Siduhe

Thanks to all - the striking thing to me is that none of us (who all seem reasonably well informed and interested) know what the actual rationale is for closing Lewisham rather than the SLHT facilities. I absolutely get what MM has said about oversupply of services in the area, but I've been looking on and off at various articles and reports, and no-one seems to be able to articulate why Lewisham A&E (and not SLHT). I obviously need to do some more digging, but appreciate any more insight people have - mostly curiosity on my part. I'm all for looking at and taking hard decisions based on analysis and evidence, but it is surprisingly difficult to work out what the position is here (at least for me!)

And that's the thing I still haven't quite understood - despite reading plenty of news articles. On what basis does it make sense for Lewisham Hospital (which isn't in debt) to close its A&E department rather than one of the poorly performing SLHT hospitals? Is it that the facilities are better at one of the SLHT hospital or is it about creating a business model which allows SLHT to service its ongoing debts (PFI in particular). I'm not looking for an academic debate about the rights and wrongs of PFI but if anyone can explain why it makes business sense to shut down a (by all accounts) well run and profitable hospital facility at Lewisham - I'd be grateful to understand the rationale better.

Traffic was terrible this am, but (as trentk69 says) this looked to be a lot to do with the broken down 197 bus and some really terrible resulting driving - if everyone had left gaps for traffic to get round the bus rather than trying to rush past to clear it or to push up to the lights, things would have flowed a lot more smoothly. The result was traffic crossing the junction getting backed up behind the queue to get past the bus = traffic chaos. That said, this sort of thing does happen. Can the work really not be done in less than 8 weeks given the importance/usage of this junction?

According to MPS tweets, vehicle pursuit through Lewisham and Southwark to SE5.

The other thing I picked up from the docs is that the current lease for Tooley Street is a full repairing lease on the tenant - i.e. the building repair obligation is already entirely with Southwark. So it isn't taking on any new, onerous repairing obligations by becoming freeholder as well.

Here is the webpage with the publicly available docs for this Agenda item: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=4249&Ver=4

Well, Richard, with about 5 mins of searching on the Southwark website for the Cabinet minutes where the decision was approved (11 December 2012), I think I have part of answer for you (who the money has been borrowed from) and the Council says it is producing more in the new year....there's lots more info on there too which you may want to look at: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s34146/Open%20Report%20Proposed%20Acquisition%20of%20Freehold%20Interest%20in%20Office%20Accommodation%20160%20Tooley%20Street%20L.pdf [edited for sense]

I can't imagine James Barber monitors all the threads on the EDF. You may have more luck addressing him on the specific thread in the main forum, or making your own FOI request to the Council, setting out exactly what figures you'd like to see? It's a straighforward process and you're more likely to get a result from a direct request to the Council I would have thought.

This has already been looked at by the Council - all the details in the thread below this one, about half way down - hope this helps: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,997442

first mate, there is - it's in three of four in the Transport Statement, between 4-6 deliveries a day and have been plotted with a 10.7m lorry.

first mate, that's an known issue with adobe - could have been avoided in the upload but I have the same. Reduce the size of the doc on your screen from 104% to about 70% and you should be able to read it. Completely agree re getting a planning specialist to look at it. The transport statement (esp Part 2 of 4) seems particularly relevant. This concludes there will be reduced parking demand at the site and in surrounding areas with the new store, because of the removal of the office space above Iceland. However I don't see any information to support the conclusion that people using the offices are currently driving into ED, so I don't quite understand how that conclusion has been reached.

On a very brief review, this doesn't look like it obviously/substantively addresses the objections re parking, access and deliveries, other than producing further reports (parking survey and delivery vehicle planning) to support the revised proposal. Can't see how they have resolved the right of way issue either, but assume that must be in there somewhere.

I did take a fuzzy photo of the retreating backs of two guys who tried my neighbour's front and back doors a while ago (having caught them in the back garden, which they very politely left explaining they had the wrong house - subsequently turned out they'd stolen keys from a car parked at Heathrow) - thought the clothing might be helpful. Wouldn't have dared do it to their faces and got a bit of telling-off from police for even doing that - not worth it they said.

I'm also planning to do a lot of my present shopping locally. Would appreciate any recommendations/thoughts from people who've found great gifts locally too.

Depends on your tastes, but we had an amazing (not cheap) seafood platter and cocktails at this place. Is a converted turn of the century (the one before this one) bank and quite stunning. http://www.concierge.com/travelguide/brussels/restaurants/14233 Edited to add this was about 3-4 years ago. Not sure how much it's changed.

Some good tips here. Won't help if they disconnect from network (not sure there's anything you can do about that) but should make it harder/delay them a bit. It is a bit annoying having to enable/disable every time I want to delete an app, but figure it could be worth it. http://blogs.channel4.com/benjamin-cohen-on-technology/the-lessons-i-learnt-from-my-iphone-mugging/3658

Here you go...I live nearby and think it's great there's a focus up this end of the Lane. A few different businesses moving in too. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,336529,970886#msg-970886

Gidget Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do these packages get intercepted by the fraudster > on some occasions and not others? All the packages got intercepted save for one. I never did work out how - one was a double bed! The fraudster requested timed delivery options so he would know when it was out for delivery. What happened with the one package that was delivered was that the company sent it out a day earlier than expected and my husband was home to receive it. Otherwise we would have had no idea. A few weeks before, someone had come knocking at our door, saying he lived in the block of flats next door and had we received any deliveries for him by mistake. Didn't think much of it at the time, but I guess he may have been part of it. The good news is that after I registered with CIFAS and signed up to a credit monitoring service, it stopped and (touch wood) I haven't had any more problems for over a year.

Yes, had something similar happen a while back. Statements for goods never received. I phoned the catalogue co and they couldn't have been less interested. Closed the account (although didn't delete it so it still showed on my credit record) but refused to send me a letter confirming that they accepted it was a fraud (I was nervous about just relying on phone calls) One of the people in the fraud department that I ended up getting v. stressed with told me it was because it was a lot more work to deal with as a "fraud", given the small amount they would just close the account and write off the balance. Keep an eye out for other letters though - this happened four or five times after the initial fraud, so someone obviously had my details somehow. They stopped when my other half was unexpectedly at home and was there to receive the packages. The fraudster had terrible taste in clothes btw, and then phoned up the catalogue co to try and reroute the delivery so we got his address and everything. I was told they couldn't tell me the address he gave or email he used due to "data privacy" reasons. So frustrating. Register your son with CIFAS for a year. Will make it a lot harder for people to try this again.

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Aren't proper dropped kerbs marked with a white > line with t-bars? They can be marked with white lines at the owner's/council's discretion to make the drop clear, but dropped kerbs without lines are still valid and enforceable (i.e. you can't park across them).

mynamehere - was offering to Fred to point him in the direction of the legislation that the Council have to comply with. No special interest or ability to assist other than I have a dropped kerb and have been through this once before. Haven't seen the stuff you posted about - sounds a bit different - and horrendous.

Fred, as far as I am aware, a local council cannot issue a penalty notice for to someone for blocking their own dropped kerb if the driveway is residential and sole use only. The relevant legislation is the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, Part II, Section 14 sub paras (3) and (4) which says: "(3)A driver of a vehicle shall not at any time cause it to wait on a part of a road to which this section applies and the prohibition under this subsection shall be enforceable as if it had been imposed by an order under the said section 6. (4)In the case where? (a)residential premises have a driveway which is not shared by other premises; and (b)the purpose of the dropped footway is to assist vehicles to enter or leave the road from or to the driveway, the relevant borough council or Transport for London, as the case may be, may not issue a penalty charge notice in respect of any breach of the prohibition under subsection (3) above unless requested to do so by the occupier of the premises." Would be happy to provide some assistance if you've been ticketed for the sole reason of parking across your own drive. I do know that Southwark does regularly issue tickets for blocking other kinds of dropped kerbs (e.g on road corners and crossing points) because it makes access difficult for disabled people and mothers with prams. Edited to add, I've now seen from your post that you got a Code 62 - that's the offence of parking with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway. That is a separate offence. If your wheels were touching the tarmac of the pavement or your car was over the pavement, it may be difficult to dispute you weren't obstructing the pavement for pedestrians. If you weren't, then there may be grounds for an appeal I would have thought. Do you have a photo?

Mini cab drivers are licensed by TFL. There is a web page for making comments and complaints. Select the Private Hire Vehicle option. https://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/contact/pco/

Tautonym: zoological name of species consisting of two identical words (the generic name and the specific name have the same spelling - eg rattus rattus)

Also, have a look at somewhere like TopTable - lots of places you wouldn't think of that do a really good tea, like Camellia's on Carnaby Street: http://www.toptable.co.uk/promo.aspx?pid=590&m=72