ianr

> as those numbers show what the sentiment > towards these closures is. the sentiment?

> Has anyone ever had a viable explanation from > Southwark as to why they consider themselves > different to every other nearby Borough? Why not just ask them for all the data you actually want -- I assume Southwark has it -- with, if you like, something like that question as a supplementary. Just make sure your request is drafted specifically and generally enough to get all the information you want or are likely to want, and isn't likely to cost Southwark more than the FOIA limit, currently ? ?450. https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request Then you could publish it here or somewhere else suitable, in a form easily easily findable by anyone searching for the information.

.

That's concerning. Is the system actually telling you no appointments are available? That looks a possibility from what the web page https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/testing-and-tracing/get-a-test-to-check-if-you-have-coronavirus/ says: "If no tests are available online, do not call the helpline to get a test. No extra tests are available through the helpline." Or is the online system jammed, which also seems a possibility: "This service is currently very busy. If you cannot get a test now, or the location or time are not convenient, try again in a few hours"?

> it eventually goes through to > this with clicking other links. How do you get to that?

"Everyone apart from Hancock wanted to set the limit on groups at eight or more," the source said. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/rule-of-six-opposed-ministers-cabinet-a4545036.html (same as above)

EDHC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just wanting to inform the East > Dulwich Forum that a beautiful new > Health Centre has opened up. > We are Osteopaths who are specialised > in treating babies and children as > well as adults. We have been working > in East Dulwich for more than 15 > years and have recently opened up > a new Health Centre. > Please Contact us on 07957611021 > Looking forward to hearing from you > EDHC Where is this beautiful new Health Centre of yours that has just opened up? Your telephone number leads to https://www.healthstaffdiscounts.co.uk/biz.aspx?a=4234-east-dulwich-osteopath and thence 277 Crystal Palace Road.

JamesBeat wrote on 10 September 2020 at 12:39PM ------------------------------------------------ > Another one for the list would be: > > https://www.poplarnurseries.co.uk You've just registered on this forum, looked for and found this thread, that asks for suggestions for a destination for a drive in November 2016, and posted the URL of a nursery near Colchester more than sixty miles away. Why?

I'm reposting the following post of mine, which got deleted. Sue (post also deleted) followed it up, confirming that her issue of the 26 August Eye was also twelve days late, which was in a sense good to know, and asked what was the outcome of Helen Hayes' visit to the delivery office, to which Spartacus replied with the above link to HH's twitter page. ------------- Posted by ianr September 09, 03:05PM My benchmark post, Private Eye, gives some indication of the up-and-down nature of the service. The issue due on 12 August was ten days late, and the next one (due 26 August) twelve days. That was after I'd been ringing some virtual bells to celebrate the timeliness of the preceding two, after a previous period of delays. Today's, of course, hasn't arrived. What I don't understand is why, along with the 12-day late one, posted first class, arrived a 2nd class letter from SE14 franked only three days earlier. Systematic, or simply disordered?

My benchmark post, Private Eye, gives some indication of the up-and-down nature of the service. The issue due on 12 August was ten days late, and the next one (due 26 August) twelve days. That was after I'd been ringing some virtual bells to celebrate the timeliness of the preceding two, after a previous period of delays. Today's, of course, hasn't arrived. What I don't understand is why, along with the 12-day late one, posted first class, arrived a 2nd class letter from SE14 franked only three days earlier. Systematic, or simply disordered?

> We thought it's been quiet on the reporting. > We'll keep on trying to work out what the > email probelm is. If it helps, I eventually posted about three of them. They're still mid-page-1 of the Family Room.

I can. Thanks. While I'm here, does the mail problem extend to the message reporting system? I've made several reports recently that have been well evidenced but not acted on.

The following is copied from parallel thread /forum/read.php?12,2144464,2144604#msg-2144604 and slightly augmented. I emailed Admin about this yesterday evening but haven't heard anything yet. A couple of tweaks of my Firefox config hasn't made any difference. I'm getting probably the same problem, since Saturday. "Peer reports incompatible or unsupported protocol version. Error code: SSL_ERROR_PROTOCOL_VERSION_ALERT * The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified. * Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem." This was using Firefox and IE9 on a Windows system; and Firefox and Lynx on a Centos 6.5 system. But this plucky little Raspberry Pi 3 running Raspbian and Chrome is getting through. All via home Plusnet. The forum server is, as expected, reachable from all these machines via ping or traceroute. Am browsing around for suggested local remedies, but first couple found haven't been of help.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200905104533if_/https://wits.worldbank.org/trade/comtrade/en/country/ALL/year/2018/tradeflow/Exports/partner/WLD/nomen/h5/product/300215 , ie https:///web.archive.org/web/20200905104533if_/https:///wits.worldbank.org/trade/comtrade/en/country/ALL/year/2018/tradeflow/Exports/partner/WLD/nomen/h5/product/300215 is an archive of a web page dated 5 September 2020. Anyone taking it as good evidence of a fact situated in 2018 is being rather foolish. Have a look at the live version of the target page, but with 2018 changed to 2017, ie using wits.worldbank.org/trade/comtrade/en/country/ALL/year/2017/tradeflow/Exports/partner/WLD/nomen/h5/product/300215 and you'll find the header note:"Medical Test kits (300215) exports by country in 2017 Additional Product information: Diagnostic reagents based on immunological reactions Category: Medical Test kits/ Instruments, apparatus used in Diagnostic Testing The data here track previously existing medical devices that are now classified by the World Customs Organization as critical to tackling COVID-19"

I'm getting probably the same problem, since Saturday. "Peer reports incompatible or unsupported protocol version. Error code: SSL_ERROR_PROTOCOL_VERSION_ALERT * The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified. * Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem." This was using Firefox on a Windows system; and Firefox and Lynx on a Centos 6.5 system. But this plucky little Raspberry Pi 3 running Raspbian and Chrome is getting through. All via home Plusnet. The forum server is, as expected, reachable from all these machines via ping or traceroute. Am browsing around for suggested local remedies, but first couple found haven't been of help.

This is the third time this spammer has made this post. Its object is to include a link to www.avatarfleet.com with the aim of raising that website's google page rank for use in ordering responses to google searches. Avatar Fleet of Ohio do "Recruiting, Compliance and Training Software for Transportation Companies". Their phone number is (888) 758-4842. Some reports of TrueEarl can be found at https://www.stopforumspam.com/search?q=TrueEarl. Or try https://www.google.com/search?q=TrueEarl+forum. TrueEarl is trying to increase the google page ranking of https://www.avatarfleet.com https://www.avatarfleet.com https://www.avatarfleet.com https://www.avatarfleet.com https://www.avatarfleet.com https://www.avatarfleet.com

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I used the ONS website - > https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit y/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/articles/death sinvolvingcovid19interactivemap/2020-06-12 > > Powerful stuff and makes you realise frankly how > few people have died of COVID in London relative > to many other causes of death. Thanks. I've extracted just the Middle Layer Super Output Areas (MSOA) data for Southwark from Table 5 of the spreadsheet available at https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsinvolvingcovid19bylocalareaanddeprivation . It in fact covers March to July, though the latter may be provisional. SOAs are a general mapping construct, apparently devised so as to be of approximately equal size. There are 33 in Southwark. The extracts are attached. I've left in the Contents page of the database, which describes lists all the other tables available. In March & April 46% (206/449 ) of the deaths included Covid-19 as a contributory factor.

whiteplumeria69's post on page 1 seems to me an informed and adequate explanation of what has probably happened. /forum/read.php?5,2141666,2141890#msg-2141890

> For decades now we have had rising rates > of sexually transmitted diseases, > very high rates of teenage pregnancy, The attached chart, "Relative changes in age-specific conception rates, England and Wales, 1990 to 2018", is from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/conceptionandfertilityrates/bulletins/conceptionstatistics/2018. The full conception statistics spreadsheet for 2018 can be downloaded at https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/conceptionandfertilityrates/datasets/conceptionstatisticsenglandandwalesreferencetables.

jimlad48 wrote: ---------------- > Lets also look at the deaths. From what > I can make out, since May, 3 people have > died in the Dulwich area of COVID. What's your data source? I've been wanting data at a higher level of granularity -- eg postcode area (SE21, SE22) etc) or better still postcode sector (SE22 8, SE22 9, etc) -- than what's been generally obtainable on the web

Ancient Punch cartoon, probablySchoolgirl 1: Hey Trace, what we got this afternoon? Schoolgirl 2: RSE. I think it's double troilism. Schoolgirl 1: Oh soddit, not again. I'm bunking off. There's Brief Encounter at the Essoldo.

cakey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > hello ED community > > Something for us all to consider if we have > foliage from our gardens spreading onto the > streets? 2 minute watch.... > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-leeds-53142780 "Blind campaigner asks people to remove overhanging trees" > > https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=4018062128208956&id=1143803202301544 Starts with a link to the same clip, and then has various comments on obstructive / overhanging foliage.

> Perhaps it's my imagination but I was certain > the signage at some point referred to Mexican. There was a Cafe El Paso at #127 for years, which seems to have closed and made a temporary reappearance at #135 https://www.allinlondon.co.uk/restaurants/mexicantex-mex/8992-cafe-el-paso /forum/read.php?30,1878585,1897177

> Are there any circumstances in which anyone would > not make an explicit claim at the time? What I really meant to say was something like "Are there any circumstances in which anyone would be deemed not to have made a claim at the time?" ie Isn't it universal and unconditional?