Penguin68

Love how apparently it takes an hour to get to Peckham though . . I think this is just typical Guardian poor subbing, as earlier in the piece it refers to '30 minutes walk' - I think the piece should have read an hour-long round trip by bus - which would make more sense - with waiting times it may well be from many parts of ED.

This week I have received deliveries (so far) each day (Monday to Friday) and I know of nothing now outstanding. I have also received communication from the office of 'The Chairman and Chief Executive' which indicates that the problem is known about at that level, and that they believe (hope?) it is being addressed. Of course, promises of improvement have still to be met by delivery of same, but I am slightly more hopeful than I have been. Hopes and expectations can always be dashed of course.

James Barber had nothing to do with establishing the East Dulwich Picturehouse. He is on record as being one of several who have argued for the re-opening of a cinema somewhere in Lordship Lane, by someone - but I agree that I don't think that particular site and business figured strongly in his proposals, but fortuitously became the answer to his prayers...

As long as the constraints placed on them, including post-event actions, are clear and are delivered on, there shouldn't be any problems. We might anticipate next year bizarre weather conditions as this year, such that e.g. proper tracking should be in place to avoid damage to the ground which may not be easy to remedy if there is another drought. Each year's event should be able to build on and make use of previous years' experiences.

Yes, that is powered by data from O2.

A nationwide problem with O2 data is being reported. Voice seems OK. It's on the BBC news ap.

I don't know if I find that sad or outrageous. They're criminals - it comes with the job description. Low-lifes choose the vulnerable and easy to steal from - and it's not embezzlement, it's theft. Embezzlement would be where the organisers diverted funds. Passing forged currency used to be punishable by death. It's seen not simply as theft, but as undermining the economic status of the country. Which is why the Nazis, famously, tried to flood the UK with forged white fivers.

Stand by for your parking life to become unbelievably better soon. That will only be true if in your street, the average number of cars per household is less than the number of houses outside which you can park (once reductions in parking space always associated with CPZs are taken into account). For some streets that will be beneficial (certainly mainly those ones without multiple occupancy). For others it will not! It will also depend how big your CPZ zone is - a large zone will bring those not your immediate neighbours into your street (potentially) - a small zone when you are surrounded by other small zones means that if you cannot park in your street you may have to go some considerable way before you find somewhere you can park. I noticed in Ondine Road, for instance, quite close to ED station that daytime parking was relatively easy - it was at night when everyone was back at home that I couldn't park up to visit a friend. There (and then) the average car per household was over 1. I don't know what it now is.

CPZs have never been about benefiting the people who live in them ? they have always been about traffic manipulation ? and in particular and overtly in Southwark?s case ? a desire to substantially reduce car ownership and car usage within Southwark (for which there are some arguments, particularly for older, and dirtier, vehicles). Additionally CPZs are seen as revenue generators ostensibly to improve public transport ? although we know that this has actually been worsened in our neck of the woods, with reduced bus frequencies, re-routing buses away from where we want to go, a refusal to extend the tube into the old Camberwell Borough etc. ?Benefit? to local people is prayed-in-aid merely to get sign-up ? the fact that all new CPZs reduce the amount of parking within the zone should surely be enough to bell that particular cat? Southwark is relying on individuals ?voting? (and in a street of a 100 houses if 2 residents vote for and only one against that is enough) because they believe they will be able always to park outside their house. Generally (and with some exceptions) ?in your dreams?.

But there is no issue about sent mail, just received. And we have no control over the choice of carrier when we are the recipient. That's our problem.

Today a lot of missing mail and parcels were all delivered (2 van deliveries and a postie). I had written to complain, copied to Ms Hayes. They're in a mess and without a real plan to get them out of it, fire-fighting only when it comes to complaints. This closure and move had never been properly planned - and the button to do this should only have been pressed when senior management knew everything was in place to make it happen properly. Change management is non-trivial; I suspect proper change managers were never deployed, and a change plan never fully adumbrated or signed-off. I am quite happy to accept that Silvester Road was no longer fit-for-purpose or offered a quality work-place. However, its convenience (regards location etc.) to SE22 residents was part of its 'delivery' - and replacing that should have been planned for as much as anything else. The managers clearly forgot (although they were reminded by Helen Hayes) what the totality of their service was all about. At this stage all that can remedy this is additional resources (a proper plan would have come much cheaper) - but Royal Mail is in a royal mess financially...Hey ho and roll on Christmas!

but why does the theft all seems to be concentrated in those routes too? If it is, it may reflect the use of new and temporary posties (who may not have been fully vetted) on the new routes, with the old routes still being covered by existing Peckham post-people. It may also just be anecdotal.

On another thread there have been reported links to cat killings in the area. I think the 'link' was to secondary predation on cats already killed or severely injured following (car) accidents. There has been no suggestion that foxes are primary predators of cats (kittens, possibly). The reason why we have urban foxes is that there is ample food for them, without them needing to attack large domestic animals such as cats or dogs. Injured cats (not involved in car accidents) are more likely to have been injured by other cats or by large dogs.

Why not write a polite letter and copy to all the houses you think might be the problem. Say that the light is being regularly triggered and points into your windows. I'd guess the sensor might be picking up fox or other animal movement (which the user probably doesn't really want) and it may not be lighting up their property properly (it should be directed into their garden, not against houses). If you are polite and helpful (even suggest they might want to come and see the effect from your windows) then maybe they'll cooperate. Better to start friendly. A friend recently had a break-in and was severely traumatised by it. That may have happened to them too.

There are a number of semi-professional beggars working out of London Bridge and other stations - there's always a clutch on the Overground. Some are almost certainly genuinely hard cases - but others - who I see frequently - are obviously doing this as a regular thing. They are very good - not aggressive - weepy - grateful, but you should not fall for their blandishments. Give to registered charities, buy The Big Issue, but don't encourage street (or train) begging. The Charities apply your money well, in general, and direct it to the genuinely needy, many of whom are in fact aggressive, ungrateful, scary. Many of these 'charity targets' on and around public transport are too good to be true. And aren't. If you think the person you saw is genuine - look for a charity which seems to be addressing her needs and give to that. That's the most effective way to get aid to those, maybe like her, or appearing like her, who actually need it. Or, if you think someone is in genuine and immediate danger, call the transport police.

A salaried GP is probably on (depending on age/ experience) ?60-?70k. In some practices much less - even down to ?40k-?45k for someone newly qualified. A partner is more likely on ?100-?150k - with a large practice with few partners ?250k isn't impossible. The hourly rate for locums providing cover (particularly out-of-hours) can appear to be high, but of course they are not continuously employed.

We had leaf sweepers in Underhill this morning, and a couple or so weeks ago (mainly only one).

Many GPs are women with families who can work part-time as a GP and prefer to do so. The system is not broken because it supports part-time working. It is broken because the range and scope of effective medical interventions is now exponentially different from the position in 1948, when doctors' best efforts were in keeping patients alive long enough for them to heal, with few effective real interventions. Nowadays with both new drugs and new surgical procedures doctors can make real differences to life expectancy. For example, when I was young, childhood leukemia was inevitably fatal. Now it has a very good prognosis. As do many other cancers. But with added medical abilities come both added costs and added pressures. And much higher expectations from patients.

I think also there is a difference between staff who are long-term sick (or even off for a few days or weeks only) and staff who seem to pull uncertificated 'sickies' on regular Fridays or Mondays. HR departments are wary of these people and may wish to crack down on abuse of uncertificated sick absence. But this cracking down on abusers clearly also impacts those who don't abuse the system, but still feel they are losing a privilege or having their T&Cs arbitrarily altered. The Civil Service used to allow fixed number of unquestioned sick days - these were treated by some staff as if they were a holiday entitlement. (Whitley Days for those who remember).

why our posties have been redeployed rather than continuing their original walks but what do I know The original walks were all optimised to start and finish at Sylvester Road (obviously) - the new walks are in pairs (so two posties can travel together in one van with their mail from Peckham) - and no longer need to be optimised to start and return to the sorting office on foot. Hence they have changed. I am hoping that the delivery staff will stabilise eventually, but it seems that there are still too many vacancies for permanent routes to be stuck to, days are missed out on walks so that everyone can get a few deliveries in the week. I've yet to receive a credit card bill which should have been sent on the 9th. Luckily I have an ap so I have discovered what the bill is and can pay it in time, otherwise I would have hit interest city. Still a mess.

In summer 2017 I provided the police with (good) photographs of one of the scrotes breaking into my next door neighbour's house (and a poor picture of his accomplice) and another neighbour noted and supplied the car registration of their get-away car - however this was never taken further as the driver of the car was not one of the people I photographed. You do wonder just how much evidence needs to be provided by passers-by before action is taken. If they can't manage red-handed they really don't bother, it sometimes seems. We did get the anti-terrorist squad turning up (late) for this break-in - they'd got bored on a stake-out in Brixton based on mistaken information and answered the shout to do something with their afternoon.

In some parts of the country they give a toss for their electors, but not the Southwark satraps.

Email the guy who says he is responsible for all this [email protected] copied additionally to our MP Helen Hayes [email protected]

Oyster poisoning can be complex - it can come either from an oyster which has turned (which is why you should only eat a freshly opened oyster which should be alive when you swallow it), an oyster which has not been properly left to clean itself in fresh water of a biological contaminant (through e.g. sewage) or through an allergic reaction to the oyster itself, and this can be triggered by a past exposure to either of the first two. Sensitivity to shellfish (oysters, clams etc.) can lead to 'food poisoning' symptoms when the shellfish itself is absolutely fine.

Generally the elderly 'block beds' because there is nowhere safe for them to be discharged to - in this instance this lady should also have been a bed-blocker, clearly. This should be reported - I would guess hold-ups in discharge (transport issues?) and failure to join-up care has meant that what was planned (probably that morning) as a safe discharge turned out not to be, but it should certainly be reported if only to make sure the proper processes are in place and followed to avoid a recurrence. At this time of year there are often bed shortages and the critically ill must be cared for, but some balance has to be made.