Penguin68

There is a huge danger to an 'always elected here' incumbent party that they fall, eventually, as Labour did in Scotland to a level of complacency which lets in eventually a disruptive party (as the SNP was). This tends to happen when the voters are so taken for granted that they can be safely (it might seem) be ignored and other agendae pursued. Renata has always been a proud exception to this rule, and one must hope that James II will be too. When (if) I see him resist the position of the apparat because it goes against the interests of his constituents it will be a good sign.

Ironically these will be the same OAPs who make up the largest proportion of the 10,000 premature deaths from air pollution in London each year. Although, as the emissions standards as regards petrol cars are primarily about carbon dioxide, one must wonder how many OAPs are being slaughtered by an excess of that gas. The much younger NOx diesel vehicle ban is a different issue.

It seems to be that both the New Scientist correspondent (who seems clearly to be some sort of expert in the field) and SNARL may both be part right - there may well be (it seems pretty certain there is) a human agent responsible for some at least of the attacks, whilst the known habits of foxes as described in the letter may account for some of the other incidents. Foxes certainly appear to arrange things (e.g. shoes and other trophies) that I find on my lawn, and just a few such (possibly actually randon) arrangements may seem (wrongly) to have human intentionality. If the human agent is being credited with more 'kills' than are actually his/ hers then either the range, or timing, of the wrongly attributed events may be providing the actual perpetrator with unexpected alibis. It is, I think, unhelpful to suggest that either view is wholly right or wrong - and to discount past experience is hardly a scientific approach. As for the 'ritual' element - we are programmed to look for patterns in events, so finding them is hardly surprising.

A problem may be that it may not be clear whether it is the ground landlord (the Dulwich Estate) or the leaseholder (whichever pubco still has the Grove tavern lease) who will be initially responsible for starting eviction proceedings. Whilst this drags on the value of the property decreases. Of course, if you want the land to be cleared and lucrative housing to replace it the more devastation the better. Just saying...

Do you mean registered with the police rather than the alarm company?

Surely a significant problem lies in the customers themselves, in that some wish to retain personal space and be allowed to get on with their shopping in peace, others look to an interaction with staff and none (first time in), carry their preferences writ large on their shoulders. That doesn't excuse till staff talking to each other and ignoring queuing customers (that's just bad business practice), nor does it excuse straight rudeness of any sort, but it may explain why individual customers feel dissatisfied with their treatment, because their preferred level of intimacy, or lack of it, isn't being spontaneously proffered. And as for France, well at least LL isn't "ferm? le mois d'ao?t" - or on Mondays, or Wednesday and Saturday afternoons, or for lunch - (save the excellent, and one man, Libretto's - not on LL anyway).

I haven't seen the planning approval document, but I suspect that the developer will opt to keep at least one internal tree, Depending on the state of the trees here it is quite possible for planners to require all the trees to be kept. It may well not be just up to the developer. Trees, even on private ground, are seen as a public amenity and may well, in some boroughs though not I fear ours, have automatic tree preservation orders on them dependent on their girth.

I think the remedial work was being held off until suitable weather for flattening/ re-seeding etc. I am hoping that our elected representatives (Renata?) are keeping an eye on this ball? Very wet weather followed by a longish heatwave has hardly been seasonal.

They may be toads, rather than frogs, in which case ponds are only of interest to them at spawning time. Great for your garden, but don't use slug pellets as toads will eat poisoned slugs and then die.

Or in some cases the council may remove them if in fact the trees are damaging somebody's property Also if the tree is damaged or diseased and may prove a danger to passers by or to other trees.

Lounge?

Much of the 'Portland Stone' you will see in Belgravia is a veneer. It is the underlying strength of build and e.g. the insulation etc. used which is most important. Modern true 'brick built' houses have an inner wall of breeze blocks. Brick - as facings - has mainly been decorative since the 1960s or so. You have to go back to pre-war (perhaps just pre 1960) to find fully brick built houses as the most normal type, with brick commons used in the inner wall and facings on the outer.

Maybe change the stimulus regularly. If drivers respond to the unusual, increase the changed environment frequency. If there was a simple answer, we would have found it already. I'm surprised the police are not using middle class speeding motorists as low fruit easily picked to improve their conviction rates, as they no longer really bother with crimes against people or property, outwith actual murder. Or historic abuse.

Rather than bother with actual speed cameras, why not have a random flash in the road, causing drivers to think there are speed cameras. Remember the object is not to catch motorists speeding, but to discourage them from it. An effective anti-speeding system would make NO arrests and NO convictions (both of which have costs to them, very possibly surpassing the benefit of any fine), but speeds would reduce to a safe level. Frequently there is too much focus on the wrong thing. We don't want motorists to speed, rather than wanting speeding motorists to be caught. The 'problem' with Barry is that it is a long, straight, road, but with a lot of activity (cars crossing, entering and exiting side roads etc., buses stopping, people crossing). If there were no side roads and junctions, speeding on Barry would be far less of an issue. So how can we mitigate the 'long and straight' element. Raised tables (if heavily signed) might have an effect, particularly where roads (such as Underhill, much used) cross. Or lie (i.e. flashes not associated with actual cameras).

It is, of course, ironic that currently there is a national shortage of CO2 leading to some pubs being unable to serve beer on tap, shortages of carbonated drinks etc.

Give yourself a ten minute buffer for emergencies (it doesn't take half an hour from DL to DH even at the height of the rush hour) and you'll still be in St.P in less than an hour. Because, of course, trains around here always run to time (and are scheduled frequently), are never cancelled and rarely too full to get onto.

Those statistics, like those on the average income or the average wealth of Londoners, are close to meaningless because of the huge variability underlying those numbers. This was the point I was trying to illustrate. Without a detailed analysis of household make-up and life-stage, proximity to (good and effective) public transport and so on, a simple %age figure has no real meaning. When I was working (and had a young family) my weekly week-end shop couldn't have been carried by one person, or even two. Nowadays life is simpler, but I'm much older. I make no excuse for still driving to shop. It takes me 7 minutes to drive to the shops, playing half an hour on the bus - when you're at the end of life 46 more minutes (both ways) of not lugging shopping (ignoring waiting times) is time you relish.

46% of London households do not possess a car at all. Are 46% of Londoners housebound? It would be interesting to know what proportion of this 46% either (a) do not have a qualified driver living there, or (b) cannot afford to run a car of whatever vintage or ©live close to decent tubes, buses or trains so that they can get easily across London. Or if you wish to put it this way (d) don't live in SE London!

Absolutely agreed that the previous incumbents were exemplary and deserve huge thanks for the service they have offered over (many) years - but let's hope that the new team will see them as a role model to follow - in terms of good and helpful service. It appears that the time of leaving was their choice, however sad they are to leave (and we are to lose them) - but the show must go on!

Those hours will be for the shop. The sub Post Office hours will be set by Post Office Counters and will be less than that, I would have thought.

CTN? Confectioner, Tobacconist and Newsagent

I know this seems selfish (and I am very sad to see the team go, they were very good at their jobs and nice people) but is the outlet to re-open as a sub-Post Office - or have we lost that as well? The sub-Post Office facility in Wood Vale was closed as the PO thought that it wasn't needed as we had the Forest Hill Road one nearby (and of course the CTN there very quickly closed as well once the PO revenues were lost) - is this one going now as well?

I would be most unhappy personally if the Dulwich Street Art Murals which were inspired by Ingrid were to have a cuckoo laid in their nest. Particularly if done so under the aegis of commercialism.

If there was an illicit card reader associated with the gate reader then the person stealing the card details would still have had to be quite close - these illicit readers must communicate using low range technology to a data store. So the 'perp' should be identifiable from CCTV. Once the details are stolen then they are fully available - the card transactions limits on contactless are associated with the card-reader software, not the card itself (which is why the limit can be so easily raised, as it was from ?20 to ?30 recently as I recall). If the RFID data is stolen, then it can be used without limit (other than any total spend limit associated with the card itself). Luckily security algorithms seem quite good (with some card issuers) to pick up rogue usage - although the recent VISA failure allowed multiple deductions to be recorded for the same attempted transaction - i.e. when the card apparently failed and it was re-presented for payment.

Most likely your card was captured (as you think) during your swipe-in, but by a hand-held device close to, but not on, the Oyster reader itself. As more people carry cards in shielded wallets (or with an RFID interference device) it is only when they are exposed to readers for contactless payments that they are vulnerable. A busy station is a good place to capture card details like this. Oyster cards themselves cannot be used for payments other than travel, but credit and debit cards are far more vulnerable. Although such a facility (contactless credit card transactions) is a real boon to the honest person, it may be even more so to the dishonest! It is very unlikely to have been photographed - most people cover their cards naturally in the way they hold them on Oyster readers, or keep them in slim wallets, so that photographs would mainly not be of use. For other types of contactless payment photography might be more useful, as you present your card face up often to do it. Were there to be CCTV in the station it might be possible to see someone lurking by the gates capturing details on a concealed device, but I doubt whether 'law enforcement' (and I use that phrase quite wrongly) could be bothered to look.