LondonMix

So eating crap food is a type of suicide to escape a miserable life and destitute old age?

Has anyone seen the routes being considered for the extension via Peckham? At least in the old analysis posted by GEEK, if you follow the links, the extension will run from Peckham Rye to Honor Oak with the creation of a new station in between called Peckham Rye Common. Where is that supposed to go! I'm having a hard time imagining exactly where that could be created (except perhaps by losing a portion of Peckham Common). Can someone confirm what the current option involving an extension through Peckham would look like and where the services would be located?

Thanks

Do you have any details? I think everyone wants better transport links. What's the cost, how will it be done and what (if any) are the trade-offs?

I'm not sure what those opposing the closure are trying to say exactly. Certain south east London hospitals have been very poorly managed (though not Lewisham). The idea is that they will be taken over by well functioning hospitals. The PFI contracts will be funded directly by the Department for Health so that the legacy of them will no longer weigh down the hospitals and the new management allowing for a clean start. The changes proposed at Lewisham have to do with the assertion in the report that A&E's are over supplied in SE London while other services (the non-complex surgery unit) are missing. Given the geographic / services etc, the analysis concludes these changes are best for overall service by numerous measures. I'm not saying that A&E's are over supplied as I have no idea (but in a previous thread a few others who work for the NHS have said they agree with this assertion). The precedent in my view (if it does genuinely achieve its goals) isn't a bad one. Regarding the sickle-cell post. I'm surprised that writer predicts the replacement of Lewisham's A&E with a UCC will have such dire consequences for those with sickle cell. The UCC should be able to deal with most issues of this chronic genetic disorder and I'd be surprised if the other hospitals in SE London weren't able to deal with major complications (stroke / serious infection etc) appropriately. If so, training about sickle-cell would appear to be a more sensible solution than keeping an A&E open specifically to deal with sickle cell. Strafer, I agree those in a more affluent area might have more political weight to stop a positive change and that they (like anyone) would fight to keep an A&E in their area even if there were other A&Es within a safe distance. However, that certainly doesn't mean that good decisions shouldn't be made because at times, certain more affluent areas might have greater ability to stop appropriate action being taken. The changes at Lewisham are either for the best or not.

Fuschia, you know schools aren't sold. Roke was put on Special Measures for a host of reasons (not too slow improvement) and the gov't announced last year that all schools and special measures should immediately be converted to academies. I think this is a bad policy change but arguing the Ofsted is just a political tool seems farfetched!

Yes, but less critical cases should be directed to the UCC from other hospitals. Waiting times are better for those with non-critical injuries at urgent care centres than attending A+E (since critical cases are not constantly being prioritized over non-critical injuries). The only real arguments against the propsals I can see are if there is an argument that 5 full blown A+Es are objectively needed vs 4 + a UCC (in terms of health outcomes / travel times and waiting times). Or if the emergency travel times in the report based on the proposed reconfiguration are wrong- while travel times for Lewisham residents to an A+E would be longer, the report analyis says they will still be within national guidelines.

I hasten to add the the idea is not to close Lewisham Hospital. Lewisham's A&E will be turned into a 24/7 Urgent Care facility with the ability to deal with the vast majority (70%) of the cases that currently come through its A&E. The hospital will also be expanded to create a new specialist non-complex surgery unit (which is missing from SE London) to deal with non-emergency surgeries. Currently, wait times for these are unacceptable because when these types of surgeries (hip-replacement / knee surgery etc) are done at hospitals with A&E units, they often have to be cancelled or postponed as the surgeons are called to deal with major traumas. The decision to create this new surgery unit and urgent care centre at Lewisham was based on the specialist emergency care units (and their geographical spread) available at other SE London hospitals-- major trauma, stroke, heart attack etc. Lewisham has a specialist emergency paediatric unit but there are 2 others at other South London hospitals (totally 3). When deciding which A&E to transform into an Urgent Care Centre, the travel times by car and blue light ambulance, the specialist units the hospitals have within their A&Es, as well as the types of cases the A&E is currently dealing with were all considered.

If you actually read the report (how many intending to march have actually bothered?) you'll understand the issues at hand much better. Make up your own minds but the decision has sensible, well reasoned arguments behind it.

Correct! StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think slagging off anywhere people live > constitutes "bad manners" > > even if they do it themselves > even if it's true > even if it's tongue in cheek > > But they live there for a reason - and ultimately > other people slagging the place off is only going > to make them feel that much worse > > I'm not saying "it shouldn't be done" - but it is > good manners? > > Pretty sure I've done it quite a few times but it > always makes me uncomfortable when I read it

That's a good outcome. There would be no reduction in service but instead of increasing service to City Thameslink, connections to Victoria would be restored to close to their 2012 levels. Bic, what's your stance on this? Do you support this outcome or would you think the area would benefit more from enhanced City Thameslink connections? Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye would lose > service > > to Thameslink (instead stopping at Blackfriars) > > but regain service to Victoria in 2018? Can > you > > elaborate as its not clearly detailed on the > link? > > The original plan was for four services per hour > through DH and PR. As the Loop has been saved, we > lose two of those slots to them in the Thameslink > Core section. However those two paths can still > be used for a direct service to Victoria instead > via Bellingham calling at the SLL stations along > the route except for Battersea Park. (QRP and > South Bermondsey passengers would still have to > change at PR regardless). > > My understanding is the existing 2tph would > continue as now through the core section. > (Blackfriars to Kentish Town)

Great post.

Oh please. If everyone had a "one-off" party it would be constant noise. I love a good party but when I have one, I rent a place out or go somewhere with friends. That's polite, not a note. We have pre-parties at the house before nights out but not a full blown DJ- spinning, music blasting til the wee hours affairs. New Years Eve is a general exception though :)

So Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye would lose service to Thameslink (instead stopping at Blackfriars) but regain service to Victoria in 2018? Can you elaborate as its not clearly detailed on the link?

Yes, that's my point too. I prefer ED to SW London for the same reasons you do and I dislike Chelsea. However, that's because I value the same things you do and don't really care so much about the things my West London friends do. That's why the move from Chelsea to ED is so unusual because they appeal to totally different kinds of people (not "good" or "bad" just different. With all the money in the world I wouldn't live in Chelsea- I can think of quite a few other places in London that are more appealing. We checked out SW London as well at one point and agree it felt less friendly and more sedate with fewer transport links, a longer commute and quite a bit more expensive. It didn?t feel like good value for money to us either but again, it has to do with our priorities. Chillaxed Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting, and you're half right. We actually > Googled 'good places to live in London', or maybe > 'villages in London', and ED was one of the > neighbourhoods mentioned. Being expats we have no > family ties so all of London was in scope. We did > look at some of the other ?villages? you?d expect > to be mentioned (Barnes, Wimbledon, etc) but they > didn?t compare to ED on most measures. > > We rented a flat in Chelsea and bought a house in > ED: same cost (rent v mortgage) more or less. But > when I say ED is better than Chelsea I mean better > regardless of relative affordability: it's > greener, better transport links to the City (give > me a seat and an open window on the train over a > packed tube any day), better pubs and cafes, more > accessible shopping, friendlier (by a country > mile), a community spirit (as opposed to none in > Chelsea), good state schools with student bodies > that reflect wider London, and of course the EDF. > > > Newbie or upwardly mobile or yuppie or whatever, I > love ED and have the middle-class tat fridge badge > to prove it! > > Back on topic, I can confirm South Norwood did not > come up in our internet search for a good, family > neighbourhood.

I?m an expat and I have quite a few colleagues etc that live in the general area but all of them are English or expats married to English people (like myself) and that?s how they?ve learned about ED. From a neighborhood perspective there appears to be only a few types who would live in Chelsea but then move to East Dulwich (it?s not a standard jump). Most of the people I know who live in Chelsea are expats to begin with and either don?t know of other neighborhoods or want to be in the centre for the short while they live in London to take full advantage of the city, which is fair enough. Typically if you already knew the city and were open to living some place like ED, you?d probably have started renting some place less expensive or more edgy to begin with. Most people who live in Chelsea prioritse either being central or being in a very affluent area in my experience. Amongst my friends who?ve lived in Chelsea, the more standard move is Battersea (to remain central) or the greater Richmond area ? East Sheen, Twickenham, Ham, Hampton-- (to keep the sense to twee). None of that is a criticism. I also have friends that live in places I would never consider for a thousand reasons.

Are you an expat married to someone English?

Oh, I see, you were just highlighting the legal possibility rather than any specific proposal put forward by Harris. Understood.

Yep, it back to running in the gym (which I hate) until the weather clears up.

Thanks for the update. It seems we just need to wait to see if they get the hospital site and take it from there. If Harris have indicated to the council that they want the hospital site but if that falls through they'll use land attached to one of their existing local schools why do you think the primary might go elsewhere like Southwark free school? It seems they have a preferred local and fallback solution.

I suspect EvaC (first post) is actually trying to shift that house (she's either the owner or an agent). Despite several people saying they'd never consider living there as its wretched, she's basically said the comments on this thread have convinced her to move to the area!

Sorry, my question was which of the existing Harris secondaries had space for the primary school should the hospital site not work out. ED Girls, ED Boys or one of the Harris secondaries in Peckham?

That's very honest and I agree as fear is totally the natural response if you don't know someone. I agree that compassion is also needed and that the system certainly appears to be failing these people. I'm almost going mad just commuting in the cold so sleeping rough is an unimaginable hardship to me. With that said, being snide about a shop wanting to prevent its goods being stolen is rediculous.

I think the decision being with parents- ie they not the LA decide who to support- is better, no? Afterall, how is the LA supposed to know if there is demand for bilingual education for example. All of the other criteria you mentioned is still part of the approval process of an Academy application except it now rests with the DfE. I say all of this but I do not totally support Gove's plan. I don't think all academies are good or that they are the only solution that should be available. With that said, I do think Harris are exceptionally good and have fair policies.

The US does have a minimum wage and has had one for a very long time... Efficiency gains are not zero sum. It either allows for wage increases or drops in the value of consumer goods increasing overall global production.