Siduhe

huncamunca, I agree there seems to be a misunderstanding by some PCSO's of the way that the control order is supposed to work if this is happening (and not just in Southwark - I have seen this in other boroughs in London too). As Southwark's own website makes clear, it is not a outright ban on drinking in public, but intended to give them a power to remove alcohol from people causing a nuisance. If people are getting fined for having a quiet drink in public I would imagine there are good grounds to challenge this. My recollection from the time the control order was introduced (2006) was that Dulwich wards were left out because they had (comparatively) almost no instances of the type of aggressive street drinking which was supposed to be targeted by this order. That may have changed a bit, not sure, but was the reason given at the time. I lived elsewhere in Southwark that was being targeted by the control order and it did make a massive (positive) difference there. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/YourServices/CommunitySafety/drugsandalcohol/

JoJo09 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > as there's been so many recently - do the police > have any evidence to catch the little feckers? We got burgled about 5 months ago (Underhill/Melford). A fair bit of security in our case (multipoint locking doors, solid frames and decent locks) so they just smashed their way through a large window which must have made a huge amount of noise. Police told us there has been a spike in burglaries in ED the last six months and they think a number of them are being done by one team. They did get one fingerprint from ours though but no match to anything on file so far.

I suppose if it gets the click it does the job, and I assume it's only=best/worst too, but a bit odd not to explain it anywhere. Thanks both.

Is the Chener Books sponsored link supposed to be a clever bit of reverse marketing? ("Chener Books - probably the worst bookshop in East Dulwich"). If so, I don't quite get it...any ideas?

LibraCarr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On a serious note, if you and your close > neighbours make sure you do not leave out > anthything containing food or traces, they will > after a while look elsewhere. So true. Came out of the house this morning (having been woken up by foxes fighting around 4am) to the incongruous sight of an entire link of chorizo sausages and several chops/steaks strewn across our and neighbour's drive and pathway. Guessing this is business rather than domestic rubbish from the blue plastic rubbish bag they had come out of but either way it is a PITA.

Also, make sure you regularly review the figure. Rebuild cost of a house 5 years into a mortgage may be quite different from when you first took it out. I know a couple who were caught out by that, following a serious house fire. Luckily the difference wasn't that much (in the context of the total rebuild cost) and they reached an accommodation with their insurer, but it was more than they could have paid/borrowed if the insurer had stuck to their strict rights.

Unless I've misunderstood, the homeless cats are being cared for in ED and surrounds - both in foster homes and at vets and RSPCA clinic in West Norwood. By this kind of logic, the only place national charities like the RSPCA should post for rehoming is in West Sussex. I don't think a separate Pet section is necessary, and I think the idea of a single thread updated (perhaps on a weekly only basis) is a good one - but I'm all for people who want to give up time and effort in making the world a slightly better place (whether that's blood drives, pet rehoming or sponsorship for marathons) being given some leeway to do it. What Admin said originally sounds like a sensible compromise. However, I don't understand the suggestion that what Tarah's doing is somehow bringing her, the charity she volunteers for and/or the forum into "disrepute".

Accident involving bus, lorry, motorbike and cyclist in the original report on BBC Travel (since updated just to refer to accident investigations). Sounds horrible and thoughts with those affected.

The Lord Clyde in SE1? Edited to say, they've now got a website - which may rule them out of the running, but it definitely used to be more old-school than gastro. http://www.lordclyde.com/

I think he means on the inside of the door, not the outside.

It is becoming a bit of a vicious circle though - occasional (and regular) posters form a view that the EDF is made of cliquey/racist/homophobic/sexist/posh/middle-class/nimbys*, so they post stupid things to try and get a rise out of people, which means that vaguely dodgy threads do get jumped on by regulars, which leads to certain people forming a view...and so on. I came across a thread on another localish forum last year where someone had posted extracts from one of the more infamous lounge threads. Taken out of context it looked pretty bad, and several people on that board reported back they had signed up to stir the pot here. Not sure there's much we can do about it, but it does seem to be happening with increasing regularity. * delete as appropriate

It seems to be still in the ED/gossip section. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,271931,318704#msg-318704

Here you go. It's ?9.5m + ?3m. http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NewsAndEvents/News/ForestHillPoolsdecision.htm Though to be fair, the Forest Hill Pool was/is structurally unsound and requires substantially more work than ED. The whole structure other than the facade is probably going to need to be either rebuilt or reinforced. And I know it's not strictly ED, so apologies Admin, but this decision is in huge part due to a very sustained and organised campaign by local residents to force Lewisham to rethink their original plans to close the pool for good, including but not limited to those who participated in the Forest Hill Pools Stakeholder Group and the Keep Swimming in Forest Hill Campaign.

Oh, the total cost isn't ?3m, it's just there was a funding gap of ?2.9m between what the Council had put aside for the pool and what was needed - the extract I posted isn't clear, sorry. Will try and find the full details.

Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's Forest Hill like? If you mean the swimming pool, shut since 2006 pending redevelopment... The latest development I'm aware of is: "On 15th July 2009 the Mayor and Cabinet of the London Borough of Lewisham decided to pursue a new option for Forest Hill Pools known as Option 3. This became possible because the Council was able to source ?3 million from elsewhere in its budget. They are now publicly committed to building new pools on the Dartmouth Road site, starting straightaway. They are also publicly committed to retaining the frontage block of the old pools building as part of the new building."

Don't knock it. It was only when I turned about 25 that I realised my much loved "Brown Bear" had probably not accidentally got into the wrong suitcase at the airport, ended up in Beirut (geddit?) and decided to stay there with all the other bears...

They don't. Collection only.

I was told the same as Pandora - to improve access to the platforms (not sure if this means step-free access, or just widening the existing accesses/creating new ones).

Or search for Il Mirto.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,127167,127183

ClareC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I got a coupe of letter's from TFL about my "son" > being caught fare dodging on the bus!!! I would > have thought I would remember having > son............ We got a similar letter for our "daughter" a while back. Unfortunately, she'd given her real name (or maybe they'd asked for proof of name at the time she was stopped) and a quick google revealed the house where she really lived. She'd basically changed bits of her real address around and come up with ours. Mr Siduhe and I debated readdressing the letter to her parents at her actually address, but decided that wasn't very sporting.

Before you go anywhere near the the RPTS, look at this website and/or make an appointment with Lease. They get very busy but really know their stuff and will be able to talk you through what you can do in terms of withholding service charges. This is normally the most effective way to get their attention and works carried out, but it needs to be done very carefully - you can't just stop paying your service charge entirely. http://www.lease-advice.org/ e.g. http://www.lease-advice.org/information/faqs/faq.asp?item=44

I just got the same email (although I just referred them to this discussion rather than complaining about someone visiting me at home). Good for Aviva for responding, but can't help wondering if the people who were responsible will just see it as a bit of a game.

sophiesofa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nope, sorry. But if anyone knows a Rebecca who > lived on Lordship Lane and at one stage threw a > Bradford and Bingley account book into a compost > bin tell her I now know her account details and > also what prescription medication she takes. It's also possible that the account book and prescription were dumped there by a third party - possibly post handbag snatch and/or burglary. I was once reunited with the partial contents of a (stolen) handbag by a wonderful street cleaner in Kensington who found my (now mostly empty) purse and makeup/scarf in a piece of playground equipment...

sophiesofa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i'm going off topic here (sorry admin) but there > is nothing more annoying than when half way > through an intended journey they change the > destination. Which is not quite so bad when you > have a bus pass or travel card but generally > involves forking out for another ticket when you > don't. You need to ask for a transfer ticket when this happens, which allows you to board the next bus. There is often a lot of reluctance to hand these out (for reasons that are never quite clear to me) but if you are polite and persistent you can normally get one.