Penguin68

It is also true that Dalston Heights creates an obvious Hill effect and is close (relatively) to the centre of the new ward. Even though it has never born the name Dulwich Hill, the Ward isn't too confusingly named. And it is the most significant hill, I would argue, in SE22 (or indeed SE21) - so for most of the areas called 'Dulwich' now it is, probably, the Hill!

On James Barber's thread it has been suggested that the addresses being confused are 8 Underhill, and 8 Picketts Terrace - which is formed on 242 Underhill. So the problem arises in either mis-addressing letters or mis-sorting them. Perhaps a note to the sorting office (whilst it's still with us) alerting them to this confusion may help. But the address(es) and the postcodes are, in themselves, kosher. Just being confused.

Actually one of those addresses would fall now in College Ward, not ED. They will both be in the new Dulwich Hill ward after the May elections, I believe.

If you are having problems with any mobile operator after repeated attempts at contacting them then email the Chief Executive James, and others. Many people take service not directly from the carriers but from Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs) such as Virgin, or TalkTalk etc, who lease capacity on a wholesale basis, from the network carriers you have listed. As such their contractual relationships are with their Operator and not the underlying carrier. It is their operator who has the relationship with the carrier. This makes determining who is 'at fault' more problematical, and CEO's may be less stimulated to meet the needs of someone who is not, directly, their customer. On the other hand, complaints from an MVNO, who will have a significant financial relationship with the network carrier, may carry more weight. Ideally get your MVNO batting on your behalf with the underlying carrier. Which may mean writing to your MVNO CEO!

James, the road condition of Underhill between Dunstan Road and Barry (actually even further back possibly to Ryedale), is deteriorating fast - a lot of pot holes, some quite deep and in this weather (when they fill with water) quite dangerous as their depth cannot readily be judged. At the moment this is the worst stretch of road in SE22, in my view, and, being a bus route is heavily used. The road humps are also breaking up. Clearly this is an issue for car drivers, with tyre damage, but rather more for pedestrians and cyclists who may additionally suffer injury. I know closures for resurfacing will be a nightmare but it is a bullet which must be bitten. I am sure that the council has run out of money for such work until April, but can you lobby for it to be scheduled in quite quickly. Once the road has started to break up (and it has, big time), traffic will just exacerbate it further.

This should be reported to the non emergency police number.

I think this is a regular problem - it hits different people at different times - I think admin has a fix for it - I was caught in an endless loop of verification some time back. It's designed to see-off robots/ botnets who are trying to spam the site - but sometimes having verified someone it keeps on doing so (where it should accept the source as kosher once it passes the test). You'll probably have to clear your cache or something, but I can't recall what. Or admin will do something to your ID. It's annoying but addressable. I don't think it's anything to worry about.

But all residential cars in the ULEZ will have to be less than 6 years old - feels incongruous. This is not so - I have checked our petrol family car(s) with the ULEZ site - they are all older than 6 years, and all 'passed'. It depends what standard they were designed and tested to. It is true that many younger (than my car) diesel cars will not pass. This has not been helped by the 'cheats' installed in diesel cars by the manufacturers (some of them).

It was very good and positive.

Where there are adults in a house who live separate lives (all may work or have different day-time responsibilities, all have to go to different places at different times, and to places where local public transport does not well serve - or regularly out of town) then sharing a car may not be a realistic option - where they can afford to run, tax and insure more than one why shouldn't they? No individuals may need 4 cars in London, but we are not talking about one individual, perhaps, but, say, 4. Your question then boils down to 'why should anyone have even 1 car in London?' - a question much rehearsed in these threads in the past.

I would have to agree with you complaining to the company seems to have little or no effect. When I complained that I had seen a P13 driver force an ambulance (on blues and twos) to back up to let him pass (he wouldn't move) I got an immediate and full response from the company, so they are sensitive to some things. Scheduling problems may be another issue. I travel part of the way of the P13 from time to time, and hold-ups and problems on the routes I see have recently been terrible. I can bypass these to avoid them (as can Uber drivers with Waze) - but buses rather have to follow a fixed route, unless formally diverted!

'Agnostic' is a scientist's position - a good scientist is 'agnostic' in the sense that he/ she will be happy to see a different hypothesis demonstrated - but when faced with argument with those who operate by 'beliefs' then 'atheist' may be the better language choice. As far as the supernatural is concerned I am an atheist - in the sense that I have no belief in something which transcends in any way the natural world; which is not to say that I have, or ever hope to have, any full understanding of that world. But I am prepared to consider that just because I don't know the physical mechanism doesn't mean that such a physical mechanism doesn't exist. I don't need a super entity to exist to be the explanation of things I don't understand (otherwise I would require a god of quantum mechanics - and indeed calculus!). As far as a god or gods is/ are concerned, in the words of Pierre-Simon Laplace 'I have no need of that hypothesis'.

A woman with long black hair walks past your door walks downstairs and disappears??? Help me explain it because I can?t?? Love to hear your theories Externalising the internal is in fact quite common (I'm not saying this is the answer to your particular experience - I generalise). Schizophrenics do it with their voices, it can often occur during episodes of fever (or dehydration), it can be alcohol or drug induced, I have found myself falling asleep in front of the telly and half waking 'inside' the show I was watching. A large number of people in the nineteenth century and before believed that they woke up to find a hag or phantom on their chest - in the 20th century and now that has segued into beliefs in alien abduction. Because you can't find an explanation of something doesn't then mean that it is magical or supernatural. It just means that you can't find an explanation for it.

"It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block"" Yes, I know about block-time - and the theory that our perception of time being linear (and one-way) is but a perception. However, just because space-time is a block (if it is) doesn't mean that as individual entities we occupy or could occupy all of it. So although I only believe my life is a continuous process with a start and a finish, doesn't mean that I also occupy times outside my life - the part of the space-time block I'm in is the only part of space-time I was or will be (to use the terms of linearity) in. So events that fall outside my bit of space time are still closed to me. In so far as 'ghosts' are phantoms of lives that took place outside 'my' bit of space-time - they are still not available to me, as events outside our light-cone aren't. [NB the idea of block space-time works if you believe that there is a space-time continuum - that this is a real 4 dimensional entity - just as 'space' (3D) clearly isn't being created and destroyed as we roll through it, so neither can time be - it must exist with or without us, and without linearity. However if this is so, does it make sense for cosmologists to talk about the Universe being 13bn years old? - Surely it must be as much no time old as eternally so. It is just our local conditions which suggest it is 13bn years old.]

Sadly, for those who find comfort in the thought of continued existence after death through something like 'a soul' - which is the happy companion of ghost stories, there is neither any confirmed evidence, or scientific mechanism whereby this might be achieved. There is some evidence that people, through suggestion or auto-suggestion can hear or see, or smell or sense, things that aren't there, or interpret things that are there to have a different (and supernatural) causation. I will not challenge the perceptions of people who report such things as being 'real to them' - I would challenge their interpretations of what they believe they have sensed.

Also, at the beginning of a project, you are putting out feelers looking for the right questions, not the answer. So I think Penguin68 is right, but maybe later in the project when you have a more defined idea of what peoples main issues are. If this was a proper commercial project I would recommend some qualitative research which determines key issues and appropriate language etc., followed by quantitative research which allows scales and relationships to be statistically determined. However as a University project I suspect that this research stage will need to be truncated (unless its for a dissertation - which as it's a group project it probably isn't). So banging straight on it to qualitative research, with demographics is the right trajectory. Of course, if it was commercial research you'd be looking for a minimum of 20-30 respondents (better 60-70) for each cell - so just splitting responses into male/ female, or young/ old (with no other sub-analysis) would require a sample size double the cell size - so a minimum of 40-60 and ideally 120-140 as your sample - and for any more detailed analysis - so into male old and young and female old and young that doubles it again. Of course students won't achieve those numbers, so they need to demonstrate a research structure which would support this level of analysis without actually achieving it. In practice their likely sample size will be closer to that which would support a qualitative, rather than quantitative analysis. In writing up their results, if that is required, they need to indicate they are aware of this flaw.

1. Hotel breakfasts will tend to replenish the scrambled eggs regularly - I suspect there is a clear time over which they are meant to be withdrawn - both for health and taste reasons. I'm thinking about 15-20 minutes, in my experience. They will also make (if they can) only sufficient to meet demand within that time frame. 2. Breakfast service in a cafe will last over 2 or more hours - so a single pan in the kitchen with scrambled egg in it being kept going for that sort of time would taste awful and not be that healthy. 3. Scrambled eggs are always my last choice at any establishment where I think they are not being made fresh - I like smooth and creamy scrambled eggs, not hard curds. They take only a couple of minutes to make. Eggs (for taste) should always be cooked fresh - even where you want an egg quite firmly cooked. Most short order chefs happily manage that.

This appears to be a University-led teaching/ learning project - it will have no direct impact on us in ED but will help train/ educate the next generation of designers to do a good job. Understanding that you are designing against 'customer need' and learning how to do this is a very positive approach, and I would urge those who could spare the time to give feedback. I would have been happier to see a clear questionnaire (rather than a simple set of questions) to inform this project, as I believe analysis of responses may be problematic - but this is what a learning experience is all about. [NB I write as a former senior lecturer at a University - not this subject - and I have no relationship of any sort with the OP or her colleagues]. NB - again - Q4 - a single respondent can only talk about themselves - it is the analysis which will determine whether and how this is a community issue. I would also suggest picking up on respondent age, life stage (i.e. with young or any family etc.) and other relevant demographics - for instance there are forum participants no longer ED residents - whose opinions may be less relevant than current residents.

Dear Localresident - I said that it appeared a scandal (as it did) derived by me from your description of what happened; I didn't say that you overtly described it as such. As I live 3 minutes from the cemetery (and regularly walk in it) I don't really need to see it with you - or Councilor Barber. I think he (and I) are clear that there is clearly a communications problem here, both within the cemetery apparat, between that and the council and between all and funeral directors (and thence back to you, as a representative of the cemetery's 'clients'). There are, apparently, long standing (4 years) rules, they may not be consistently applied and they are not well communicated. All of these are failures which probably need addressing. The rules also, as I read them, differentiate in treatment of different types of burial, which will again add to confusion. You seem to think that I am not on your 'side' - which may be true only in the sense that I am not on anyone's side. I was perhaps just making the point that it seemed more cock-up than conspiracy, although I was clear to add that if so this did not in any way lessen your disquiet or upset. '(without in any way wishing to diminish the levels of very clear distress felt by the OP)

Based on what Renata wrote:-... There are no new rules, nothing has changed in the 4 years since this burial area within Camberwell Old Cemetery was used for new burials. The regulations were set up in accordance with section 3 of the Communities Act, disabled access regulations and health and safety regulations. They were consulted on at the time and various stakeholder groups were involved in this. The way the area is set up allows you to have a headstone without a long wait and to long term have flowers/plants/other items on the gravel area in front of the headstone, but the rest is to be allowed to settle and allow to be covered in turf. Flowers and other memorials are left for at least 7 days elsewhere on the grave, in your case it was 11 days. Your funeral director should have explained this to you when you ticked the box to have your father buried in a lawned area rather than a memorialised area; what this meant in practice. It sounds like that you were not made aware of this when you signed the document. There are current updates in the policy being investigated. One thing that is being looked at is increasing the time that flowers and mermorials can be left on the grave and also that cemetery staff deal directly with families to explain the options rather than it being done by the funeral directors. I'm sorry that this is not going to undo your upsetting situation, but hopefully this will not be repeated for grieving families using this cemetery burial area in the future. Renata ...it would seem that the OP had not been fully informed by the funeral director (or maybe in the trauma of loss had not picked up on any information given) about the differences between lawned and memorialised parts of the cemetery. And about time-frames of keeping flower memorials located around the grave. This seems a communications rather than necessarily a policy problem. Comments about the wishes of locals may simply be hearsay. Clearly there is a need for more sensitivity in this area. But it is true that complex (cut) floral memorials do (necessarily) deteriorate and will eventually result in the grave and surrounds looking very bedraggled (not what the OP would want, I suspect). At some stage they do need to be removed. But maybe not quite so quickly, or perhaps based on their actual state rather than a rule-driven time - and certainly after communication with the principal representative of the deceased (the person who organised the funeral). I'm by no means sure that this is quite the 'scandal' that it first appeared to be (without in any way wishing to diminish the levels of very clear distress felt by the OP). Certainly things could be better done, by many in this complex area, officials and funeral directors, but I'm not sure this is quite the maladministration it first seemed to be.

Thank you, James. Are the needs of the communication poor specifically part of the impact statement requirements? Are remedies required, are the numbers impacted a required part of that impact statement, are the vulnerabilities of those impacted assessed or reported on? If you believe it is simply a tick box requirement is there an opportunity to make it 'real'? If the poor and elderly in the borough are to be directly disadvantaged by council decisions, it would be good to get an actual voting record of those who decided this was a good and acceptable policy, in the clear knowledge of what they were voting for. Democracy is always (and should be) a struggle between elected representatives and the apparat. Maybe it would be good to push for a little of that on occasion? (I'm not suggesting that you, personally, don't).

It is rather, I would suggest, the consequences of aiming for efficiencies (which generally will lead to better and cheaper service delivery, if well implemented) in an area where not everyone is, or can be, as up to speed as the swiftest. Automation (which, inter alia, allows people to interact outside 'office hours') will answer 90% of need, perhaps, but the remaining 10% may be the most direly needful. How do we support the 'communications poor' - where that poverty may be about available equipment or available skills and confidence? I would like to see the council implement a policy where for every such 'improvement' proposed there should be a clear policy statement about the impact on the communications poor and how that may be mitigated. Which should be taken into consideration before such a proposal is agreed by the council or cabinet member where appropriate.

The conundrum is, where is the irony bypass?

It should be remembered that mobile microwave towers operate significantly line-of-sight. That means that users in ED - which is full of annoying hills, frequently are in microwave shadow. This will lose or attenuate signals. [signals will go through most buildings OK, but have a problem going through the ground, which hills are]. Additionally towers are limited in the number of simultaneous transmissions they can handle, giving priority to ongoing transmissions. So if you are in a location served by a tower with a lot of existing traffic being handled you will have a problem obtaining signal, even if otherwise you are in a good position to do so. If you are near busy roads (ie the EDT) you will find people passing (walking by and in cars) who are already interacting with the towers, so you will be competing more for signal. You may also find (for data) that you have grabbed WiFi access in some places (depending on your supplier and what deals they have done) and not others. By the way, the numbers of 'bars' shown is very unhelpful in judging signal strength - other than a 'no bars' condition. For ED different service levels frequently reside in which network you are using and where their towers are. So if you are, at home, well situated for one service you will find that 'better' and be surprised that others (served by different towers) don't agree with you. I live just under the brow of a hill and visitors on some networks can have problems getting service downstairs, but no problems on upper floors. Annoying, but physics.

Trying out views you may not hold? Useful to know. This was a technique taught to Alexander the Great by Aristotle (his one time tutor). It is a typical technique of the Athenian schools and hones debating skills - it is also the skill deployed by barristers in the UK - who can argue a client's innocence even if they believe (but crucially not know) the contrary. I'm not sure a forum is the best place to exercise such a skill, but it's certainly a useful one to have (if you can argue the other side you may also understand the other side better).