Siduhe

Agree that something is a bit odd about this. I live around the Melford / Underhill intersection and got a letter from the police at the weekend saying that one of my neighbours had been burgled, but it then went on to say that they had gone door to door but been unable to speak to anyone from my household despite a number of visits and could I please contact them to discuss if I had any information. I can only contrast this with the total lack of information or follow up when one of our other neighbours was burgled last year, or even when the parked van at the end of our road burst spontaneously burst into flames at 1am and backed through someone's garden wall a couple of weeks ago. Who knew living in ED would be so eventful... ;-)

Edited in light of contents of one of the other threads.

Completely agree, but it doesn't seem to be stopping Southwark. I was at home recently during the day and heard someone outside going through our bin, so leapt out full of righteous indignation to confront the "dumpee", who then produced a clipboard and a Southwark Council ID. He'd even cut open one of our rubbish bags after "complaints about people using the wrong bins". My first thought was he was a scammer looking for private info, but I did follow it up, and yes, he does work for Southwark. I then found out that one of our neighbours is locked in a pitched suburban battle because he keeps putting his rubbish in someone else's bin (because he doesn't have one and can't be arsed to get one), hence the complaints - but I simply can't believe that resources are actually being expended on this - landfill diversion tax targets or not. Surely, Southwark would be better off improving their overall service (like doing weekly household waste collections, or bringing in Tetrapak recycling facilities, please!) than employing someone to snoop through our rubbish...

As far as this statement goes, I sat near to Laura Tennison (founder of JoJoMamanBebe) at a business dinner a while back. I have to say I found it pretty inspiring to see someone build up a business from scratch (i.e. one part time employee - her) and she seemed incredibly committed to dealing head on with ethical and sustainable business concerns, as well as very nice. She also does a lot of mentoring for women who are setting up their own businesses. I can't say if this is all just marketing b/s, but my personal sense is not (or not all of it), and at the least, she's doing a lot more than Primark to raise standards in developing countries IMHO. That said, I'd much rather a sushi bar too, although I would have thought that would rely on much more of a flow of constant passing trade... http://www.jojomamanbebe.co.uk/about_jojo.php

I'm around the Melford/Underhill intersection. Do you have a photo of Molly ? You can either attach it here, or if it's too big you can email it to the Admin, and he may be able to post it up for you.

Or this: Panic Over: Volcanoes are not a threat

She's moved AFAIK: http://money.independent.co.uk/property/homes/article2974657.ece House looks amazing from the outside too.

What about trying to get some support (and signatures) from one or two of the many Dulwich 'celebs' who may use that station? Jenny Eclair may drive a Rolls, but I'm sure she hops on a train from Denmark Hill now and then. I know it shouldn't make a blind bit of difference, but profile is profile, right? Anyone have any contacts?

AnotherPaul, great report - thanks. I don't know which city the lawyer came from, but he doesn't know much. Class actions don't exist in the UK (save perhaps certain actions before the Competition Appeals Tribunal, which have to be brought by an organisation like 'Which?'). He's also clearly never tried to get a Group Litigation Order (the closest thing we do have to a class action) off the ground. I have and it ain't easy. P.S. Costs still follow the event (i.e. loser pays) even if you have a GLO and I personally wouldn't fancy the group's chances of getting a funding agreement in place either. I'm with Keef - people like that make me want to pick up a pitchfork and flaming torch. There are some serious issues here which deserve a sensible debate - not a petty (and ill informed) response like that. As this gentleman may well be following the debate here, I'd suggest his house price is far more likely to be affected by prevailing market conditions, created by some bad and some insane lending choices by the investment banks over the last few years. As a city worker (perhaps even someone who works at one of those banks), I'd expect he knows that too.

There's more info here on a previous thread by Eileen. One thing I read yesterday is that the East London Spur line (phase 2 of the extension, which would link Denmark Hill to Clapham) is also unlikely to proceed now that Crossrail has been approved, because there isn't enough money to pay for both. Not good, if true. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,49620,49620#msg-49620

Is that the one with the Pearly King and Queen on the cover? If so, I got a copy (Melford Road).

According to this, consultation was planned with Rye Oak staff, parents and children, Nunhead Green staff, parents and children, Play service staff, parents and children, immediate residents and Children Centre practitioners and partners. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/uploads/file_25744.pdf

Ladygooner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have heard that Tory Clubs will not accept women > as members - even when Maggie was in power! > neither are women allowed on the snooker > tables..............enough said I think I'm pretty sure they have to now. They changed the licencing laws a few years ago, so places like golf clubs where women weren't offered full membership were threatened with losing their drinks licence.

downsouth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Inspector Sams" is the code on the underground. 'Inspector Sands' I think - fire alarm activated in the station. There is a different one for suspected bomb alerts which is even more innocuous (and doesn't come up on a quick google).

This may have been raised before (couldn't find it if so with a search). Is there a way to show when posts have been lounged - i.e. you can see the thread title in the original forum, but when you click on it you are taken to the current location of the thread? I've seen this on other forums, and as a fairly new poster I have found it a bit confusing when a thread disappears - I've only just realised it is because they are being lounged. The downside with the idea may be that so much stuff gets lounged that it clutters up the main forum page, I guess.

The first place I really lived in London was Lewisham/Blackheath border (Belmont Hill). Close enough to Lewisham for transport links and the shops, far enough away to be quiet on a Saturday night, easily close enough to walk to Blackheath and watch the kites. How do you feel about Blackheath? This was a few years ago mind, but I always felt totally safe. That said, I much prefer ED (though a fairly recent arrival).

Easy, cats would much rather go outside in a clean, smell free environment, in total privacy and usually in the dark of night, even if they have a litter tray at home. They don't particularly care for standing in a 1'x2' box in their own wastes, unless there is no other choice. I have an indoor cat and she is only really happy using a self-cleaning litter tray. I'm told the ultrasonic cat deterrent devices work well. Completely agree with you about the dog mess though.

It looks to have been moved to the side of the road now, but first time I had seen it (and was lightly steaming, so I assumed a fairly recent addition to the area). Perhaps a repeat performance? There's another one up by the corner with Underhill Road though which I've phoned the Council about before.

Doubt it's connected, but I got quite a fright when I turned into Melford Road off LL early on Sunday to find a smashed up car halfway across the street (near the corner by that block of flats with all the wood). Looked very much like someone had lost control, smashed into the parked cars and then legged it...

Eileen, I don't pretend to have read this document in as much detail you probably have, but when you say that London Bridge to Victoria line may be lost - which of the options under consideration are you thinking of? Option 8.1 (recommended) talks about diverting the end point from Victoria to Victoria Eastern. Option 8.2 refers to diverting the end point (presumably Victoria is the end point) to Clapham Junction (this option is not recommended "until phase 2 of the East London Line is completed"). Option 8.3 is about terminating London Bridge to Victoria service at Battersea Park (again, not recommended). Options 10.1 to 10.3 are about diverting Victoria-London Bridge away from London Bridge to either Catford, Lewisham or the East London Line extension. What is said about these options is that they shouldn't be considered in isolation but are "likely to be required" to allow the Thameslink expansion work at London Bridge to take place. The London Bridge phase of the Thameslink project isn't taking place until after the Olympics I think - so 2013, and the proposal sounds more temporary than permanent to me (although the construction presumably will take more than a year or so and the consultation document is silent about what happens after the expansion work is completed - will services be restored?). I'm personally no fan of the Thameslink proposal, but the effect is supposedly to allow lots more trains to travel via London Bridge, which should improve services for ED, Peckham Rye and Forest Hill users - do you think this will offset the (perhaps temporary/perhaps permanent) loss of the loop line in 2013?

Asset Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've been listening to R4 over the internet for > about 4 years so it's not that recent. Absolutely - but I'm guessing using an .asx stream via the BBC website? Or Realplayer? So, via a computer. What the BBC has recently done is open up a .mms stream, which means you can plug it into something like the Roku or Squeezebox and listen without having to have a PC on at the same time. Big plus (for me at least) as it's much more like using a radio proper.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: > I'm b*&&?red when analogue finally goes - how do I > get my radio fix? I have a similar problem with radio, and now only use internet based radio. Your PC will do it and there are also standalone internet radio boxes that will connect to a wireless network - a bit overpriced at the moment, but coming down all the time, so by the time analogue radio goes off you'll be sorted. :)-D http://www.broadbandstuff.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=503 The big issue in the past has been the BBC who wouldn't transmit their main stations in mp3 or compatible stream format, so products like this could use them. They've recently changed their policy so I can now get Radio 4 over the internet.

AllforNun Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well apparently I have it from a v good source > that the leasholders are in very advanced > discussions with a firm called Mark One. I think > they are a clothing retailers ? Its basically a > done deal. I think East Dulwich will be looking > pretty smart in a few years. I guess you've not wandered past the shop window of the one in Forest Hill then... :) Mrs Kford is spot on. I've never once walked past the one in Forest Hill and thought "I must pop in". That said, I don't imagine it will cause the ire that White Stuff did, and it's a whole lot more accessible in terms of pricing than some of the clothes-selling emporiums on LL.

One thing I forgot to mention, in fairness to Southwark Council, is that part of the reason they may be being a bit heavy handed, is that their waste management strategy doesn't involve building a big old incinerator to treat waste, as a number of councils are. The strategy only works, however, if Southwark hit fairly ambitious targets for recycling. If they were being a bit more relaxed about the recyling and going down the incinerator route, I suspect people would be just as aggravated for different reasons.

ratty Wrote: -------------------------------------------------------> > Have they the power to fine? Is a bye law passed > stating that we must recycle? Short answer is yes, they can require that you recycle. However, they can't fine you if you don't have any recycling to put out, or if you recycle it elsewhere. The longer answer is that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended by the London Local Authorities Act 2007) gives local authorities the power to specify how people separate their waste, e.g. which bin it should be placed in as well as which days it will be collected. It also provides for fixed penalty charges if people breach certain provisions of the Act. One of the sections you can be fined for breaching is section 46 (thrillingly entitled "Receptacles for Household Waste"). Section 46 allows Southwark to require us to use separate containers for recyclable waste, subject to certain conditions such as the number of containers and requirements for separation of waste must be reasonable. If you breach this section, for example by mixing recyclable and non-recyclable waste, you could in theory be liable to a penalty charge. However, if you don't have any recycling to put out, or recycle elsewhere, the penalty charge certainly couldn't apply. There has been huge amount of discussion about how Councils should use these powers. Councils say the threat of fines are essential to get through to those people who do no recyling at all. However, there are very limited guidelines as to how these powers should be applied, and a wide variation in practice between councils. See the various news stories about on the spot littering for a similar discussion. I have no connection to Southwark Council by the way, but take a keen personal and professional interest in civil liberties, if I can put it like that. This is a good example of the type of regulation that simply didn't exist 10 years ago, where there is potential for summary conviction, no requirement for a common sense application and only limited grounds for appeal.