Penguin68

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 in the atmosphere is estimated around 4% of all CO2 in the atmosphere, which is itself a comparatively small amount compared to water vapour. Water vapour forms 80& of greenhouse gas mass (and 90% by volume). https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/ . CO2 is CO2 - just because it's breathed out by animals (and us) doesn't make it any 'better' or more or less of a pollutant than CO2 sourced in any other way. Without CO2 we would have no green plants. If the National Geographic is concerned about greenhouse gases then its statement about CO2 is simply wrong, it's not the 'main' 'pollutant' water vapor is. If it wants to make a point about CO2 having a greater warming effect that water vapour (it does, per given quantity) then methane is considerably worse. It is like saying that my breath is sweetness and light, but yours is toxic. It's all breath. Whereas NOx (from diesels) actually is toxic. As are unburnt hydrocarbons from other fuel sources deposited as particulates.

It's a greenhouse gas, sure, as is water vapour, but it's not a pollutant.

No septic tank would be allowed to disgorge straight into a river like that, by design they are sealed and are emptied by being pumped out. It could be a field drain outlet (used to take away excess rain water) - in which case, as long as the land isn't contaminated, it wouldn't be a problem.

I have to admit that it would appear that the new generation of Diesel vehicles are probably no more polluting than petrol vehicles and therefore are being demonised unfairly. That's not quite what the article is saying, I believe. They pollute in different ways, particularly around particulates and NOx. Do please remember that CO2 is NOT a pollutant (nor does it directly harm health) - indeed it is vital to the growth of plants, without which we would all be dead, as these form the basis of our food chains. It is telling that attempts to reduce CO2 emissions in cars may lead to an increase in particulates - which are definitely health threatening, according to the article. Also please remember that, whilst I don't agree with the proposal for reasons I have gone into above, it is directed at old generation engines. New (genuinely cleaner) diesels will not be impacted by this.

At the moment the ultra-low emission zone is already 'policed' by congestion charge cameras - hence there is virtually no additional infrastructure cost in implementing it (some more coding for the camera software, and running it 24-7 and not just during congestion charge times). To extend it as wide as is planned will require many, many more cameras to spy on every route that crosses into the new zone, together I assume with data runs to identify qualifying vehicles which are registered within the zone (although of course they could well, on the peripheries, be kept outside the zone). All told the costs of implementing and running such a scheme will be huge. This is much more complex than road tolling (where you choose carefully the limited routes you will be charging on). Just think of the number of suburban roads that lead into, particularly, the South Circular (which, unlike the North Circular, which is real, is just a mapping convention). All will need to be covered by cameras and cabling to those cameras. The proposal is simply (outwith its intentions) madness. Attacking the problem of diesel pollution at its source is the only remedy, and that means taxing diesel so it is used less, and a beneficial scrappage scheme to encourage old diesels to be taken off the road. Such a scrappage scheme would be expensive, but it's a better use of public money than spy cameras on (I imagine literally thousands) of suburban roads.

Qualifying rural vehicles could be given tax rebates They already are - 'red' diesel. The government is currently investigating its use https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/red-diesel-call-for-evidence/red-diesel-call-for-evidence

You can check whether your current vehicle meets the requirements here:- https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/vrm-checker-ulez Many high spec petrol engines pre-2015 do.

You might try Gripe Water (although the original recipe, which had 6.5% alcohol was more effective!)

I suspect that increased interest rates, increased price inflation and continuing low wage inflation have led to some buyer uncertainty - and the drop-off in high end sales to overseas buyers has had a knock-on effect on those planning to sell these and re-buy lower value properties. Together with those things listed above. And it's not exactly house buying season quite yet. A slow-down in house price inflation locally is probably a good thing - children are not then forced to move far away from their home turf because they cannot afford to buy locally, and there is some slight increase in chance for people to get on the housing ladder. If you want to track 'average' prices look at what particular types of housing are doing, rather than 'averaged' house prices in complex local authority areas. Housing type tends to be more area sensitive - 3/4 bed semis I would guess across Southwark are more similar than a 3/4 bed penthouse flat on the river compared with a semi, even in E. Dulwich.

The map has 3 sets of information on it -existing wards, initial proposal and final proposal (which I am assuming is also final agreed). For many wards the initial and final proposals are contiguous. I think that you may be being told what your address is in now - whereas the map may be showing your destination ward (or vice versa depending on which overlays are toggled). The new wards come into effect for the May 2018 (I think - can anyone confirm?) local election. Until then you are in, and will be represented by councillors for, the old ward structure. I agree that it would be helpful to clarify the map somewhat.

It is worthwhile reading this report in detail - much of this appears to be about practice management and (possibly) box ticking. Most recent (unverified) figures seem to show improvements. There are some concerns, obviously, but the impact of having a severely ill senior partner must have added to management problems, and indeed been an obvious distraction. There are clearly issues with the front office staff which have been remarked on before, and possibly training for the back and front office staff in some safety related procedures. There are also some clear positives in the report. It does not persuade me (yet) that I need to change practice (after 30 years).

If they are large, like house flies (or larger, like bluebottles) then they have been corpse-fed, most likely. Mice that die under ground floors, where the gap is likely to be aired through air bricks, will likely not smell, and if the flies are hatched they are long beyond that.

Bank - there's substantial attempts at the moment to intercept post by a gang across london. My experience is of infiltration of temporary staff into sorting and delivery offices. I lost a cheque book that way. At times of high demand (like Christmas and when there's a lot of sickness) it is far easier to get staff into post on a temporary basis. Also some permanent staff have been suborned into working for gangs, though I have no evidence that that is relevant to our area. The best way to intervene is not at the delivery end but the posting end - so diverting cards or cheque books as they are sent for initial sorting, when there are lots to choose from. However 15 years ago I do recall seeing temporary posties holding letters up to the light to check their contents, so it does happen at 'our' end too.

I don't go along with the proposition that a thriving high street that becomes a shopping destination for those outside the area is good for residents. It very much resides whether you want just local shops for local people (which normally means reduced ranges/ choice because it's not e.g. economic to carry a wide range for a limited clientele) or whether you want shops which are more vibrant etc. - in which case you need to pull in from a wider catchment area. If you look at the shopping areas locally other than LL you will see many shops closing and being turned into housing etc. because there aren't enough people coming there to make them economic. When I arrived in the area, 30 years ago, the shops were far more run-down, with a lot of second hand pram shops etc. Keep visitors out and we can get back to that, over time - although with current retail rent expectations I would guess we will need to go through a (possibly long) period of boarded up shops etc. In modern economies the status quo isn't an option - you go up or you go down. Which do you want for LL?

It's worth considering that the Collect Plus shops probably get paid very little for each item handled, which do each require scanning and issuing of a receipt. They are probably sold on being Collect Plus by suggestions that this will bring in new custom, which I guess it does only occasionally. So whilst it's annoying, it's hardly surprising that some outlets find the work required (including finding a place to store parcels which might otherwise have been occupied by stock which could be sold) not worth a candle, particularly when people bringing in parcels are 'getting in the way of' their real paying customers.

Not me. Don't have a motorbike.

I'm afraid a dead animal under your floorboards is a likely scenario.

I think anything that would help him accept help would be more constructive than wringing hands and repeating 'it won't end well'. Actually, what you were suggesting to 'help' him accept assistance was to threaten to have him locked up as a dangerous mental patient (the condition for a section, whether of danger to himself or others) - 'it sounds like the police and/or local mental health team could potentially resort to a section, or more likely the threat of one to get him to accept help' is what you wrote. As he doesn't accept assistance offered by those trained and funded to help people like him (should they want help) I cannot but think that threatening him is not a good option. I am not, by the way, wringing my hands, but simply making a prediction. I believe that people have a right to choose their own hells and routes to perdition (with the proviso that they shouldn't take others with them). I referred to the film as an example of 'help' being forced on individuals who don't fit into societal norms.

This survey asks only one question (supplemented by another) actually about East Dulwich, the remainder looks at social and general media usage. It asks almost no demographic questions (the age question is not broken into groupings, unusually) nor does it ask about sex, ethnicity, family size or status, connections to ED, length of residence (if any) etc. There is virtually no analyzable material being gathered. If it is anything it is an attempt to build a picture of useful marketing media, with a trawl to get respondent ID - any 'proper' market research survey (and indeed social research survey) would entirely separate response details from responder identities, with the latter not being made available to the principals commissioning the survey. At best this is a list building exercise. By all means respond if you want to be marketed to, but don't expect the information being gathered to change or improve anything in ED.

'Sectioning' under the Mental Health Act is a way of forcibly committing a severely mentally ill person, normally at extreme and current risk of harming themselves or others and frequently in a state of fugue or huge distress. This man is (possibly) an alcoholic (possibly simply a heavy drinker) who has been clear in what help he wants and doesn't want. I find it completely wrong to use the threat of sectioning to force somebody whose life is less tidy than you would want to get off the streets. [And there is a huge backlog of those who are clear they do need psychiatric help and want to get it, waiting to be seen]. All I know about addiction makes it clear that only those who want to be clear of it will respond to treatment. Which this person clearly doesn't. It's a mess certainly, but it's not one which threats of actual prison, or imprisonment by psychiatrists will go any way towards addressing. I suspect this is a problem which will not end well. Locking people away who won't conform to your norms is something done by totalitarian states. Even if you are doing it, in your view, 'for their own good'. The law allows the mentally ill (which he may not be, just awkward) not to take medication (or follow medical regimes) prescribed for them, unless they have been sectioned. And considering the stresses on mental health services locally this should not be done just to tidy up the neighbourhood. I refer you to the excellent film 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' for a view on this.

The map is interactive and can show the current and revised wards Indeed - but the words used to describe it are 'final proposals' and final recommendations (in a link). As I read it this words do not mean (but maybe are intended to?) - 'final agreed changes'. I'm assuming, from what James B says, that that is what they are (the final deal) but the words don't quite say that. Hence me saying 'I can't find an up to date link' which clearly states these are the wards for and from the 2018 London elections.

Nevertheless, this constant reporting on his every movement and location looks a lot like (albeit benevolent) cyber stalking. Perhaps we should afford him some privacy. Numbers of people and institutions seem to have offered him help, some of which he accepts, others not. That is his right and privilege as a free man in our society. Those whose help he accepts are offering him that help. His may be an untidy life, but it seems mainly to be of his choice, and it isn't (should not be?) our job to 'tidy' him up.

I suspect that they are using Dawson Heights as their 'Hill'. It is sort of central to the new Ward.

I don't believe this is just a change of ward name but also of ward boundaries. So it is not just College becomes Dulwich Wood, as some of College becomes Dulwich Hill (eh, what's that when it's at home?) And 'East Dulwich' is not entirely contiguous with Goose Green which does replace much of it. I can't find an up to date map, but attached is a link to the proposal map. https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/5979

... And their job will be done