Siduhe

Just goes to show, lies, damn lies and statistics...suspect it's all about the time you take the measurement as AcedOut suggests. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7284196.stm http://www.ft.com/foodprices

AcedOut Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It'd be a shame if it's gone downhill. I used to > really enjoy food there at a reasonable price. > I've not had food there for several months > though. > > Has there been a change of chef? I suspect it's as likely to be the rising cost of food, if the prices have stayed similar or only gone up a bit. The FT suggests that the prices of staple foods have gone up by 60% on average in the last 18 months (and some things like wheat have gone up as much as 130%). In those circumstances I imagine publicans are faced with putting up prices to a level that customers won't wear, or cutting a few corners (or producing food at very low margin or at a loss, which doesn't seem like great business sense in these times).

An elderly lady receives an e-mail from the son of a deceased (but wealthy) African general, seeking her assistance in getting millions of pounds of family weath out of the country. The email asks if the son can transfer ?20 million into her bank account to be forwarded onto him in Switzerland, in return for the lady taking a 20% cut. All the son needs is the sort code and account number. Not realising she is the victim of a Nigerian 419 fraud, she e-mails back the details. A couple of minutes later she receives an e-mail back from the general's son: 'Icesave?!' What is this, some sort of scam?"

It's the second part of the Times' so called "viral" campaign - more info here - in that the ads are now running with the name of the newspaper. Probably doesn't make as much sense unless you saw the original unbranded ads. As Brendan notes the Independent has started an "ahead of the Times" campaign in response...

Can't remember which poster it is (PeckhamRose?) who knows a lot about applying for Cleaner, Greener Southwark grants, but the Melford/Underhill interchange recently got reworked to make it safer for pedestrians and it's been very successful (IMHO) without ruining it for traffic - maybe we should get an application for the Harvester junction together? Is that road within Southwark's control or is it TFL? Anyway, I live fairly near and would be happy to have a go, if only to cut down on the number of kids who run across the road there against the traffic...

Impossible to feel bad about the world when you watch this...

If the vehicles are untaxed they shouldn't be on the roads surely? You have to file a SORN declaration and part of that is that they are off-road. Has anyone tried reporting them as Abandoned Vehicles via Southwark Council? Also, try calling the DVLA and asking them if there is any interest at their end.

I bank with Lloyds and they've recently started doing a "SMS Overseas Transaction Alert" - so if your debit card gets used abroad you get an instant text alert. Appreciate prevention is better than cure, but it's a good way to get informed quickly if someone else is using your card details. Apparently the rationale is that fraudsters will often put through a small value debit to see if the card is working before putting through a major "purchase" and these transactions are increasingly overseas (i.e. no chip and pin). You can also pause the alerts if you are travelling yourself.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Count me in as a judge, I've long said that the > Mojito (and a Martini to be fair) is the litmus > test of quality for any bar. It's a tripartite test IMHO - Mojito, Martini and Manhattan. I recently went to a trendy drinking den that promotes itself as a cocktail specialist (it wasn't Adventure, for the avoidance of all doubt). Imagine my horror when the barman said he didn't know what a Manhattan was and had to go off and consult someone else. I thought he was pulling my leg, but no - he really hadn't come across it before - "it isn't in our list of drinks we have to learn" being the parting line as we left...

A friend of mine who attributes the rise in nit infestations to two things - apparently lots of local authorities no longer have nit nurses (I remember queueing up as a child to get checked at least once a term) and there is a reluctance in schools to single out children and write home to get parents involved for fear of offending. She was furious to discover that recent, recurrent nit outbreaks at her child's school were down to just two children (brother and sister) whose parents either didn't notice or didn't care, but the school decided they didn't have any ability to intervene. As for bedbugs, nasty things - but easily visible with the naked eye - check around the edges of your bed, mattress, skirting board and curtains. It's unlikely to be bedbugs unless you have brown spotting on your sheets at night and/or the bites have a white, hard centre surrounded by a red, itchy bite (I think I spent much time spent travelling as a teenager!) often in a straight line. If you don't have these, particularly if the bites are randomly spaced, there is a good chance they will be flea bites. Much easier to deal with, providing you treat the room at least two or three times over a month to kill every possible stage they go through.

dc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whilst it's true that there is a Belvoir Hunt I > think the Belvoir connection is coincidental. > > Quorn Road is part of the Dog Kennel Hill (or East > Dulwich) Estate. All of the roads therein and most > (if not all) of the blocks that form the estate > make reference to hunts because, as far as I > understand, it's called Dog Kennel Hill because it > used to be the site of dog kennels that housed > hounds used for hunting. Apologies in advance for the off topicness, but that's fascinating - thanks. Didn't realise there was an actual connection. Belvoir (as in Belvoir Road) may be a ref to the original meaning "beautiful view"?

Cassius Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What are the other hunting names in the area? Belvoir Road for one.

lozzyloz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So what next? > > I think the next big wave of bad news could be as > a result of banks exposure to bad debt in China > which will hit the likes of HSBC. China and Russia appear to be in an interesting phase. In Russia, trading in the main stock market has been suspended since last week, and whilst China has huge foreign exchange reserves (increasing amounts of which are being used to buy up US debt), its economic growth is (as a result) dependent to an extent on US and Europeans spending more than they earn - conditions which are less likely to continue with recession conditions. Same with their growth in industrial production which was largely as a result of Western demand. Not clear whether this will simply slow growth (as it has done last two quarters) or actually cause a slump. A number of western banks will have exposure to both of these markets. edited for spelling

Thanks candj - I certainly agree there's no point in outing the person who painted the mural. Thanks for the info about the original report - sounds fair enough to me.

The one bit of info we haven't had from the Councils is who the "individuals who were involved in the original work and it was suggested to [the Council] that blanking the lower half of the mural was better than the leaving the wall as it was". It's not the Dulwich Society and it doesn't appear to be the owners of the wall in question. It's quite an important point IMHO because if the Council were responding to legitimate concerns from "stakeholders" with a direct interest in the mural or the Goose Green area, you can kind of see why they approached it as they did. If there were no such concerns or the concerns were expressed by people who aren't directly involved, then just painting over the mural is far less defensible. I take Sean's point that we shouldn't judge on half the info, but the fact that the Council can't identify any department that authorised this action does call into question (in my view) how considered this action actually was. If any counsellors are reading, it would be good to get an answer on this point too. Appreciate the Council can't and shouldn't name names, but an indication of who approached the Council on this (nearby residents, Friends of Goose Green or similar) would be helpful and might dispel some of the suspicion that this is a straighforward c*ck-up by an over enthusiastic contractor.

If there is a dropped kerb it is a PCN'able offence to park across it so as to prevent someone from exiting from the driveway, white line or no white line (assuming it's a properly done by Council dropped kerb, not a dodgy done by builders after dark dropped kerb). The white line is a courtesy marking done by some Councils in some streets and has no legal status, despite what I see posted on the internet on a regular basis. See for example http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/mobile/index/transport_and_streets/roads_and_highways/dropped_kerb/obstructing_dropped_kerb.htm or http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/transportandstreets/parking/droppedkerbscrossover.htm

It's great to see that the Council have committed to "look[ing] at what can be done with the mural so the community can continue to enjoy it." and that, "If possible [southwark] will look at working with the community and Stan Peskett to restore the mural back to its former glory, with an appropriate anti-graffiti covering". No promises, of course, but it's a start. However, do I read this correctly that it was the Dulwich Society who approached the Council about the mural in the first place ("individuals who were involved in the original work") and suggested painting over half of it? If not, then who - some of the original artists, now grown up? I think it would be very strange for anyone involved in the original work to suggest painting over half of it, rather than restoring it. I guess that bit of the explanation doesn't quite ring true for me.

nunheadbelle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What are the requirements for getting a dropped > kerb anyway? http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/WhereYouLive/StreetsParkingCleaningAndLighting/DG_10026223 Basically, it's down to the Council providing you have enough space for off-street parking, but they may require you to get planning permission depending on the type of road you live on.

cathg you're pretty much right - section 14 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 says it is an offence to park across a dropped kerb (or even next to it, if the area is part of a special parking area), but if the dropped kerb is for a single residential dwelling (rather than shared residential accomodation like flats or a conversion) the Council can only issue a PCN at the specific request of the householder. If the house was converted into flats, the wardens would have been able to issue the PCN without reference to anyone.

> I've spoken with my colleague Bimal Kotecha in the > Public Realm section who deals with this area. He > tells me that as the mural is on private property, > there there will have been an agreement between > the vicarage and the council to carry out this > painting. As I mentioned in an earlier post, this exact thing happened to a youth group in SE1 who had painted a mural on the side of the building that they meet in. Also to some land belonging to Network Rail on the South Bank (ditto a community mural which NR had agreed to being painted). In neither case did Southwark Cleaning obtain the permission of the building owners before painting out large sections of the artwork, as there was a huge fuss about it and complaints galore, just as there are here. I am very certain of there was no permission in respect of the youth group mural as I was heavily involved with them at the time and I still have copies of the letters from Southwark Council which assert that, because the mural was on a public street, albeit a private building, they had the right to paint it out. This was eventually amended to "we had complaints from the neighbours and weren't able get in touch with anyone from the group" (despite the fact it is part funded by Southwark Council and even appears in their own directory). We didn't even get an apology. This was a few years back so maybe internal procedure has got better, but I'm not convinced at this stage.

For short, local trips, Streetcar have a few locations in and around Dulwich. Is pretty popular (judging by how often the Streetcar sited near us is out of its parking space). http://www.streetcar.co.uk/locationslist.aspx

At a guess, the mural may have been graffitied (sp?) and one of the Council's contractors has "cleaned it up" by painting over it. Something similar happened when we lived in Borough, when a local youth centre mural was tagged and then big sections of it were covered in grey paint. The youth centre complained and got a "we have a zero tolerance policy on graffiti and will clear it up wherever it appears on public streets", no apology, but they did ultimately get a contribution towards some paint to redo the mural.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A response at last. IN essence there are no CCTV > cameras in Marmora Road and there shouldn't be any > signs about them. However, I can't make up my mind > if this is deliberate obfuscation on the part of > Southwark Council or simple bureaucratic cock up - > probably the latter I suppose: Or some kind of prank? Modern art installation? Leftover from a reality TV show? More seriously, I wonder if someone who lives in the road might have put them up to deter fly-tipping or similar.

Human triangulation? Get a couple of mates (more if possible) start at various ends of GG and LL, and walk towards the noise. For full effect, walkie talkies might be required. Not sure if this is an effective/practical suggestion, but it would at least narrow the area down a bit?

Isn't this kind of the issue? I take ruth's point that it is a pub and part of the community and some occasional noise and inconvenience may result from having it as my local - I don't think anyone can sensibly disagree with that. But the FHT isn't operating as a pub on Friday and Saturday nights. It's operating as a nightclub. In my (no doubt simplistic) view, that's a whole world away from a pub that's acting as part of and providing a service to my local community. I think that's what people are upset and worried by, rather than being a problem with the fact that there's a pub and it sells alcohol.