ianr

Sue's quite right. And the OP and frankieboy are the only two contributors to this thread who haven't already been participating in the main one.

> I had thought the Tessa Jowell > Centre was a health hub Penguin68, yoiu're right of course. There's a good descriptive overview from the local newly enlarged NHS CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group) at https://selondonccg.nhs.uk/in-your-area/southwark/tessa-jowell-health-centre/, and another from the main hosptal service provider there: https://www.guysandstthomas.nhs.uk/news-and-events/2020-news/november/20201102-tessa-jowell-health-centre-now-open.aspx. And an NHS GP surgeries page including reviews: https://www.nhs.uk/services/gp-surgery/tessa-jowell-gp-surgery/G85132. The GP practice is an amalgamation of the Melbourne Grove and Hambleden practices. It's run by Omnes Healthcare Ltd, a subsidiary of the Omnes group. It was previously known as a Concordia group company. Concordia took over the Melbourne Grove practice about fifteen years ago.

The Kindle edition of Tom Bower's "Boris Johnson: The Gambler" is reduced from (afaics) ?9.99 to ?0.99 until midnight today, as one of the Kindle Daily Deals at https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kindle-Daily-Deals/b?ie=UTF8&node=5400977031.

> They seemed to scout around 3am > and returned again at 5am, Can you tell if the scouting seemed to be 'cold', ie speculatively looking in all likely places over a whole range of houses; or did it seem limited to particular locations, possibly based on information they already had?

I think robinho would have had to have seen the perp(s) handling both the stolen bike and the two foundlings, for there to be even the slightest possibility of (1) being thought useful. robinho, you could try searching https://www.bikeregister.com/stolen-bikes for place London and each of the bike makes. The search results seem to be more or less date-ordered, and six months of results fill only two or three pages, so it's not onerous.

Also, posts made in the past year containing "party wall surveyor": /forum/search.php?5,search=%22party+wall+surveyor%22,page=1,match_type=ALL,match_dates=365,match_forum=ALL. There seem to be several recommendation threads.

Surpassing in what sense and respect? Or do you, or he, mean superseding? What were his actual words?

I was perturbed by a report back in November about someone else's charge, /forum/read.php?5,2164086,#msg-2166483, and had a look around myself few days later. I'll write about that later, when I've compared what I saw then with what's available now. There are about half a dozen different service providers using the building. I think you're going to have to find an administrator there who is responsible for the premises themselves, and ask them to cancel the charge, which I think would be a wholly reasonable thing for them to do. If it was the GP surgery that was visited, perhaps they would be the best first port of call. It would be interesting to know how many other cases there may have been.

You've read the article and believe its headline, which appears to be based on a tweet?

> Any sane person can read an o Neil or Liddle > column and think them deeply troubled and strange > men, with a track record of being wrong about > pretty much everything That's sorted then.

I'm not sure what the gulp's for, if not for perceived superannuated dwelling on trivial childhood memories (backed up by some search results in the https://britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk index). It all seemed quite straightforward at the time, anyway, and more mind-exercising than the current arrangements. And base ten units aren't all that new. Ten square chains to the acre?

> Except everything worth ?4 would be priced at ?3 S19 D11 More likely 79/11d with or without the d. Otherwise ?3 19s 11d, or ?3/19/11d or ?3.19.11d. or ..., again with or without the d.

Do the Spectator's terms of the "SHARE" require you to copy in all the wordage before and after the article?

SadKrab wrote in this thread today at 03:47PM > I recently discovered dating sites. I've > always thought it was some kind of social > network. However, I was given a list of > types from bestondating. It turns out > there are even completely paid sites)) I > would never pay for it)) A couple of dozen > top online dating sites are enough for me > to find someone. Although I'm not sure if > you can find someone there for a strong > marriage. Does anyone have experience with this? Spartacus responded at 03.57PM > Today I learnt that sad crab is a spammer And the consequence was, the posts were fairly quickly removed by a moderator, presumably following a report. That still left two other recent spam postings made under the SadKrab id, one of them reported yesterday. What does one learn from that?

When I ping eastdulwichforum.co.uk replies are from 172.67.128.198, so nothing apparently wrong with that. And traceroute gets me to 104.21.1.75, so nothing wrong per se with the difference, which I assume is maybe connected with the use of Cloudflare. It seems as if something idiosyncratic to you is going on at the EDF end. Apart from clearing my browser cache or trying a different browser I can't think of anything else I'd try.

What "census paperwork"? The census is run by the government ONS, who say they "will send you census information by post including a letter containing the access code needed to fill in your census online questionnaire." https://census.gov.uk/your-data-and-security/how-we-will-contact-or-visit-you. Is it that? Incidentally while looking this up I came across "The Labour party?s lawyers have written to the director of public prosecutions alleging that Shaun Bailey, the Conservative party?s candidate for London mayor, used fraud to influence upcoming elections by publishing leaflets headed with fake City Hall insignia." in the 25 Jan. edition of https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/25/labour-asks-cps-to-investigate-tory-london-mayor-candidate-over-leaflets, but haven't seen any updates.

I'm reminded of some reports in this thread. /forum/read.php?5,1094009,1097008#msg-1097008

Serena2012 mentioned above and legalalien added: -------------------------- > I think I heard somewhere that the > funding is for a feasibility study > rather than putting in the crossing > at this stage. But I'm not sure where. That seems to me more likely, given the ascribed cost of ?12,000 and the list of project types that can be considered, at page 40 of the South multi-ward forum Public report pack available at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgChooseDocPack.aspx?ID=6871: 5. Commencing in 2017/18, the scope of the fund has been widened to permit the full range of minor traffic and highway capital schemes rather than solely like-for-like repair and replacement. Examples of the types of works which can now be funded include: ? Footway and carriageway resurfacing; ? Traffic calming; ? Localised repairs; ? Accessibility improvements; ? Footway buildouts; ? Cycle hangars.

PinkyB wrote on 02 April, 2009 at 08:55 ---------------------------------------- > People who wait at pedestrian crossings > and don't press the button. Do they think > they're so important that the traffic will > just stop for them of it's own accord? No. I often wait for a gap in the traffic if not in a hurry. I prefer that to causing both unnecessary inconvenience to a string of drivers and the increased fuel use and pollution.

Who are they owned and provided by?

I'd like to see drones used by local authorities for screening house chimneys and other posible sources of harmful emanations. That's assuming there's apparatus available that's small enough to be carried, and that can do real-time detection and location-logging of at least some of the usual poisons and particulates. Any likely hits could then be followed up if necesssary by more detailed and extensive sampling.

OatLatte, you don't provide figures for the number of persons given each of the different vaccines, so how have you determined the relative rates of death reported as associated with each? Do you have any idea what proportion they are overall of the number of vaccinations that have been given? Note too, from the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) https://vaers.hhs.gov/ Fact Sheet: 'An "adverse event" is any health problem or "side effect" that happens after a vaccination. VAERS cannot determine if a vaccine caused an adverse event, but can determine if further investigation is needed.' and "VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to the system. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind." https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html

[Removed. My knowledge was pre-Covid and pre-health-centre.]