intexasatthe moment

Such incisive comments .The EDF is such a joy these days .

ah ,I see what you did there Renata ......the root of the problem indeed .

Less of the balderdash ,Inbound . THe Highway Code has this to say about parking Parking (rules 239 to 247) Rule 239 Use off-street parking areas, or bays marked out with white lines on the road as parking places, wherever possible. If you have to stop on the roadside: do not park facing against the traffic flow stop as close as you can to the side do not stop too close to a vehicle displaying a Blue Badge: remember, the occupant may need more room to get in or out you MUST switch off the engine, headlights and fog lights you MUST apply the handbrake before leaving the vehicle you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic it is safer for your passengers (especially children) to get out of the vehicle on the side next to the kerb put all valuables out of sight and make sure your vehicle is secure lock your vehicle. It used to be a practice to leave a car in reverse gear when parked on a hill in the belief that this would counteract movement if the handbrake failed .I've no idea if this would work in practice ,but might be worth a go .

I was speaking to one of the gardeners heroically battling the weeds in the Sexby Garden . He told me that they now have only 5 gardeners .Down from 30 or 40 ,I'm unable to remember which .And I don't know over what period the decline has taken place .

For my benefit as an aged person, what does "I used to peg it down this road - far too sketchy." mean ? And for the benefit of others suffering from the noise and pollution on Barry Rd I continue to put in reports to Thames Water re noisy and broken manholes that resound with every passing vehicle . Link below for others in similar distress https://www.thameswater.co.uk/Help-and-Advice/Report-a-problem/Report-a-problem

All functions fully restored to card . So suspect Visa issues on Thursday as well as Friday .

"front wheel is angled outwards " is this really good advice ? Particularly in narrow roads where much squeezing past of vehicles goes on . The trouble with assumed poor parking is that it needs to be witnessed while taking place .Otherwise who knows what the state of play was when the car was left and what changes in car positioning have taken place .

Interesting . I had my card declined on Thursday late afternoon but was thinking this was a seperate issue to the outage declared on Friday .

"then just say that's the end of the matter" not that that's what was said . There's a difference between saying I don't want to continue discussing this on line and saying that's the end of the matter . Matters are dealt with ,life continues outside social media .Particularly if you've taken to heart warnings that this is exactly the kind of dispute that should not be discussed here.

It might take a while to investigate - I've no idea of staff involved or if they were working yesterday or had finished their shift before investigations could be made . I can't remember the detail but the description of events included JellyB's wife catching sight of the paperwork listing bookings and seeing only a few/lots of gaps .Who knows ,perhaps the book wasn't up to date and whoever is responsible for that wasn't around ? Would one of the C&G's first thoughts be "gosh ,better check out the EDF to see if there's a thread on this ? " And ,if they did so ,would they necessarily decide that the best thing to do would be to post ?

I believe the events that JellyB complained about only took place yesterday afternoon ? Could be wrong . Guessing that it might take a little time for staff to investigate and decide on action ,if any . I can see why it might be thought that they should go public with the outcome but it may be that they decide not to . As for JellyB - he/she has said that they want to draw a close to this thread .I know you feel differently RH . Who knows ,perhaps JB posted this thread in haste and has thought better of taking to Twitter . Maybe they've been in contact with Admin . I'm not going to assume that because they don't want to continue this on line that their orginal post about the lunch time events wasn't genuine or that the C&G aren't investigating and dealing .

Jellyb says "I don't wont to continue with this thread and want to draw a close to this matter." Rendel says "No mate, you don't get to say that" but accuses Alice of self righteously telling people off and acting as unoffical Admin.

Oh Rendel do stop it . I agree with a lot of your posts ,some I don't . Are you really going to fall back on the "personal feud " winge everytime I disagree with you ? And for the edification of other readers ( if there are any ) the "hate " thread Rendel refers to was me asking him to stop sending PM's . He had sent me a PM ,I had replied asking him not to PM me and he then promptly sent me another . Admin quite rightly deleted the thread - it was no more than a personal interchange between posters .

I agree with your points Joe . Just feel that jellyb posted in haste while reeling from what they felt had happened . Not wise but something I understood .

"And while we're here, why do you think you're some sort of unofficial admin? Make your points, stop the self-righteous telling off of others please." hilarious comment from RH who can happily tell other posters what they can't say and how they're not allowed to stop posting on a thread . rendelharris Yesterday, 10:56PM Jellybeanz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't wont to continue with this thread and want > to draw a close to this matter. No mate, you don't get to say that. You've accused a respected local business of refusing custom to people on the basis of their ethnicity. Back it up or apologise.

Well I was ,of course ,excluding you from that remark RH . I don't want to deprive you of yet another opportunity to express moral outrage .

I don't know if it's any help but I've found that commercial air conditioning units can be the source of the kind of noise you describe .

If someone is a long term poster it allows ppl to form an opinion ,based on their posts ,as to whether that poster has form for being over sensitive ,always diving in to stir things up for the sake of it ,aggresive ,ridiculous ,bee in their bonnet etc . I read the OP's description of events ,the amount of detail and balanced tone led me to believe that something had s gone seriously wrong . The OP gave credit where it was due and referred to one of the managers as intervening in a helpful way and that a further response from the pub was awaited . I didn't read later posts by the OP - perhaps they weren't balanced or calm .But from the description of what happened I can understand how he/his wife drew the conclusions they did .Possibly the conclusions were incorrect ,but we weren't in their shoes and I can see how deeply upset the OP/her husband would be .Upset enough to loose their cool and go on to post incautious posts . Cut them some slack .

Admin - do you want ppl to report ? Or does that just mean you get loads of reports as well ? ( I've only just realised that I should post on the rogue thread to let others know that it's been reported .)

Don't know if spam is correct word .And probably not just that section .

If it's honeybees local beekeepers will come and collect ,see here https://www.bbka.org.uk/swarm

IME objections re parking and increased traffic will carry little weight . There is a need and desire to reduce use of cars and the site has great access to bus and trains . So I wouldn't devote too much time to that in objections . In the covering letter there is discussion of what constitutes a building .I don't understand ( and haven't tried ) to understand the point being argued but assume it's significant and a grey area . Copying below for those with more knowledge to comment "Two question arise: a) The first is whether the word ?building? contained in paragraph P.1(d) includes part of a building. If it does, the fact that the ?building? being proposed under Class P is part of a larger building would be irrelevant; in these circumstances, so long as the part being considered is below 500 metres, the criterion would be satisfied. b) The second issue is whether, if the word ?building? means only a single, whole building and not part of it. Whether ?building? within paragraph P.1(d) includes part of the building In my view, the phrase ?building? in paragraph P.1(d) includes part of a building. It requires, therefore, that the part of the building being proposed for use under Class P be below 500 metres. As a result, in this case, paragraph P.1(d) is not contravened. My reasons are as follows. First, paragraph P.1(d) must be read consistently with both the 2015 Order as a whole and the permission granted by Class P. ?Building? is defined in the Order (as it is in s. 336(1) of the 1990 Act) as including part of a building. On the face of it, therefore, Class P is capable of applying to part of a building. There is nothing within the wording of the permission in Class P to suggest that a different approach is taken in that Class. Indeed, that is consistent with the position on an application for planning permission under s. 62 of the 1990 Act. Applications for a material change of use can made to change the use of part of a building (for example, a dwelling house or flat into two separate flats). Moreover, other classes under Part 3 (see, for example, part M) patently allow for applications to be made which would change the use of part of the building; they use the phrase ?the development (together with any previous development under Class M) would result in more than 150 square metres of floor space in the building having changed use under Class M?. Part 3 clearly envisages that a permission will extend to part of the site. Since the permission itself is granted in respect of part of a building, paragraph P.1(d) would have to be 5 construed as applying a different and more restrictive definition of ?building? to the main provisions within Class P. In my view, that is unlikely. Indeed, the definition within the 2015 Order of ?building? specifically excludes the inclusion of part of the building in respect of certain Classes and did not take that opportunity in respect of either paragraph P.1(d) or Class P as a whole. An alternative would have been to make clear that the paragraph related to a whole building only rather than part of the building ? that step was not taken. Class P?s provisions are, therefore, capable of operating in respect of changes of use of part of a building as much as a whole building (e.g. the use for warehouse and storage for a particular period). As a result, in my view, if the change of use in question relates to part of a building, paragraph (d) applies its restriction to the part in question. "

If I were you I'd look through Southwark's Residential Design Guide Supplementary Design Guide http://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/supplementary-planning-documents-spd/spd-by-planning-topic?chapter=5 It contains lots of requirements which I think are not met in this application eg For major residential development (those over 10 units) does the development? ? Have at least 60% of units suitable for three or more occupants containing two or more bedrooms)? ? Include studio flats? If so are these limited to 5% of the total number of dwellings? Note that studio flats are not considered suitable for affordable housing provision. ? Include a minimum of 10% of units that are suitable for wheelchair users in line with guidance set out in section 2.10 of this SPD? ? Provide the minimum amount of family homes with direct access to private outdoor space as set out in sections 2.3, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4? I always find it difficult to find the most up to date Southwark documents but think this still applies . Feel sure that this application won't succed in it's current form but will be signficantly ammended .