Penguin68

but I'd like to see an end to the practice of awarding titles and honours to her family. Sorry, but the very basis of a monarchy, constitutional or otherwise, is that children of monarchs, and grandchildren, become princes and princesses (although in Russia they were Grand Dukes and Grand Duchesses). If you think that, and a title which doesn't give you a seat in the lords, is meaningful in anyway other than as ceremonial flummery then you are subscribing to the old deference society. Calling people Mr and Mrs is a shortened form of Master and Mistress - do you rate this at all nowadays? (The peasantry if called anything might be 'Goodman' and 'Goodwife') The Princess Royal (Anne) chose for her children not to be royally entitled. Good for her, of course, but it don't matter a hill 'o beans really. People who like titles and honorifics (not really honours in the sense of rating merit) can enjoy these, people who don't can ignore them. People who want to enjoy the 'royal wedding' (or the royal anything) should surely be left to do so - nobody is obliged to watch it or care for it. We aren't being forced onto the streets to praise our masters (unlike so many societies elsewhere). Be grateful for that.

The BBC has waived any license fee requirement for public showing of the wedding - mainly for street parties of which a surprisingly large number have been declared in Bromley, apparently. Clearly ED republicanism isn't replicated further south and east.

This describes what you can and can't do re fox control. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/foxes-moles-and-mink-how-to-protect-your-property-from-damage

I think that's foraging for leaves, not digging up entire plants. And only where you can forage (not someone's garden for instance or other cultivated area.)

Easy to obtain - no need to steal... https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=wild+garlic+plant&tag=googhydr-21&index=aps&hvadid=185283325851&hvpos=1t1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11048507067220586909&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9045890&hvtargid=kwd-11090859189&ref=pd_sl_70uu18m31k_b https://www.naturescape.co.uk/product/wild-garlic-ramsons-in-the-green/ https://www.crocus.co.uk/plants/_/allium-ursinum/classid.2000031122/ http://www.gardensupplydirect.co.uk/wildflower_bulbs_in_the_green_other/wild_garlic_in_the_green__allium_ursinum_ramsons/12983_p.html

Ideally, surely, all users of shared and public spaces should use them taking care not to injure etc. other users. Where they are not trained, educated etc. etc. to be careful themselves, then others with responsibility for them should ensure they act properly. Over numbers of years I have had children bump in to me, dogs bounce me, cyclists and skateboarders etc. make me jump out of the way and so on. Sometimes the risks and ensuing unpleasantness has been worse than others. Everyone should be considerate, no one should be acting as in some way privileged or exempt from acting with consideration (small children and untrained dogs become the responsibility of those in care of them). Even where it is in the bye-laws that you can have dogs off the lead, cycle or skateboard, run or jog - this doesn't then allow or excuse you to hurt, knock in to or scare others. Accidents can of course still happen, but those causing the accident (or having responsibility for the primary agent in the accident) need both to be aware that they are at fault, and work to avoid such accidents in the future. If they don't, then they deserve condemnation. 'My dog jumped up and knocked you over - but I don't need to have him on a lead here so that's OK - I'm not at fault' will simply NOT do.

I would have thought it is most likely an Argos pick up point (so you order on-line and then pick-up in-store). I think the Forest Hill Sainsbury's already has one. http://www.argos.co.uk/stores/5055-forest-hill-sainsburys-collection-point

Thank you

The Goose Green roundabout is at the 'bottom' of Dog Kennel Hill (and Grove Vale) - but at the 'top' of Lordship Lane. Not only does Lordship Lane head due south from Goose Green (so it's at the top of a map normally oriented with North at the top) but it's at the start of a road which leads away from Central London - again going out of town south of the river is often seen as heading 'down' - when going in to Town is going 'up to town' (from wherever you are). So saying the roundabout is 'at the top' of Lordship lane seems eminently logical, if you are using LL as the determinant. Using DKH or Grove Vale as the determinant would of course make it 'bottom of'.

The net effect of this sort of attack is that shop owners will fence or place obstacles to delineate the land that they own and have rights to, permanently blocking access to that for others. At the moment many owners are prepared to share some of their space with pedestrians, where that is convenient to them, whilst continuing to use part in furtherance of their trade. Some already do block off their space. Do you really want all of them to? Of course, where owners are placing items on the public pavement that is a different issue. Please note, a different issue. Not the same issue.

but it should not be at the expense of services, retail space, open areas or the character of the area. The proposal was for flats on top of retail space, not instead of. The existing building is not single story. The character of LL is mixed retail, business and residential, with restaurants and pubs. We need housing in London.

Sorry - of what value is voting on National issues in a local election? There is nothing any vote of yours in a Southwark election will do to make any changes to the Brexit process. Other than UKIP there are no anti- EU parties standing, although there are two parties (Labour and Conservative) who have pledged to deliver the wishes of a (small) UK majority in favour of Brexit. In parliamentary terms, before the Referendum, every main party other than UKIP in Parliament would have had a majority of MPs in favour of remaining. It was just the people who let down the politicians. To vote on national issues in a local election is to give up the opportunity to hold local politicians - who operate to an entirely different agenda to national politicians - to account for their rule or their terms of opposition locally. If you use the national agenda to influence your voting then you will have no right to moan if local politicians, acting on local issues, then do, or don't do, what you would want, or fail to deliver on promises on local issues that you will have evidently ignored by allowing the national agenda to influence your vote. Make your decisions on the record or promises of local candidates for local government. Don't think that you will 'send messages' to Westminster - the only messages (and candidates) you will be sending are to Tooley St.

Hi P68, Are you suggesting Lordship Lane should be turned into houses and flats? No. I am suggesting that a rigid '50%' shops without considering what the alternative to that might be (closed shops, pop-ups, charity shops) - none of which actually add to LL retail clout - is not sensible. I am also suggesting that, yes, considering the housing situation in London I do think additional residential accommodation locally would be a good thing. I had not realised the Lib Dem position was so entrenched against increasing housing capacity in Southwark, but then , you lives and you learns.

It is crucial that Lordship Lane keep at least 50% retail shop units. Does that include empty and unused units/ charity/ pop-up shops? Are you sure you want to restrict the number of homes in the area? Just sayin...

'Businesses need to play their part' - what, by giving up to the public (you, in fact) what is rightfully theirs - part of their own, legal, property? Will you 'play your part' to ease pedestrian congestion on your street by giving up your front garden so that people can walk through it? And if not, why not?

It would be a bad state of affairs if Southwark could start exercising compulsory purchase powers to take over people's front gardens etc. (this is what it amounts to) to extend the pavement area. There are many side streets in ED where the pavement is too narrow for two double buggies to pass each other, are you happy if the pavements are widened by taking your frontage in these circumstances?

Once again there is a confusion between where 'pedestrians' can legitimately expect free and untrammelled access - the public pavement - and where shops may legitimately accept their curtilage runs to - where they may quite legitimately and legally place anything they want (within reason). It is their choice whether they rate advertising benefits over access - and indeed if they are not catering to the push-chair mummy brigade then not offering free access though their space to people who aren't likely to be their customers in order to advertise to those who might be seems a legitimate commercial choice. If you believe that the public pavements (outside the shops' curtillages) are too narrow, try petitioning Southwark to have them made wider.

The Post Office (which included Telecommunications) was 'nationalised' (from being a government department) in 1969. However it still fell under the control of the Post Master General, a government minister, famously including both Tony Benn and John Stonehouse. When BT was privatised, Oftel set pricing structures for certain types of product - on an RPI-x% formula (i.e. prices could only rise by a percentage less than RPI). This covered those prices where BT was seen as still having a monopoly or virtual monopoly. It did not however set absolute prices, but agreed pricing formulae, and what cost elements should be considered as forming part of that price. On that basis I am not sure that even when Royal mail (Postal Services) was privatised, Oftel (or more probably its successor Ofcom) directly set any prices - although again pricing formulae might have to be agreed. This sets out the position from 2014. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06296/SN06296.pdf

https://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB753GB753&ei=pNrPWv38M571gAbSwomoCQ&q=loss+of+light+or+overshadowing+planning&oq=loss+of+light+planning&gs_l=psy-ab.1.2.0l2j0i22i30k1l2.101422.102794.0.107774.8.8.0.0.0.0.93.525.7.7.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.7.523....0.ZUNnz5a9ZQI

should it be agreed on about what it should be with the other tenant? I would have thought that regular use of common space would have to be agreed with the Landlord. Depending on that use, it may well impact issues such as fire safety - as well as being use of space not being paid for in the rental (because it would be exclusive use, clearly, when common space is for shared use, reflected in the rental charge). A common hallway is normally an exit route - so bikes etc. would possibly impede safe exit in case of emergency. It might additionally be a courtesy to discuss such use with other tenants using the space, but not surely a requirement?

Many of the shops in ED (and LL) have a stretch of pavement leading from their frontage forming part of 'their' land, i.e. it belongs to them and they can put what they want on it - it doesn't count as part of the public pavement, and therefore things placed on the land cannot be said to be blocking public movement. In some instances that stretch of land which isn't public is clearly delineated - in other cases it isn't but that doesn't mean that it is thus public and offers the public an unrestricted right of way. This 'private' element of what appears to be 'the pavement' is what had caused issues about pavement repair - the council is not responsible for the upkeep of that part of the pavement which is privately owned. Where A boards are on the private element of the paved frontage it can (legally) block as much as it wants to. It is only blocking its own land and not somewhere with a public right of way.

As you describe that is threatening behaviour. Which I think is a crime.

Is there a big move to 'chainification' on LL? I have commented before that what has 'saved' us from chains has been the small footprint of most LL retail premises. Most are smaller than what chain outlets will be looking for (other than e.g. Timpson's where the footprint is too large)

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi eastdulwichhenry, > I agree with 2-3m of double yellow lines on > corners to make crossing the road easier. But the > safety angle is spurious based on the last 18 > years ro publicly available crash data. > We also know that longer sight lines can lead to > more speeding. > > hi Sally Eva, > We know half of the traffic on Southwark roads > starts and end outside Southwark. Their was talk > of camera enforced filtered permeability - open > for Southwakr residents registered vehicles during > schools runs and charged or banned for non > Southwark registered vehicles - we're talking > about residential streets not A & B roads. Actually that's a pretty rubbish statistic. It assumes all communities of interest are constrained on Borough lines,but that's clearly not so. My daughters live just over the border in Lewisham. ED, Forest Hill and Brockley merge into each other at the borders. Wood Vale is split in two. James' proposal is nimbyism at its worst.

It's a no from me, but the majority of no responses so far is statistically meaningless.