Penguin68

Hi there I had bt the broadband was terrible been with sky now for 4 yrs have no problems at all. BT Openreach is the underlying local network provider for both BT Retail and Sky. Did you buy an uprated service (copper to fibre for instance) when you moved to Sky? Otherwise there really isn't any obvious reason why pipe badged 'BT' should perform worse than pipe badged 'Sky'. Just changing over from the same level of service wouldn't have required any work in the local network at all, just, probably re-terminating on a different line card in a different rack on the exchange. Line-card performance is pretty well identical (unless you have a faulty line card). The back network (again) from the exchange is going to be technologically very similar (and probably again bought wholesale from BT). I have been with BT for very many years and problems have been very few - never lost service for more than a couple of hours - and much less than once a year for such a loss. As I have upgraded my deal (from dial-up to ADSL to fibre) my service quality and performance has ramped up with the price. I have not had any real problems with network congestion (slower speeds at key times) although this has been noticeable when e.g. snow has piled people in to work-from-home. Network resilience is not designed around such worst case scenarios. As far as services locally are concerned, there are only two local infrastructure providers, BT (through its arms length BT Openreach subsidiary) and NTL Cable trading as Virgin. If you're not on Virgin you are on BT if you have a wired connection.

And if not, why are "they" having another consultation? Because you got the answer wrong (cf 'People's Vote')

Its purpose is to benefit residents. How sweetly naive. The apparat (paid officials) who plan and execute these ideas have no interest or care for any resident - they wish (a) to pursue council policy which is to reduce car usership (and ownership) in the borough (for a raft of good and not so good reasons) and (b) to create revenue streams to benefit the borough. Local (elected) councilors do care (in the main) for their electors, but these have little say or influence (here in the south) on council policy. They are certainly not, in the main, driving it, although local councilors and past councilors are on the record of supporting some schemes (and opposing others, it must be said). But do not believe that these proposals have any basis in 'benefitting the people'. Such benefits will be prayed-in-aid for schemes (ringing the self-interest bell where they can) - but this is simply marketing. Most of the pressure on parking is coming form (a) reduction in parking space by double-yellowing the borough; (b) people coming into the area to serve (doctors, nurses, teachers, shop staff etc.) local residents, © genuine increase in legitimate local residents with vehicles and (d) some amount of 'through' commuters - but probably less than you'd think.

A lot of restaurants and cafes are open all day. Exactly - restaurant and cafe economics require 'sweating the assets' - and there is generally quite a buoyant lunch time trade in LL - fueled in part by ED mums. How many of those come in by car is moot, of course, but I suspect, with all the impedimenta children now require that quite a few will bring a car closer before walking the lane. Removing local daytime visitor parking is quite likely to have an impact on local trade. And, like Brexit, once done always done. I have never heard of a CPZ, anywhere, ever, being removed (happy to stand corrected on that). A link https://campaigns.confused.com/email/newsletter/January2019/on-the-road/cost-of-motoring/councils-cash-in-on-parking-charges?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=brandawareness&utm_term=20190115&utm_content=nsl-nslopeners0-12months suggests that the motorist is a council cash cow - and it's getting worse. Without any concomitant investment in improving e.g road conditions. Once the CPZ is in, ramping up annual fees is a no-brainer. I see no evidence that Southwark's agenda includes supporting (or at least not undermining) local shops and high streets. The planning rules about not changing usage notwithstanding (and frequently they don't stand, when push comes to shove).

Does it mean so many people in SE22 replace their doors and windows?8 Much of the housing stock locally is around 100 years old - looking at windows quite a lot still have original sashes etc. - and of those that don't many will have replacement double glazing 20 or more years old which will have started to blow (mist) by now. Many houses in the 70s' and 80s (before ED 'came up in the world') will have underspent on maintenance, meaning that the need is greater. People are spending money on uplifts on every street - partly because they aren't moving, or want to make their houses more saleable if they have to move. So I suspect that good Door and Windows shops will do well.

The question you have to add to this to make sense of it is travel frequency. Not how much per journey but also how much per time period. Someone travelling from a given point (some distance away from LL) and driving may well go more frequently, but spend less on each individual trip. Walking or cycling may be a 'bigger' ask (it will certainly take more time, putting time taken to look for a parking space aside). So the equation is probably distance plus frequency plus spend in order to make sense of these figures. If I live in LL then I will walk to shops and, since I can, spend more. If I live well away from LL I will have to travel further, but, if I drive, may travel more frequently. Again, if I live on a bus route which takes me to LL I am more likely to make that trip than if getting there by public transport is more difficult or unreliable. The simplistic figures provided by TfL need to be explained. There is otherwise no obvious mechanism whereby people who drive buy less than people who don't. Indeed and in general I would expect car ownership to be more closely correlated with higher levels of consumption.

"Add their names to a piece of labour policy with which they don't agree"? How are they doing that, exactly? Apologies - I had assumed in first reading of your post that the words "Labour is committed to returning Royal Mail to public ownership as a public service focused on delivering for residents and businesses, rather than the poorly performing asset stripping company it has become since privatisation." was included in the survey text that they would be completing, and not just Helen Hayes' covering letter. I assume the labour policy and the survey are entirely separate, and that the survey form to be returned does not include these words?

8. It does ask for personal details including the address, however given the nature of the questions it would be a bit stupid not to include that, wouldn't it, if the results are going to be communicated to Royal Mail in the hope of improving the delivery situation? No, this is simply not true. The method of questionnaire distribution in and of itself guarantees that respondents will be drawn only from the area impacted by the closure of Silvester Road - that obviates the need for any further identification in presenting results to anyone! Hand delivery to relevant streets is actually a good idea. Further, you need to be aware that this data collection falls straight under the GDPR regulations. The questionnaire must identify what uses this personal data will be put to, what safeguards in protecting it there are, who to contact to check, add or remove information - the fact that the data is not (at the moment) held on computer is irrelevant to GDPR. You should also note that if areas are left out it would be entirely possible for Royal Mail to claim that the survey is intentionally partial. That is why I have said that surveys need to be undertaken professionally if they are to carry any weight in negotiation. I am against neither surveys undertaken by political parties nor, and especially, the work undertaken by Helen Hayes in this particular instance. I am against wasted efforts, failure to understand the implications of data protection (if there have been any) and unprofessional attitudes to survey data collection. Oh, and there may be residents who do not endorse the re-nationalisation of the Royal Mail who nonetheless do wish them to address the pigs-ear they have made of this DO closure. But who may not wish to add their names to a piece of labour policy with which they don't agree. Helen Hayes represents all electors in her constituency, not just the labour ones. [The amazingly poor management shown by Royal Mail in dealing with the DO closure is a function of terrible management at a local level, not the fact that it is now no longer a nationalised industry, even if you could argue that the driver for the closure (I'm not sure it was) is solely naked capitalism.]

Actually the CPZ is about Southwark trying to drive cars out of Southwark, by reducing parking spaces and increasing the costs of car ownership. This is a stated aim. It ignores such issues as the hillyness of the south of the borough, making cycling and walking less attractive even for the young and able bodied, it ignores the lack of alternative public transport in the south of the borough, it ignores the actual reduction of bus services by TfL locally - i.e. by reducing frequencies and proposing route changes. The CPZ is 'sold' to locals as improving their chances of parking, but this is only true in some circumstances and is certainly not the intent of the apparat proposing change, who care nothing for 'entitled' who can afford their own transport.

I didn't think that element was enabled. I can see what appointments are booked, but I can't remember being able to book any myself on-line. Happy to stand corrected.

As a former member of the Market Research Society, and someone involved in market and social research and research techniques over a number of years, and someone who has campaigned and worked against 'sugging' (selling under the guise of research) my agenda is to ensure that when 'research' is undertaken it is undertaken properly. Were political parties to commission proper ward research, and additionally - and on a separate sheet where this is a 'postal' survey ask for political support and commitment I would be entirely happy - these are two exercises properly separated. I am entirely unhappy for research findings to be misrepresented. Any findings this ward publishes will be 'true' only for that ward. Experiences in other wards may be worse, better or simply different. I am also unhappy that, where SE22 is represented only by labour held wards these could not have come together to undertake joint research to support Helen Hayes' case across the postal district. It makes me think that this is less about gathering data for intelligent use in supporting a unified and informed case 'against' Royal Mail and more about publicising and recruitment within one ward. Nothing against that, of course, except where it pretends to be about research. I have made it clear that, not being a ward member, I have not seen this 'survey' - I am simply going on my past experience of ward surveys (and not just those conducted by the labour party). And a poorly conducted survey (in terms of 'proper and professional' market research - if it is typical of its type) in only part of the affected area is not going to 'improve our local postal delivery service'. To make a case backed by survey research the sampling must be robust, the questionnaires must be well designed, and the metadata sufficient for a sample result to be extrapolated to a whole population. Ideally it should be independently conducted and analysed. My 'agenda' is about professional conduct of research. Nothing more.

How do they use the surveys as "recruitment vehicles for membership etc"? The local Labour party have been very involved in the mail problems right from the outset, including demonstrating in Sylvester Road at a time when the decision to close it might still have been influenced. Our MP Helen Hayes was there. Hardly any local residents were, despite it being advertised on here. Helen has also attended all the local meetings about it, both before and after the move to the Peckham office. I absolutely agree that Helen Hayes has worked tirelessly on this, as have many local labour people. My experience of Labour ward 'research' is that the questions are poorly designed, with no attempt to acquire metadata to support any analysis, and inevitably with requests for contact information, which will be used in campaigning and to attract support. Because of this some residents chose not to complete and return such surveys. I have no problems with local parties doing this, merely with them doing this 'under the guise of research'. If this survey, which I have not seen as I'm not part of that ward is any different, then I apologise. ['Real' market and social research is required generally NOT to disclose the names of individual respondents to the research commissioners] But I will note that if it's titled as this thread is ('SE22 Royal Mail Postal Survey') then it is not being issued to constituents in the wards that cover that postal District (SE22) but only in one of them, and I would hope would not publish any results which purported to represent SE22 residents as a whole.

This was delivered separately from my post. It's headed Goose Green Labour Action Team. So - hand delivered and only within one ward, despite all wards now being firmly Labour. That's joined up of the Party then. Of course, the former ED Lib Dem councillor always assumed he spoke for all of SE22 and all of East Dulwich (geographical grouping, not electoral ward)- but Goose Green (new ward) is even less representative either of SE22 or of those served by the old DO at Silvester Road. Let's hope when they analyse the results they don't purport them to be representative of SE22 or anything other than their ward (if that). Edited to add - of course The Party tends to use these surveys as recruitment vehicles for membership etc. so those not wishing to play that game may choose not to complete the survey, hence making it even less representative of SE22 feeling about Royal Mail services.

And we've had no deliveries today; perhaps not the best vehicle then for determining if the post is working. No survey deliverey, no problems reported!

Do you have a link?

I'm at the south end of Underhill - post has been picking-up - pretty well daily in the week before and after Christmas (excluding bank holidays) - and looks up to date. Nothing now that I know I'm missing. And Christmas cards actually all seemed to arrive before Christmas - if a bit slow to start. Mostly deliveries before 12.00 as well, and not late into the afternoon.

The Sunday Times reported that Michael Gove intends to bring in legislation obliging local councils to notify 'close' residents of any intention to remove urban and suburban street trees, and if sufficient (50% of those notified) objections are raised to undertake a full public consultation. I assume that diseased and damaged trees removed for H&S grounds would probably be exempt - I'd also guess this was stimulated by the actions of Sheffield council over the last couple of years, but many London trees seem arbitrarily to be removed as well. Southwark has a better record than some, but, if enacted, this should be good news. The S Times had noted that (under a FoI request), 110,000 trees had been removed by local councils over the last 3 years!

And report your passport stolen as a matter of urgency https://www.gov.uk/government/news/report-your-lost-or-stolen-passport Amended to add - there is real danger of identity theft if you don't, or the passports being sold on and used for criminal purposes.

That looks as if it has been pollarded, probably to remove the danger of limbs being brought down in storms. It will be much safer now, and less likely to cause damage to other trees or itself. Mature trees can become very vulnerable to storm damage.

It sounds like the tree was "pollarded", which is usually only done for structural/health and safety reasons or else for long term maintenance issues. Pollarding (like any crown reduction) is also used to constrain root growth - roots grow as long as a tree is high, roughly - so is a good strategy in urban street environments where you don't want roots being too intrusive or damaging, as well as avoiding growth of large boughs which can be intrusive and may be vulnerable to high winds, often exacerbated in built up areas by a wind tunnel effect.

https://www.google.com/search?q=oddbins+dulwich&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB753GB753&oq=odbins+dulwich&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l4.11941j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

whether a restaurant has good hygiene standards or not A lot of the inspection is actually about process and documentation - clearly higher standards are likely to be matched with proper processes, but not necessarily. A small establishment may well have just one person (rather than a succession) cleaning so keeping a written record of when things are done may be unnecessary - the person doing it will remember - but for the inspector if it isn't recorded it isn't done. An establishment can be completely hygienic, but if the records aren't there it is treated as not being so. Inspectors don't normally e.g take swabs - unless they are thinking of prosecuting for obvious breaches. So their score is based on a visual inspection and on checking records. The scores are an indicator of how an establishment goes about things, as an indicator of good processes which normally lead to a clean establishment - but they are really a secondary measure of any actual dirt or contamination. You probably have good hygiene standards in your own home - but when did you last record when you had cleaned, or what date food in your fridge or larder was stored? Of course a home is not a commercial establishment, but it's not always true that a poor score does equal poor hygiene standards. Although of course it can, and probably more frequently does than not.

Just remember, when Southwark proposes introducing a CPZ it has nothing to do with benefits to local residents - it's about revenue generation and about working to make car ownership as uncomfortable as they can for residents. They believe (I am sure sincerely) that life would be better if private cars were removed from the borough and we all relied on walking, cycling or public transport to get places. I am all in favour of people who are fit and well and fearless to cycle up and down our hills, or walk up and down, but if the whole population (those with children, who are elderly or infirm or risk averse (cycling) or who have loads to carry are to be catered for, then public transport has to be better, more frequent, go to places we need to go to, run through the night... the apparat in the flat north of the borough, very well served by public transport (they have tubes, for goodness sake) sometime forget what it's like in hilly Old Camberwell (or, more likely, frankly don't care).

I was there when the car was being towed away - it's quite genuine - or at least the pictures are, and the car was there. I suppose it is possible that it was placed there in that condition e.g. for a film, although the down pipe was definitely crushed. It may have been a relatively low impact piece of vandalism - i.e. not accidental.

The impact appears to have crushed a down pipe. However only the front (engine) box was crumpled - it looked like the passenger compartment wasn't - so hopefully injuries will have been light. I can't imagine it would be possible to drive through that narrow gap at any speed anyway. Cars are now built to crumple easily as a safety factor, so perhaps the impact speed was low.