shut windows and put on a white noise cd or similar. The white noise sounds are brilliant at fading out background noises. We managed to sleep through a neighbour's broken burglar alarm a few nights back using one.

Is this just for the day before the skip arrives to keep the space free? No direct experience but we recently had a similar issue with needing space for a removals van. A few friendly discussions with the neighbours that we would be marking off the space over a day or so and a note on the bins explaining why and for how long we needed to keep the space clear did the trick. No unpleasantness and certainly no prosecution - for a day or so of blocking a space I can't believe anyone would do that. In fact one of our neighbours moved his car to keep the space clear for us a couple of days before, so maybe you could try something like that - get friendly people to park in the space you need and then move those cars when the skip arrives?

If what he's saying is that he can't work it out for himself - then I guess I can see that. But he should certainly have access to the info or be able to get it, not least because it's something which banks have to share at the outset of a consumer loan (total cost of credit over the life of the loan) so you can compare options. That may not be the case for first charge mortgages which are regulated differently from loans, but I would be astonished if the bank's modelling of the loan didn't have a figure for the total charge for credit over the life of the mortgage (assuming no defaults and no early payments) and that they couldn't share it with you.

I left my office (nr Blackfriars) at 4am this morning (don't ask!) and walked down towards Elephant and Castle. Even at that time Blackfriars road was absolutely full of barely moving traffic including several stationary N63 buses, and E&C was totally backed up. If the traffic is that bad in the dead of night then something is seriously wrong with the layout or phasing of lights. During normal travel hours, the 363 and the 63 are regularly being terminated short now. I got on a 63 bus at FHT one morning this week which was terminated at Bricklayers Arms. Not a problem except the next four 63 buses to arrive were also terminated there, so there was a crowd of about 70 people trying to get beyond Bricklayers Arms towards the City. I walked from there to Blackfriars. I did put in a complaint to TFL and the answer was that it was "necessary to regulate the service for those travelling into town".

I think the repeat prescription issues mentioned above may also be a contributing factor. I went for a nurse's appointment recently and four of the six people in front of me in the queue at FHGP appeared to have run out of medicine and needed an urgent appointment with someone to get a new prescription - all of them were given appointments for later in the day and a doctor came out to see one lady who got pretty vocal and upset about having to come back in 5 hours time for an urgent appointment. I don't know if this is down to failings in the ordering of prescriptions, people not thinking ahead, or if it was just a particularly bad morning, but if this sort of thing could be sorted out without needing urgent appointments it would seem to potentially free up a lot of time. I have to say the service I got from the nurse was great and I'm generally very happy with the practice but I can understand the frustrations of people who want appointments more quickly than four weeks time if they need regular care from a doctor.