Penguin68

Don't keep her trapped under a glass (she needs oxygen); don't put her outside, she will die in the cold; give her a small amount of heavily sugared water (or even honey) - in a teaspoon in front of her; leave her in the drawer in the dark (drawer probably very slightly open). With luck she will go back to sleep and wake up normally in the spring. Only bumble queens over-winter.

For those worried about the invasion of the faceless chains it is worth remembering that the reason we have so few in LL is that the footprints of most premises are too small for chains to bother. This keeps independants here, but of course the size of establishments does restrict their opportunities and range. As rents are reviewed (and will go up) older establishments will find that their revenues per square foot (or area unit of your choice) will move out of equilibrium with their rentals. This means either moving into higher value sales (not easy for a florist) or increasing throughput dramatically (ditto). The penalties for living in a vibrant and 'improving' area are that certain types of retail outlet are priced out. Not helped when they are competed with by companies (i.e M&S) with a wider range of items for sale, some of which are of much higher unit value per sales space occupied. In some other areas landlords have discovered that moving from retail (or commercial) into domestic usage is far more lucrative - hence the loss of shops in many of the small areas around us (Underhill, Wood Vale etc.).

Actually, their product (high end fresh pasta and sauces) would fit very well with the Franklyn's Farm Shop ranges - they would have been far better offering product (but not then a 'dining experience') through that established shop with an established clientele, not frightened of premium pricing. If they could have persuaded the shop to carry their range. By trying to export a 'formula' without considering how that formula actually worked they made a classic mistake. They understood some of the local market needs (many have used this forum to say they liked the product), but not really the market circumstances - or the wider customer needs.

Issues of quality and value apart, the business model for this doesn?t work. It was set up for an area with a high/ high value passing (particularly lunchtime) trade ? where people would be looking for a quick and easy lunch (in) or for easily portable ingredients to take home from work for a quick meal there ? very much the passing trade of an area with a high intensity of (relatively well paid) office staff. This isn?t the LL demographic. Although the age/ wealth profile in LL is close ? the sort of passing trade is much more yummy mummy (long chats over a light lunch with buggies) ? which it wasn?t set up for. And if you are cooking partly at least for children the costs/ quality don?t add-up either. ?6 for pasta for two is fine for dinkies, but doesn?t make sense for the LL demographic on anything except an occasional basis. ? So ? good shop, wrong location, wrong customer base.

Can I just remind everyone that the dreaded commuters who who all want to be rid of so that we can live in local streets parked in by local people include school teachers, doctors, nurses, shop workers, restaurant staff, plumbers, electricians - all those people who serve this ED community and without whom our lives would be considerably worse. Many commuters are not commuting through but commuting to ED. And if they live east: west of us, rather than north: south it is very likely they are poorly served, if at all, by convenient public transport.

I am assuming that the Gowlett did not open a week before Christmas as was being suggested... Are there any helpful updates as to whether it still will open, at some time?

Actually the TVs may cause distractions to those patients very aware that they are ill and worried - I imagine there are actual research findings on this sort of thing, but taking people's minds off their immediate problems or concerns is not a bad thing - indeed even if it hugely annoys you that is a distraction in itself. There are clearly ways in which the admin could be more effective - paper and posting must be more expensive than e-mail (the letters will have been prepared on a computer and presumably are stored digitally) - so long as those for whom e-mails are not something they want or are used to are catered for the remainder might well opt-in for electronic communication with some savings for the Trust.

Post Office Counters (the branches) and the Royal Mail (letters and small packages) and Post Office Parcels operate separately, as I understand it (although those names may now have changed). So branch closures and problems with postal collections and deliveries should not be impacting each other, at least in finance terms.

A cynic and conspiracy theorist might consider that the accelerated failures at Silvester Road were being engineered to increase unhappiness in the 'served' - and I use that word quite wrongly - public in SE22 and reconcile them to the move to Peckham. My experience of the delivery staff on our walk is still very positive - particularly my regular postman, and I have found the staff in the sorting office beleaguered but generally still polite and as positive as they could be. But of course the PO will be making no further investments in trying to sort difficulties in Silvester Road as they have abandoned their commitment to it.

Do you mean by 'online' via a smart meter? - in which case I think that may be right, it should also be possible to diagnose errors remotely. With a dumb meter the meter must be read at least once a year. Additionally gas meters may need to be physically checked in case of issues with gas leakage. Meters are anyway replaced on a regular basis (though not frequently).

I regularly send them readings online - but they have to occasionally check them. Indeed there is a legal obligation - where there are not smart meters installed - for there to be a 'real' meter reading at least annually. Smart meters are anyway not that smart, and the ones rolled out so far are not universally compatible, so if you change supplier your smart meter may no longer be any use. I would be loathe to put someone else's communicating IT into my home. Particularly where you have no control over it (in terms of what it communicates etc.) The 'control' which is offered is your ability to turn off lights if you think you are spending too much. Actual control of the communicating computer in your home sits with the supplier and anyone able to hack your supplier.

Oh yes of course, thanks.

It also happened to the pub (can't even remember its name) on the corner of Woodvale and Langton Rise on the Lewisham side. Next to Libretto's.

Can I remind forumites that Peckhampam appears to be a public governor of the Trust and has asked for any input specific to the trust from local people for whom Kings is their key hospital. Debates about foreign aid are no doubt interesting but perhaps not specific enough to our local circumstances. I personally have found their reorganisation of A&E to be effective, at least at times of relatively low demand (weekday mornings). However waiting times to see consultants/ specialists on non-life threatening issues (I cannot speak for life threatening issues) seems to be extending. And I have found that their clerical organisation and record keeping (and their own internal communications) - at least in one specific department - appear chaotic, generating more work for themselves by failing to provide the right information in a timely manner to patients.

No one is asking for the pub to be closed - just for it to be respectful towards its neighbours. One possible outcome of a licence review is that it is withdrawn.

Actually I think you'll find that 8,000 people don't take up that much space. But this maybe a useful link. http://www.gkstill.com/Support/crowd-density/CrowdDensity-1.html As I am lazy, do they state the size of the area which is to be used for the event, and whether the 8000 figure is attendance over the event, or maximum attendance at any one time (different things).

And we are frittering away ?1BN per month on the fatuous foreign aid programme. just to show the world how virtuous and caring we are. What a bunch of idiots run this country. Because, after all, if things are too difficult at home, they can always come over here and find a living. As they have done and will.

Yes, let's just close the pub. Good call. Many more (though less than when I first moved in) to be closed in ED. Then we can finally get some peace and quiet around here.

I think it might very much depend what their target market is here. I know a number of 'retirement gap-year' couples and singles - obviously as these are UK based they wouldn't be looking for this, necessarily, but their travelling counter-parts from other countries might. If they set the price right (and get the offer 'up market' for this sort of accommodation) then I don't think the fears being voiced here would necessarily materialise. It might even address some of the airb'n'b market - where there are singles rather than groups. Whilst some types of occupant might be 'disruptive' to neighbours, I can think of others that clearly wouldn't be. And if you like the pub in its new incarnation then revenue streams which will allow it to continue are surely a good thing? The 'old fashioned pub' has real survival issues (look at the number which have closed/ are under threat) - re-inventing the business model may be a necessary lifeline. Trying to stop it may succeed in killing off the pub anyway. Which is what some people will want, of course.

Having read the attachments (thanks for the link, Peckhampam) I am assuming that the CQC is assuming that a fiscal deficit will necessarily lead to a reduction in patient care - since there is no evidence being presented at the moment (that I can see) that such a reduction is taking place (or has taken place). My own, very recent, experience in King's A&E - where I was seen by a doctor in under 90 minutes - suggests that the 4 hour targets - at least on a weekday morning - are being easily met, although waits to see consultants in some other areas (to my knowledge) are getting longer. I assume, as governors, that you are seeing where in the Trust the fiscal pressures are coming (overspends against budgets), and will know whether, as I have hypothesised above, there is a PFI element to this. Of the 4 main current account budget heads (Land & Buildings, Staff, Equipment, Consumables) there is always a concern that Staff costs are less easy to budget for, as with any given head-count requirement it makes a significant difference whether this is being met by contracted (employed) staff or by temporary staff - on an hourly basis normally more expensive for non-outsourced work areas. Again, unanticipated increases in the costs of, or demand for, consumables - such as drugs - must be an issue. In a sane world (with a National Health System) you would need to match what is done against what needs/ should be done and cut anything which is done but shouldn't (didn't need) to be done - which would include 'nice to' rather than 'need to' items. But we know that prevention (with costs now) pays in over time against having to deal with preventable outcomes. But Budgets are annual, not generational. Which maybe means that you do need a government input to review the cost: operational: funding model. It is that model that Kings is failing against. Maybe the model needs changing.

The financial problem would appear to be significantly associated with the Princess Royal in Bromley - rather than Kings in Southwark. It would not surprise me to learn that PFI costs were contributory. The government has already stepped in by removing wholly independent decision making from the Trust (which is what special measures means, really). I doubt whether creditors will be impacted (this isn't a bankruptcy) - which is sad if it also excludes looking at PFI deals - nor would there necessarily be any impact on staff or services at Kings itself. Although there might be. Kings is part of the government response planning for major incidents etc. That will not be jeopardised, or at least not knowingly. This move appears to be all about financing and not about the way the hospitals were being run operationally - unlike some special measures moves.

Transport in London (and indeed in the UK) is City of Westminster/ City of London centric - the majority of public transport routes head towards that. So, living south we find east: west travel problematical - if you lived in Ealing getting east into Town isn't an issue, but travelling north and south is and so on. Double decker busses with us head into Town, it is the single decker (and less frequent) busses that tend to have more of an east:west orientation. Hence we get the ridiculous situation when for many Londoners it is easier to travel into Town and then out again to get to some places than to try to get there directly. [The east: west Jubilee line (via Canada Water) has been a real boon for me]. To get to most places I need to change transport at least once, more often twice - but then even amongst the 'tubed' several changes are quite common. What I find infuriating in ED are not the public transport routes per se - but the inability frequently to deliver against the promises of these routes. As I have said before.

Surely it should be taken as read that whatever option is mentioned is suggested for those who are able to take it, or does "if you're able to" have to be added every time cycling's mentioned, and if so shouldn't that be done every time driving or walking is suggested also? Absolutely endorse this - if everyone who could cycle or walk to work did so - then maybe I'd get a bl**dy seat sometimes!

For the avoidance of doubt, Forest Hill Road leads towards Forest Hill, as Oxford Street leads towards Oxford. Forest Hill could have had an East Dulwich St. But chose not to. As it was already called Forest Hill Road! (Actually of course the major route into Forest Hill is London Road. Which earlier in its career is Lordship Lane).