Penguin68

This seemed odd to me but when I looked it up I discovered that when you make your booking the crews and vehicles are allocated to your order, and that subsequently altering your order comes with a cost to the council. In the current financial climate this sadly cannot be absorbed. I very much doubt that Veolia (who I think have the contract for this collection work) really incur costs if the cancellation is a number of days away from the scheduled collection. This is simply the cost they charge to the council as a penalty. Most of this work will be scheduled electronically, using 'best route' software, I would have thought. It would be possible for Southwark to renegotiate its contract to allow a cancellation/ reschedule window without cost to it, if it chose to do so. If it's in-house that would be even easier. Certainly a cancellation only a couple of days before scheduled collection might incur a real cost, but not longer. These are the same vehicles which can be (very quickly and comendably so) sent out to deal with unauthorised fly-tipping - so they are not really on such a tightly delimited schedule over a long-ish period. Can I suggest to the new councillors that (even where they control the council) they should not automatically believe what the apparat is telling them. They should remember that they represent us, not the council officers.

It's a legally meaningless piece of bog paper. Whilst it's true that there is no legal significance to such a letter, in such a high profile situation as this it is not unusual to try a ranging shot - Southwark will either respond encouraging a formal (and legal) approach on those lines, or will indicate that this will (still) be unlikely to be approved. This is a cost effective method of seeing if they have yet found any areas where agreement might be possible. Southwark will need to respond if it does not want to appear unnecessarily obstructive (which would be a bad message for it if it came to more legal proceedings). If Southwark did suggest that another approach would at least have a chance of being considered, of course, if the actual legal approach was very different from what was in the 'pre-planning' letter they could still readily turn it back. There appear to be two key sticking points, the inappropriate use of protected land and the paucity of low cost social housing in the original proposals. Unless these are satisfactorily addressed I cannot see a way through the impasse. I am not sure increasing the housing density to include more social housing works here, if only because the council also has a view about housing density. But at least some attempts to take this forward are being made. It may be of course that this is just a PR exercise - but the issue now has a national profile - and champions at a national level to support the club's needs.

Actually, disturbing nesting birds is illegal unless there is clear and imminent danger from not doing so

Outside my house I have space (between two driveways) for 2 'normal' sized cars or one SUV and one small car. They have to abut each other, but each has room to exit the parking space because of the driveway gaps (that is they don't have to leave manoeuvring space between them). Very often however a car will park in the middle of the space, taking thus 2 cars space for themselves. Luckily my road is not badly parked up, but it still means that parking space is being wasted, and it shows drivers habitually do not try to make best use of space. Parking between cars is not an easy manoeuvre when you are starting to drive - perhaps even more emphasis should be placed on it in teaching and test situations - the better and more confident you are at parking, the better use you will make of end-to-end parking spaces and the more efficient will be the general use of road-side parking spaces.

Recent social research suggests that 'young professionals' are far more likely to eat out than to cook in - certainly socially - this might mean that the old split between restaurants and food (cooking component) shops is no longer meeting needs - perhaps swapping a Londis for an eatery is just mapping on to consumer need in our changing demographic in LL. Don't say I like it personally (I am no longer a young professional, by many decades) - but then the changing ED demographic is leaving me behind. And a number of the new (and well-established) LL eateries are great. Swings and roundabouts...

I think it was that restaurant that did the summer BBQs in the garden.

If Pizza Express was to open this would cannibalise their restaurant in The Village - which is larger (2 floors) - I would guess once cooking and storage areas are taken into account. And lavatories. It's often quite full so I can't see them voluntarily downsizing. Maybe they are losing this site? - but if not it doesn't make sense to move into an area already well served for pizza - and where the passing clientele may not match the target market (families with young children but not babies) - I am not sure the joint in The Village is so full so regularly that they are needing an overflow.

I recall when the Grove's garden was well used - BBQs in the summer and children playing. It was a good place to go - both car parks were open then (one used to have a boot sale there every month) - a good community pub serving both sides of Lordship Lane there.

There are a number of electricity transformers and sub stations locally. You might be hearing a reflected sound from those.

A number of posts are being made onto the Forum with the same html link (which I haven't followed and would advise not to follow) - Admin is taking them down pretty well as fast as they are posted, when they are reported, but be warned. Luckily their headlines frequently mention either sex or $US - so a good warning there, as neither are typical EDF fare.

But the builder is never named (one could find out, but why bother?) and much as I love the ED Forum it's hardly 'social media' in the FB/ Twitter etc. space. I doubt if the Russian bot-verse is gearing up for an attack here. It isn't even half-way decent trolling. Just seems like the exasperated cry of one or more souls clearly upset by what's going on, I would guess, close to them/ him/ her. And even if somewhat exaggerated (I have no knowledge how much, if any) it does seem at least a case which needs addressing by somebody. I very much doubt if it's made up out of whole cloth - too easy to disprove.

Other than over-egging the pudding I cannot see what advantage this would bring. We have no power. Anyone taking this up officially would check the facts before taking action. If it was an attempt to bully the landlord, leaseholder or contractor it's a pretty ineffective one.

Maybe, James et al you might care to look at this, as an early case. I think it falls into your patch:- http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1934364

It is most unlikely a simple tenant is undertaking construction work - more likely a leaseholder - although they would need the ground landlord's permission. What you describe is unsafe and dangerous work practice - something that the council and/ or the H&S Executive should be addressing. If you are concerned you might also want to contact your local councillor, or a councillor for the ward in which 207 Lordship lane sits (which I think is the new Goose Green Ward) if you are in a different ward yourself.

For clarification - I meant (a) being gay isn't a choice - but (b) choosing to express publically your sexuality (any sexuality) is and © any relationship between consenting adults of any gender or none is fine by me. However, in order to identify the people who verbally attacked the OP (and to differentiate between that couple and any other couple) the fact that they were same sex might be a useful identifier - it would certainly differentiate them from an opposite sex couple with the same sort of dog. And such an identifier should not be taken as some general 'attack' on the type of people being identified, just those individuals. What they may (or may not) have been is irrelevant to the verbal attack they are alleged to have made. But it might help identify them from other couples with dogs.

The behaviour described by the OP is in no way symptomatic (or 'typical') of gay people - so if people do think they have acted wrongly or inappropriately that is not 'because they are gay' I would have thought in any one's minds. To dislike what they are reported to have done or said (without necessarily thereby confirming the report as an absolute truth) seems entirely unexceptional and without prejudice to their lifestyle choices - you don't choose to be gay, you do choose to express it, I would have thought, not that expressing it carries any opprobrium. There are many individuals whose behaviour I deplore, without then necessarily deploring any particular group that those individuals might be members of. To dislike what someone does is not the same as disliking what someone is.

Council tenants have no financial 'interest' in the property (i.e. cannot benefit from increases in value - putting aside the whole 'right to buy' issue) - that interest (in preserving the value of the property through repair and refurbishment) sits with the council (or housing association) for tenanted properties - they will need to demonstrate that the overall cost of the works is being shared equitably between leaseholders and the landlord for non-leasehold properties. There should be no cross-subsidy - although clearly council tenants, who can take no fiscal benefit from the works, cannot be expected either to pay for them. Any possible cross subsidy would be between leaseholders and the council for non-leasehold properties. How the council recoups their costs for non-leasehold properties is up to them - either through rents or local taxes (or through selling some capital assets to pay for the upkeep of others). Capital works (repair or refurbishment) either preserve or improve the value of property - those without a stake in that value (i.e. council tenants) are, it seems to me, more reasonably excused the costs of these, even where they benefit from living in a 'better' environment. The same would be true of private tenants benefiting from such works undertaken by a private landlord.

As well as work directly on your flat you might expect to share the costs of (a) scaffolding to work on the property (b) work on common parts shared by different establishments © work on electrical or plumbing services from which you take a shared benefit and (d) work on roofs even where you are not on the top floor - so more than just work on the fabric that you lease. However you should get what itemisation you can - if you are being asked to share costs on work which was exclusively undertaken on other properties (i.e. not common or shared elements) you may have a case, as you would if works charged for weren't in fact undertaken, of if charges for specific works were disproportionate as regards the scale, scope or quality of the work undertaken. Even now that the council and councillors are all of the same party you should still expect support from your local councillor if you feel that the charges are unfair or wrong.

It would be good if you could talk to your colleagues in Dulwich Hill Ward (which also covers part of the old ED Ward) to see if they too would be prepared to join this forum. Goose Green and Dulwich Hill together cover much of what people think of as 'East Dulwich' (i.e SE22 and its immediately adjacent areas). As local issues are often not exactly ward specific (i.e. they cross ward boundaries) cooperative working may prove valuable in addressing constituent problems. Whilst this forum can in no way be representative (statistically) of East Dulwich views - it might offer at times a reasonable approximation of some of them. Good luck to you, and while you may not wish to ape James Barber's policies, copying his diligence and care for his constituents (and his willingness to enter into debate) would serve you, and us, well. Much of what he did was anyway nothing to do with party, and everything to do with constituent need.

Just to remind everyone, many of the constituents that James worked for are no longer in the ward for which he was standing. Many of the constituents in that ward had not had James as an elected representative - to them he was an unknown quantity, so they voted for the party (and their policies), not the man. James' result is not necessarily any reflection of an ungrateful electorate, and he should not (and I'm sure won't) take it in that way.

It may be worth remembering that a reasonable proportion of James' former constituents 'lost' him as a function of the boundary changes, rather than the election itself. It may be that this loss of personal vote (see a comment above about a 'natural' labour voter voting for him) did not assist his chances. As it wouldn't any previous 'incumbent' in a significantly changed ward. This does not make the ward changes thus a bad thing, but it may show how performance of individuals transcends natural voting patterns. That he got people who wouldn't have voted for his party to vote for him is a fine testament to his even-handed (and frequently non-partisan) approach to local government. And his diligence and hard work.

Whilst we have had our differences regarding a number of your policies you have undoubtedly worked very hard to deliver on case-work and local issues. You never were my councillor (I was in an adjacent ward) but I hope your work rate and commitment is copied as a good role model by successors. And your willingness to communicate and engage in debate on open fora. Perhaps you will decide in the next round to come back invigorated. Despite our differences, I hope so.

I would caution against manually adjusting your own P60 figure, as this is a sure fire way to set alarms off when you submit your self assessment return Accepted - but there is a facility on the forms to add notes - where you do make adjustments to formal forms for clarification, annotating those changes is acceptable, particularly where there is existing correspondence. I would check with your firm if they have made the arrangement noted by DaveR - if they haven't then amending and noting may be the best option. But DON'T put your firm's P60 information in unchanged and then additionally report your taxable benefits. You will definitely be double taxed then.

I would imagine that the process of declaring them yourself has led to this double counting. Your payroll should be issuing a P11D - separate from your P60 - which identifies taxable 'perks'. You then declare your taxable earnings and then your P11D statement - together with the tax deducted. That way you get taxed at the right level. If they won't do that you should deduct your perks from your taxable pay, and then declare your earnings under pay and your perks and show the tax you have paid. HMRC will then calculate that you have no tax owing (as regards these items). As it stands HMRC has no way of knowing that your taxable pay includes taxable perks, particularly if you then additionally declare them. You are having to make an alteration to the P60 because your employer isn't completing a P11D. It may be helpful to tax you up front for taxable benefits - but not if you end up paying twice. Talk to your employer's payroll people about what you should do. Get them to give you a memo of taxable benefits included in your P60.

I used to use the 176 a lot - but it became so unreliable in the evening rush hour (4:30 to 7:00) (buses marked for Tottenham Court Road when in Dulwich were always terminating on Waterloo Bridge/Strand) that I could no longer rely on it at all for journeys. On occasion I have even had two driver change-overs on one trip - although that was very unusual. I stopped using it for any trip which had to go over Waterloo Bridge as it could no longer be guaranteed to get to a promised destination passed there. I know that was frequently caused by congestion in Trafalgar Square, but there is no point in running buses if you can't run the whole route in normal conditions. And the decreased frequency means that being let-down by one bus has real timing consequences when the next is such a long wait. The 'attacking private car use' policy has to be joined-up with the 'keeping charges down by reducing services' policy to make any sense, in an area already so poorly served by public transport. When 'cheap' public transport starts to equate to 'much less' public transport the incentives to keep cars off the road dissipate.