Siduhe

Thanks all, so not just me and seemingly not a hack. However, if you're going to communicate with a big chunk of your patients like this, it would be good to send out a message that makes sense, doesn't have spelling mistakes in and doesn't contain hidden links for the reasons mentioned above. I assumed it was a scam. Really poor communication. What the text is trying to say, for anyone who didn't follow it, is that the practice cannot give an official confirmation of your Covid-19 vaccination status if you are travelling abroad. The message links to the guidance below and suggests that the NHS App (not the NHS Covid19 app or the MyGP app) is the easiest way to get an official certificate, but you will need to set up a NHS logon to do that. Otherwise call 119 and ask for a letter to be sent to you. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/demonstrating-your-covid-19-vaccination-status-when-travelling-abroad

Did anyone else registered at Forest Hill Road GP get a slightly ranty and misspelled message from the practice today about vaccine passports? I?m signed up to receive messages from the practice via the MYGP app, and got one today with a weird bit.ly link that ended: ?DO NOT CONTACT YOU GP FOR A VACCINE PASSPORT- we not able to provide it? I kind of want to contact them to ask if they?ve been hacked or whether they think that?s an appropriate way to communicate with patients, no matter how many questions they are getting. However, curious to know if it?s just me that got the message.

Agree with all the above, the new "dark mode" is great for reading in bed if you don't want to disturb the person next to you asleep.

I for one welcome all the effort that Steven Taylor is putting into his latest incarnation. From suited and booted Surbiton refugee, to working class doyenne in only three accounts... ;-)

It's one day only.

Steven? You're back! Hurrah!

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > does that mean I don't need permission for a > balcony at the back of my house. I don't have any recent experience but our house was built in the early 2000s with a back balcony overlooking a couple of our neighbours gardens. It's part of the design to allow access to the roof, but there's a planning condition on it that it can't be used as a balcony, due to the invasion of privacy for neighbours. I know the neighbours objected at the time, so that may be why the condition was added. We get on well with our current neighbours so it's never been an issue but I suspect if one of them complained it would lead to some pretty active enforcement.

It's easy to get into a "they said, no they said" back and forth on this. Whomever said lies, damn lies and statistics had a point, and I'm sure both sides in the LTN debate can pick the statistics that best support their positions. I've lived here long enough now to remember the campaign to get a more regular 363 bus service. When our then local MP finally pushed TFL to conduct a formal assessment survey on passenger numbers and journeys, the figures were really, surprisingly low and didn't support the increased service at all - then we found out TFL had done the survey from 3pm to 5pm on a Friday before a Bank Holiday Monday when all the schools were on holiday. Mystery solved! So this isn't anything new, and people just need to be alive to not spouting facts and figures as gospel, without having at least half a sense that might not be the whole story. As I've said before, I think most people in the area recognise that something needs to be done about traffic volumes, unnecessary short journeys and making it easier to walk and cycle. I'm even ok with the idea that the LTNs were put in as an experiment, without a proper consultation as a short term measure. But now is the time to do the proper work to see if these measures are the right ones for our area, need to be adjusted, or removed and replaced with something better. And the more we talk at each other, the less we are holding the Council to account for this basic next step. What I want to see is: 1) a proper consultation, promoted equally to those in and outside of the current LTN area, with a commitment to be transparent about the outcomes and the data - not cherry picking those answers that support a particular position; 2) some proper traffic/pollution monitoring, including on boundary roads and roads that are reporting adverse effects from the current LTNs. Ideally this would have been done before, but at least let's get a proper baseline from which to judge the effects of future efforts; 3) a policy statement from the Council, based on 1) and 2) including a definition of what "success" for these measures looks like and a time period over which to judge success. Recognising there are going to be winners and losers in the short term, and there is a potential long term gain for everyone, let's at least be up front about what is and isn't acceptable. I personally struggle with the idea that it's acceptable for those on main roads, who tend to live in flats, have less outside space and less opportunity to store cycles to take the brunt of the short term impact while the areas with houses, front and back gardens and lots of outside space get the majority of the short term benefits, but at least let's have that debate and agree the right position for our area; 4) active support for the group that are going to be worst affected based on 3). Maybe grants for cycles, cycle hoops reserved for people in those areas who live in flats, funded school bike trains, planting to minimise the pollution impact, pollution monitors, enforcement against people who leave their engines running, maybe even restricting deliveries to the LTN area or, requiring deliveries to be dropped off at central points for collection, or surcharging for them with the funding going back to support other areas. Support for the elderly and immobile in particular. I don't know what the right solutions are, but they need to be actively supporting the people who lose out short term and they need to be properly funded - maybe from all the fines that have been generated from road closures - so as to bring some element of fairness back into this debate. I was slightly heartened to see James McAsh say today he agrees that the current LTNs may need to be adjusted, but I'm also pretty sceptical - as some of you know - a group of my neighbours including Bradbury Oak House have been trying to engage with our local councillors for a while now, and while they make all the right noises, we're still in a position where the Council has said our views will count for less than others in the LTN area in the consultation, and other councillors still feel comfortable describing anyone who wants to see changes as a "vocal minority" and worse on Twitter. And if you do support the current LTN measures, but read the above and think - actually, that's pretty fair - do the rest of us a favour and tell your councillor that? It's too easy for the Council to adopt a divide and conquer approach where you're either 100% in favour or 100% against the current measures. Let's hold our elected representatives to account in the middle ground where the difficult decisions are, but it's going to take people from both sides to do that. *end rant - with apologies to those on here who've heard this from me before*

As Penguin says, most of the movement is a combination of land movement, ongoing construction work and terribly thought out drainage. The ground alternately floods and then dries out which makes a lot of the older monuments wobble and then fall over. According to one of the gardening team it?s not being helped by the number of people who park off the tarmac and on the grass verges - which compacts the ground causing more flooding and poor drainage. They put up parking markers to stop this a couple of years ago but some of them have been knocked over and people worry about their car blocking others so it?s a regular occurrence. There was a survey team there about a month ago so I wonder if it?s related to that - pre-emptive to avoid injury.

Currently 19.5C in the coolest part of the house. 21-23C elsewhere. Modern house that gets a lot of sun at the front during the day.

There was a team of about 10 police at the junction of Blackfriars Bridge and Southwark Street this morning at around 8am who were actively stopping: a) any cyclists jumping the cycle lane lights; and b) anyone on an electric scooter using the cycle lanes. Not sure if they were offering advice or issuing tickets.

I keep saying this - and it's notable that no-one who is pro the current LTNs has acknowledged this or responded, other than rahrahrah (which was appreciated) - it is possible to be anti the LTNs in their current form, or advocate for them to be reviewed and adjusted without being pro-traffic and unfettered driving. At the risk of repeating myself - I'm a very occasional driver, but a regular commuting cyclist and pedestrian. I made the "modal shift" (which is a new term to me) a few years back and I've never looked back. However, the implementation of the Court Lane LTN has significantly, adversely affected the roads that I live on and cycle on, to the point where they feel less safe and I actively avoid cycling on them at peak times now, because they are being used as a cut through by drivers seeking to avoid the South Circular and Lordship Lane. Leaving aside this was foreseeable, and taking the point that was made that these are experimental LTNs and can be adjusted, what is frustrating me and most of my neighbours is that no-one on the Council side will acknowledge there may be an issue, they are going out of their way not to monitor in our area, not to include us in the consultation (and when we pushed to be included, we've now been told that our views won't carry as much weight as those in the core area where the closures are) and that we must just be patient and wait for these sunlit uplands where traffic evaporates. Very few people on here are advocating for the LTNs to be removed entirely - I'm certainly not - but I do want a proper monitoring program which looks at the impact outside the core area of closures so that we can assess whether these measures are actually working and if they are, whether the impact on other residents is worth it. And I don't think that's unreasonable. But no-one who is pro the current LTNs will advocate for that, and we are just getting lumped in as "the vocal minority" who are "anti-traffic reduction". It's so frustrating, as we all want the same thing, but apparently asking for a system which would actually show how well these current measures are working is akin to heresy.

At @legalalien, I have a FOI request out with the council about the "draft" CPZ plan and related communications that has just been rejected. I will be appealing...

I'm pretty confident that malumbu tends to commute on two wheels! Underhill is a long road. The bits that seem particularly bad at peak times following the introduction of the Court Lane LTN in the part of Underhill from Lordship Lane by the Dulwich Common turn off, Melford, Wood Vale, Langton Rise, up to Overhill Road. It then gets better in my experience as you head towards Ryedale and Uplands. As I've posted recently - some of the most recent traffic is partly as a result of the closure of Melford Road, but even before that (and the works on Wood Vale) it has been much worse at peak times as people try to work out ways to avoid Lordship Lane and the traffic which has been directed away from Court Lane, Dulwich Village. So it's possible that both views are right but I have to say the weight of feedback from residents who experience the road, day in day out, is so consistent that it's difficult to think we have all got it wrong or are imagining the change.

I think most of us on here totally agree with you - very few people are asking for all LTNs to be removed or arguing there's no need for them. I'm certainly not one of them. But what we have now is half-baked - it benefits few at the expense of others and (broadly) there's a social divide between the places that are benefiting (largely houses with gardens and sheds) and those that are taking the brunt of the current measures (far more flats and shared housing with less outside space and no space to store bikes). But the Council simply won't engage on that at the moment or even commit to active monitoring of the impacts outside the core area of the LTNs - which is what is stirring up the strong feelings and frankly disincentivising people from making changes. I'll give you a personal example - I'm a commuting cyclist, and my journey home at peak times is now more traffic heavy and less safe than it used to because I live on roads that are taking the brunt of displacement from the Court Lane closure. That hasn't encouraged me to keep up the cycling at all, in fact if I have to come home at peak times, rather than after the evening rush, I actively avoid cycling. So my idea is that we actually look at the impacts of the current schemes and make adjustments to help the places and people that are experiencing adverse effects - that could be more LTNs - it could be time-limited closures, it could be more cycle lanes, it could be cycle hangers reserved for people in flats, not people in houses with outside space. But it has to be based on facts, not supposition, and an actual, robust baseline that we can judge success against. Not figures that have been "managed" in the way that the Council has now accepted their initial figures were (not necessarily their fault but their baseline is based on a statistical rebasing of DoT data, not actual data).

@geh, that?s my impression too and I posted something similar way back when we all first discussing this. I cycle far more than I drive, I?m pro LTN and encouraging people to move out of cars for short journeys, I don?t even mind the idea of experimental closures. What I?m so frustrated about is the unwillingness of Southwark to monitor and assess impacts outside the direct closure area so we can all assess, in a transparent way, if these solutions actually work for our area. It would be great if those who are very positive about the current measures would also push for proper monitoring and assessment. But, as someone living in the Court Lane area said on here a while back - it?s hardly in their interests.

Well I?m afraid Carwatch?️ won?t be back today as SGN has closed part of Melford Road - apparently for safety reasons as people kept jumping the lights, putting the workers at risk. So we have our own little LTN - and it is glorious - until you look at either end of the street and see the carnage on Wood Vale and Underhill. These things don?t/can?t exist in a vacuum and it?s really easy to see that the nice experience we?ve had for the last 12 hours has come at the expense of our neighbours.

The increase in traffic on Wood Vale, Underhill and Melford in the last two days has been nothing short of astonishing. To be clear, we have major roadworks again at the junction of Underhill and Melford (SGN replacing the gas main that Thames Water cracked when they replaced the cracked water main - don't get me started) so the delays to traffic are nothing to do with the LTNs - but those works have been going for a few weeks now without the same build up of traffic, so there is definitely a change in volume - not to mention hooting of horns, pollution etc as the traffic gets held up by the lights. This is completely unscientific, but when the lights are red, there are five vehicles directly visible from my window - so I did a vehicle count around 8am, over ten light phases going one way (towards Lordship Lane) this morning. Of the fifty vehicles there were: 2 buses; 21 cars with one or more children in the back; 18 commercial vehicles - delivery vans, tradesmen etc; 9 cars with no children in the back. And yes I need to get out more, but it does rather suggest the school run continues to loom large in traffic at peak times. And for the residents of our street, we're getting back to the volumes of traffic we saw at the end of the last lockdown as people look for alternative routes down residential streets as a result of the Dulwich Village LTN. I keep waiting for the promised dispersion of traffic, but at the moment it definitely feels displaced only.

I got my first dose of AZ at the Waldron Health Centre at New Cross on Friday. No noticeable side effects other than a splitting headache at about 9am the next day (which isn't something that is usual for me, so may have been connected).

Just to say that my postal voting forms arrived this morning (see discussion on previous page) which is a big relief.

UK insurance industry guidelines (in place since 2004) only allow insurers to ask about your HIV status, about whether you have had a sexually transmitted infection in the last five years, whether you have lived or travelled abroad, had blood transfusions or surgery abroad or whether you inject drugs. The guidelines make clear that other questions - like whether you have ever been tested for HIV or whether you are gay - are not permitted. I don't disagree that people should be aware and should consent to HIV testing but I don't think it's particularly unusual to be given a test. Anyone who gives blood is regularly tested for HIV (first donation and random checks afterwards but at least once every two years).

From today - anyone aged 45 or over can book a vaccination direct via the NHS. Most of the available centres are around 2 miles away from ED but there is lots of availability. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/who-can-get-the-vaccine/

As someone who cycles down Rye Lane to get in and out of work, I'm supposed to be benefiting from the closure of Rye Lane to motorised traffic. I would class myself as a slow but traffic-confident commuting cyclist. Instead, it's pretty much a free for all at key commuting times as the Lane is open for van and lorry deliveries then. In fact, it feels like I'm taking my life in my hands at times. No-one bothers to give way to anyone else, some cyclists go way too quickly and cut up pedestrians who cross the road or stray into the "cyclist" lanes, moped drivers cut off cyclists, delivery vans pull out without looking and because Conway no longer monitor access to Rye Lane during the period when traffic is permitted, cars use it as a cut through without seemingly any consequences. It's a great example of a big statement, rushed through without really thinking about the consequences for shops and customers and then a half-arsed compromise which isn't being supervised or looked at by Southwark. Having the Lane open to motor traffic at peak commuting times makes no sense if you want to encourage people to use it for commuting, and neither option seems sufficiently successful to make up for the total loss of bus access to the shops and station.

Thanks for this. This is a continuation of the water main replacement works along Underhill, Melford and Wood Vale that have been going on for the last 6 months. Hadn?t realised they were going down FHR. To be fair, the Thames Water team have been pretty good at keeping traffic and pavements as free flowing as possible and were really good about keeping residents informed about water outages and traffic closures so hopefully that continues. But appreciate the heads up re the 63. Marginally less impressed that the last phase of Thames Water works managed to crack our local gas pipe/main on Underhill/Melford so that now needs to be replaced (another 6-8 weeks of roadworks) but hopefully that lesson has been learned!

If you have bought your bags via the Southwark site then then is no further charge for collection. However, they do supposedly check if you have purchased bags when you book the collection, and aren't supposed to allow you to book a collection if you have "old stock" rather than "purchased stock". That said, my bin men just take the bags I have purchased and I've never needed to actually book a collection, so it may be worth just leaving them out.