ianr

Tatty Mum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also phoned that number and got the poor guy who > has recived loads of calls because of this post. > PLEASE can Acedout and Jaws edit their posts to > remove the number? I know Jaws that you said it > was wrong in the post but the number is still > there! Indeed. The correct number of the ED sorting office is (020) 8299 9471 (as obtained from this forum in July http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,145281,151760#msg-151760)

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's horrific - I thought it was just my > imagination that they were so frequent. I suspect that snapshot will be close to the _current_ maximum density for ED, and that there's a large amount of variation, both within and between days. Perhaps I should ask BAA if there's an easier way of abstracting data, to get a fuller picture of the current load and distribution ... Perhaps one of the campaigning groups has already been down that route ... I remember inbound flights in the mid-70s going over Kew up to every 90 seconds. From Wimbledon Common nowadays, you can see them slipping into a stream with just a minute's separation.

You can see at least the previous day's flights charted at http://lhr.webtrak-lochard.com/ , at up to 10x real-time. Selecting Lewisham gives you a map showing the ED area. Here are the ones appearing 03:55-05:30 on Sunday 9/11. I've listed time, height in feet, transit point, and approx bearing. None of these early flight tags included a flight number. The Avondale Rise ones tend to be just north of AR and of the top of Dog Kennel Hill. The 05:00 one is probably on another, more southerly, main westbound path that we sometimes notice over ED. The ones going over the Dulwich park area were coming from the SE. When I looked at some daytime paths, there was another very steady stream filtering in just north of Camberwell Green. I wonder if both the Camberwell and Avondale streams are shifted south in some wind conditions, giving us the stream over the LL/EDGrove junction. 4:30 4500 Avondale Rise 270 4:33 4400 Avondale 270 4:36 4400 Avondale 270 4:39 4300 Avondale 270 4:42 4200 Court Lane 285 4:51 4100 Burbage Rd 295 4:57 3700 Avondale Rise almost due west 5:00 3200 Jn, LL + ED Grove ~ 275 5:03 3800 Avondale 270 5:05 4500 Avondale 270 5:09 4500 Avondale 270 5:13 4000 Avondale 270 5:16 3900 Avondale 270 5:19 4500 Avondale 270 5:22 4300 Avondale 270 5:30 4400 Just s of Avondale ~ 270 Cor, this don't half beat collecting train numbers. [Edit: addendum: note that the site seeks to log only Heathrow flights; any others will be incidental extras]

CamberwellOz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I live at the top of Camberwell Grove and ours is > always bad. Dropping in and out for no real > reason. Drop-outs for a second or two can be due to local electrical interference. I can get them just by switching something like a heater or lamp on or off nearby. And in the front room, some is very obviously due to passing traffic: a two-stroke bike is an obvious culprit, though a few 4-wheelers also seem able to cause it. That's all using indoor aerials, btw.

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Da rulez > > Page 9 is particularly relevant and page 11 some > people (not necessarily those of the sensible side > of society) should take the time to read ;-) Para.4.5 prohibits the _use_ of bicycles, roller skates, etc, but says nothing about their being carried on a bus. In the "Conduct Regulations", SI 2002/1724, referred to in 1.1, there's even a provision (reg.17(2)) allowing the driver _not_ to meet the duties they impose on him with respect to wheelchair users and other disabled persons, if "there will be a risk to his health, safety or security or to that of the wheelchair user or other disabled person or to that of any other passenger or member of the public." That seems to further emphasise the driver's existing common law duty to exercise his judgement to ensure the safety of his passengers.

cate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dog poo is dangerous if the dog has worms. The > worms can be transferred to humans. Believe that > is less possible nowadays as most people worm > their dogs. Any doctors out there to confirm? Toxocara canis is a thing to worry about. There's even an article about it on the Southwark site. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/yourservices/environment/animalwelfare/toxocara.html

In her position I think I'd have walked home, wheeling the bike. Would that be seen as out of the question or an unrealistic possibility?

My unsystematic mental map of bus frequencies has the 40 quite a bit less frequent than either the 176 or 185. Does that tally with others' experience or knowledge, or am I being unfair to it? The timetables, FWIW, have both the 176 and 40 as running every 8 minutes during the day, and the 185 every 10 minutes.

Where would we look to check how many handcarts Southwark has in readiness? We surely don't have to provide our own. Or would it be some other authority that has responsibility?

So almost certainly not a general problem. Thanks.

-- moved topic --

This is available for people whose household details haven't changed from the previous year's. I've used it several years without problem. All my attemts to register on-line this year, from a few months ago, when I received the first postal request to register, until last week, all seem to have failed -- the system apparently treating me as someone who had already registered (and so was not permitted to make any further on-line entry). But then, Wednesday 29 September, all went through swimmingly, and I got both on-line and e-mail confirmation. So now I'm wondering if what looks like a system error happened in only a few specific cases, or to everyone who tried to use it.

LibraCarr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The trouble with Somerfield is the lack of staff training I don't think that can be quite true. I clearly remember, a few months ago, a staff member wearing a Trainee Manager badge. He briefly engaged in a tug-of-war with me, over a packet of herrings I was holding (and which we both knew was my property), and sportingly let me win.

The dog clearly wasn't looking after the au pair as well as she might have been.

Clinker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is this cryptic? If that's addressed to me, then no. It's just that, if it was an immigration raid, I'd expect them to be checking all the employees of whatever business they were raiding; and as far as I can make out, it was only the petrol station staff that were checked. Or is it, ah (fx: lightbulb flickering on) that it's one of those petrol stations containing a bit of a shop? Yes, of course, it must be. Please excuse me, I'm a pedestrian/cyclist.

If they only raided the petrol station, does that mean that it's not actually managed by Tesco?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A metre long rabbit? Chasing an old lady? > > Whatever you've been smoking, can I have some too? It's the "chasing" that bothers me. How long does it take to chase an old lady?

The actual article is at http://www.healthcarerepublic.com/news/GP/772950/Exclusive-Private-firms-score-less-quality-points/ . I think btw that 803 was the Parkside score; MG scored 828. They were the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) scores, obtainable in full at http://www.qof.ic.nhs.uk/ The "Total achieved results" for MG were: 2004-05: 810 points (out of ?1050) 7% lower than PCT average 2005-06: 881 points (out of 1050) 9% lower than PCT average 2006-07: 828 points (out of 1000) 10% lower than PCT average There are detailed breakdowns within the tables which you can see by ticking the selection boxes.

At the same time as the Melbourne Grove and Parkside contracts were awarded to Concordia, that for Sternhall Lane was given to a partnership of GPs who, as The Hurley Group, run three South London practices. See http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7549/1048-b?rss . Does anyone know anything of these Hurley Group practices http://www.hurleygroup.co.uk/ and how they've fared? The Sternhall Lane one's catchment area includes a large part of ED.

mells Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is a total mess they have decided not to have a > patient forum as they can't handle the out pouring > from their patients. Southwark PCT recommend that > these are held every 4-6 months but can't impose > this on a private company. Can you expand on this please? There is apparently still, according to the home page (bottom RH) at http://www.mgmp.co.uk, a Patient Participation Group. Is that the one you mean? Does anyone else know anything about it? BTW, which of them is the smiling doctor in the banner at the head of the page?

There's also a reporting page http://www.southwark.gov.uk/BusinessCentre/Licensing/ReportingaPremises.html

There's an instructive real-life Lambeth case in the South London Press at http://www.southlondonpress.co.uk/tn/News.cfm?id=16648. Do click through to the follow-up article. The Southwark licensing register page is http://licensing.southwarksites.com, which leads to the terms of the FHT's licence at http://licensing.southwarksites.com/LicPremisesGrantedDetails.asp?systemkey=11388. It's good to read that they will have had functioning CCTV, inside and out, that they'll have made available to the police. Where in the leg was the victim injured? It may seem a safer place to inflict an injury, but it can lead to death through loss of blood, as with Damilola Taylor. I hope everyone knows about artery pressure points, for use in an emergency where blood is being lost fast.

cspencer77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They are police helicopters and they are looking > for extreme heat sources from houses How do you know? They do have other activities. Do you have inside information, did you see it/them doing a linear search pattern, ...?

And if you want to see the RTA1988, s.170 in its current state, it's at http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=Act+(UK+Public+General)&title=Road+Traffic+Act&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2276534&ActiveTextDocId=2276820&filesize=12249 . It's changed very little.

Sorry no webcam of the ED palm tree.