alex_b

monkeyspanner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We have the same experience as RJ and KidK - I > wondered if it's some covid rule? We?ve had cardboard by the side of the bin collected during COVID. It?s not 100% though. They also never seem to take it if it is/has been damp.

Mesh routers/mesh access points improve the WiFi signal in your house which will in some cases increase the speed your device is able to get. They?re much better than the range extenders that people used to recommend for poor coverage. It won?t however improve the bandwidth coming into your router. Try testing your speed using a wired connection and then again via wireless. If there?s a big difference then a better access point setup might help. The other thing that can help is to offload as many devices as possible onto wired connections and to check you?ve chosen different wireless channels than your neighbours. I also should have mentioned that different providers will have different peering connections out to the wider internet and will do different amounts of traffic shaping/filtering all of which also affects performance. For instance my 60MB FTTC connection from A&A is indistinguishable from my 200MB Virgin connection in terms of experienced performance.

Usually the bin men will take flattened card left next to the blue bin provided its dry. Otherwise if you go to the recycling centre off Old Kent Rd you?ll need to book a time slot at least a day in advance on the council?s website.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But this rather begs the question, what are side > streets and what are 'main arteries'. There are NO > 'main arteries locally - even the South Circular > is no more than a 2 lane highway for much of its > length - and many of the 'side streets' are no > less wide than the 'not' side streets. > Furthermore, if you're driving about SE London the > 'obvious' way to get somewhere is through the > 'side streets' which are direct links - and, as > I've said, hardly less wide, sometimes the same > width, as the 'main' streets. Well LL, EDG and the South Circular are all designated as A roads and have been for decades. So it?s pretty clear that through traffic should be on these roads, not on side roads. As for the side streets being the ?obvious? route, taxis aside I think the ?obvious? routes only became that way with the advent of Waze and other apps. For instance there?s no way you?d be getting foreign coaches and articulated lorries getting stuck on the corner of Adys Rd and Nutbrook St on an almost weekly basis without satnavs ?helping? them shave two minutes off their journey.

Virgin customer service is awful and they?ve been really unreliable this summer. We just switched to Andrews and Arnold, they?re not the cheapest but they are really reliable and have excellent UK based customer support. They also offer to take on problem lines and fix them or they?ll give you money back (https://www.aa.net.uk/broadband/we-will-fix-your-line/), perhaps worth a try.

Have you tried Oakley Fives? They were always positioned as Oakley?s glasses for smaller faces.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe they belong to people who have been forced > to self isolate for the last six months? This has been going on for years, it?s not COVID related. Nutbrook St and Adys Rd used to have run down, graffitied vans dumped for a few months at a time, moving very occasionally. It seems the CPZ has pushed them further South.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > EDG is a Resedential road that has schools and a > health centre and a high percentage of cyclists > and pedestrians. But it is designated as an A road (A2214) which makes it categorically different from the roads that are being closed.

Huggers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > today- Amott road, Oglander road and Linden Grove > all bearing diversion/closed signs. Roadworks or > something more sinister? Amott is being resurfaced the notices have been up for a while. It?s hardly conspiracy worthy.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FairTgirl Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Is there much in this data and discussion about > > the role Google Maps and sat navs have to play > in > > actively sending traffic down residential roads > as > > well? > > It's not *really* DfT's remit to go down that > route to be honest but there are countless studies > and articles about the phenomenon, eg: > https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-12 > /navigation-apps-changed-the-politics-of-traffic > > In the US in particular (where Waze is bigger than > in the UK), communities have been reporting closed > streets to Waze / Google on a rotating basis to > try and get rid of some of the issues that it > creates. You can search for it online, there are > community blogs that describe it. Basically, it's > the community trying to create their own LTN to > counteract the issues of travel apps directing > drivers off down residential roads. I was told by a council officer that a Traffic Management Order restricting a road to access only (or access only for certain heights/weights) would feed through into SatNavs and apps fairly quickly. He was looking into getting one put in for Adys/Nutbrook/Maxted but then left the council and no officer or councillor has been bothered to take it up since. It wouldn?t stop the determined rat runners, but would stop all the lorries/coaches getting stuck in residential roads blindly following their satnavs.

They also run a soft credit check via a third party (who presumably holds on to the data) rather than verifying with data the council already holds. The whole system seems to be a data breach waiting to happen.

We used Nannytax. They?re not particularly expensive and make sure everything is legal. Doing it yourself seems like a lot of hard work for a limited saving and potentially big risks. Nannytax also provided employers liability insurance for about ?70 a year.

We used Daniel Tweedie (http://www.danieltweedie.com/) who was fantastic. He also did our son?s grommets/adenoids are a later point. We saw him in Wimbledon but I believe he does clinics at Evelina too.

I noticed VM was considerably less reliable during the hot weather we had in late spring. I wonder if the cabinet is overheating? Like North2south we?ve also moved from Virgin due to their terrible service.

Does anyone know what time and where is best for trying to spot bats. Our son was very excited by the bat boxes in Dulwich Woods and now wants to go back to see the bats!

It?s pretty widely known ?Falconer, who works in Liam Fox?s Department for International Trade, was previously New Zealand?s representative to the World Trade Organization. He worked with pro-Brexit thinktank the Legatum Institute before being brought into government.? (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/30/theresa-may-under-pressure-to-revamp-brexit-negotiating-team). I was not aware of Robbin?s history but I think there?s a qualitative difference between being a member of a club at Uni and being paid by foreign billionaires directly before joining government. I cannot believe that he?s still funded by them, but the appearance of conflict is still there. If you show me an equivalent conflict then of course I?ll criticise it. I?m a remainder so I think the WA is terrible and the political declaration is even worse. Brexit is a moronic idea that will always leave us worse of, so any Brexit deal will be unacceptable to me. However, given May?s red lines I?m at a loss to see how we would have reached a better outcome. Since you?re a leave me, why don?t you sketch out a WA and PD that you think would be better and also acceptable to both sides.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The EU does not need to have completed an adequacy > assessment of the UK's (obviously) GDPR compliant > position before any personal data can flow - > individual users of the data in question will need > to show they are GDPR compliant - which as you > will have seen over the last year or more has been > something of a national obsession and now > businesses are compliant (or should be by now). > They should be able to satisfy the GDPR issues by > amending their contracts, but that is a small > issue and can be very quickly taken care of. There > are EU compliant (accepted by the EU as compliant) > model contractual clauses which can be used for > that purpose (or so I understand). It looks like TechUK disagree with you too (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/31/no_deal_brexit_smes/) and they should be pretty expert in these matters. "Companies are not required to open existing contracts in order to add these clauses in ? and that the EU firms are using this as leverage to renegotiate other elements of the terms." and also "The legality of SCCs are also being challenged in the Court of Justice of the European Union, which poses a potential risk for firms planning to switch to them." Both of these were points I made in my first and follow up posts. The points about adequacy are also not in your favour, absent the presumption of compliance by being an EU member our domestic surveillance programme is likely to get significant scrutiny. Which is also addressed in this article.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yet, still TM is at the helm and still she is > using Oliver Robbins (a civil servant with no > trade negotiation experience who must have thought > the WA was a good idea) in preference to Crawford > Falconer, in 'negotiations'. Falconer is the head > of UK trade negotiations at the DIT and a very > experienced trade negotiator. The same Crawford Falconer was previously funded by the Legatum Institute, an opaque 'think thank' funded at least in part by foreign billionaires who expect to make significant money by the damage Brexit will do to the UK economy? At the very least he has an apparent conflict of interest that makes him unsuitable to be a UK negotiator.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know people doubt the 40% figure, but go to any > area pre and post CPZ and you'll find this to be > the case. Parking massively increases compared to > the previous situation. Yet despite regular > repeated evidence to support this, people still > doubt this. A shame. I don't doubt that there will be a reduction in cars parking in the CPZ, I'm sure there are enough commuters and cars/vans/taxis being stored to reduce the number of cars on the street. However the point singalto and others were trying to make, is that these particular CPZs come with a massive increase in double yellow lines and other on-street structures to reduce the total available parking spaces. On Adys road for instance, the numbers of cars would have to fall by 60+% to be able to achieve a 40% increase in parking spaces due to all of the loss of parking spaces that are proposed. Perhaps in your street they didn't implement pointless double yellow lines, parklets and cycle lockers so that you did see a 40% reduction. I think at best we'll come out about even from this CPZ, but more likely slightly down on the available parking.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you don't want it in ED it is probably a good > idea to object to it in the separate West Peckham > consultation too. The West Peckham consultation appears to have been extended until the 7th Feb.

Applespider Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The majority of low flying planes over our area > are to LCY rather than LHR. We are in the > unfortunate position of having both depending on > wind direction with few days of neither. As > someone who has gone from barely noticing the LHR > flights to having several thousand LCY going > directly overhead without any consultation, don?t > underestimate the impacting can have. Of course this is true (and I made this point in my response to the Heathrow consultation). However the 4:30am-6am planes, which I think cause the most disturbance are all early morning LHR arrivals from Asia. I could cope with the daytime noise if I didn't get woken up so regularly.

I don?t get it either Texas, with the parklets, bike lockers and double yellows, Adys road is losing dozens of spaces. Even with the reduction in ?commuter? parking I still think the scheme will lead to a net loss in available spaces for residents.

jamesmcash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I note TheArtfulDogger's point about the Spineway > consultation and can see how the approach there > might appear contradictory with that here. The key > differences are that the Spineway is a piece of > borough-wide infrastructure which affects a wider > body of people than just those living on the > affected streets, and also that it was in the > Southwark Labour manifesto and therefore has a > democratic mandate. The consultation in this case > was not to decide whether or not to implement a > Spineway but rather to work out the best way to do > so. By contrast, the proposed CPZ follows demands > from East Dulwich residents and is designed to > benefit primarily those in East Dulwich. So if it > does not win majority support it will not be > implemented. Thank for your response, it's far more than we ever get from the Rye Lane councillors. However, this part does not in any way ring true. The overwhelming objections to the quietway proposals were about the way the scheme was being implemented. Namely that the pointless/counterproductive double yellow lines would make the introduction of a CPZ inevitable and that much of the Bellenden end of the implementation made things more dangerous for cyclists. As per this consultation it was marred by shambolic public meetings where officers had no answers or explanations for most questions, were completely overwhelmed by the number of attendees and promised to take feedback on board and then didn't. That after the consultations the views of residents were completely disregarded is in no way compatible with a "democratic mandate". Also can you point me to where in your manifesto this was? The only commitment related to cycling is on page 10 ("We will make cycling accessible for all, increase cycle hangers where people want them, boost access to cycle hire, and double the proportion of journeys in Southwark done by bike." and there is no mention of the spine or quietway.

Galileo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Aren?t there better ways to achieve that than > allowing parking on the corners? I cross there > with a pram and three kids to take my kids to > nursery so I?m one of the ones who benefits from > better sight lines! Pushing a pram out from behind > a large vehicle on a parked up corner is horrid, > especially with two other kids in tow. > > (I do appreciate that problem tho, the roads are > small and the corners tight for large commercial > vehicles. I wonder if your local councillor could > assist in putting this issue before the Council?) I get your point, I also walk around the streets with a small child in tow so it's concern for me too. I am just unsure that the previous reduced corner visibility is really worse than the increased speed and corner cutting we've seen since the double yellows were installed. The proposed double yellows make no real difference to pedestrian visibility but will increase traffic speed and increase commercial traffic. Unfortunately the Bellenden councillors are completely disinterested in constituent issues, they have never answered a single email I've sent over all the years I've lived here other neighbours have had similar experiences. I guess it's a symptom of living in a Labour stronghold, there's no pressure to represent your constituents. Sally Eva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It deals with the sort of holistic approach > that you are talking about. Speed humps may be > better than nothing to deter rat-running (you may > disagree about this) but we all recognise a truly > pleasant street to live on. Thanks for the links and I agree a holistic approach would be great. I just see no evidence that Southwark are taking that kind of approach, hence my objections to the current scheme. As for speed humps, my observation is they massively increase the noise and vibration impact of living on a rat-run while doing nothing to reduce traffic volume and little to reduce speeding (particularly for large vehicles). MarkT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The plan reduces the number of parking > spaces throughout the CPZ but particularly in that > vicinity with extensive new lengths of double > yellow lines in Crystal Palace Road and Hindmans > road, removing about 25 spaces. My understanding is that while these are shown on the CPZ plan, they are in fact part of the quietway scheme. Residents' objections to this over two consultations have already been ignored and so these will occur with or without the CPZ. Of course that the additional parking pressure these create justifies the CPZ is purely coincidental!

Have you looked at Nimble Arts (http://www.nimblearts.co.uk/holiday-courses/).