Penguin68

If it was intended as a crude caltrop its size is about right.

So implementing a parking zone from 11am to 1pm would address this and not impact local use too much, which is what I was in favour of. It must be remembered that many people who service us in ED (in shops, cafes & restaurants, in schools, in the NHS etc. in lawyers and accountants etc. etc.) need to come in to ED and for many of them the transport system does not support an easy commute between ED and where they live - so they drive-in. They are commuters certainly, but for our benefit - we are the end of their commute. When I worked in another part of SE London my drive was 15-20 minutes - any public transport commute could not be achieved in under 90! (because I wanted to travel East - West - not into or out of Central London or the City). It also involved both buses and trains and 2-3 changes (depending on whether trains were running or not that day).

...though it has to be said that the time chosen will impact commuters coming in to the area to use the station (if there are any) but not most casual visitors and shoppers, tradesmen etc. (apart from a long lunch break being required). In Ladywell the time chosen (apparently justified as excluding commuters wishing to use the station) is 9.00am-7.00pm Monday to Friday which is draconian.

That looks like a black rat (Rattus Rattus or the larger R. Norvegicus?). I have only seen brown rats about locally, including one walking insouciently up the divide in the Belair car park. The black rat (ship rat) was suggested as a vector for the Great Plague of 1665.

It looks to me like a homemade caltrop. Left possibly to puncture tyres.

Even if the decision goes in favour of reopening it is most unlikely the bridge will be sufficiently repaired to open the road to limited traffic in under 6 months - so I suspect the new signage will 'cost-in' even if it is later removed - it will have to be replaced anyway with some signage about weight restrictions etc. But for those wishing to scrutinise the decision making process here - keep on scrutinising. The simple move now would be to support the status quo (bridge closed) and do nothing. In which case, let's not keep it simple, stupid.

What is the mot emission test for? Are they not the same thing as this T charge? The MOT test is for an individual vehicle and tests whether it is meeting that vehicle's (and road legal) standards - some which are engineered to meet the Euro 4/IV standards will fail them and need repair. The MOT test checks road legal emissions. The T Charge is looking at classes of vehicles to determine whether they have been engineered to a higher (now) than road legal standard. It assumes that vehicles engineered to the standard which are emitting more than these standards will be picked op on during MOT tests. So MOT is about Road Legal, and the T charge about a general standard higher than road legal.

And the money for the rent and a manager would come from where? Presumably from the revenues and profits of being a bookshop?

Having lived all my life in hard water areas I actually find naturally 'soft' water (sans limescale) quite soapy in taste. But I don't expect to be killed by either.

As most will know, the new T Charge starts today - it is headlined as effecting cars registered pre 2006, but in fact (although cars from 2006 had to be engineered to the Euro 4/ IV standard) some pre 2006 cars were also engineeered to the higher standard. It is worth checking https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/emissions-surcharge/compliance-checker if your car is compliant or not; I was pleased to discover that my petrol car, pre 2006 registered, in fact was compliant and therefore not subject to the additional charge.

I have lived all my life in hard water areas. I'm fine (so far) - and it's been close to 70 years. Some people find that if they move to a different area they can get a stomach upset by a change of mineral content in water (I've heard that of Moscow water) - but that's a short term effect. London water actually hasn't been through seven people before it gets to you (that's a myth) and it is most unlikely to precipitate illness in anyone. It does however cause water staining on surfaces and can gunge up kettles (and central heating pipes). There are perfectly good reasons to soften hard water, but very rarely health related.

Two thirds of people with asthma have their suffering increased by air pollution! Whilst that is probably true, only 25% of air pollution seems to be caused by vehicles, and the most significant problem here is with diesel vehicles, producing NOx (which is definitely a pollutant). I don't drive a diesel - and a discouragement on the use of diesel cars would be welcomed; it is unfortunate that in fighting non polluting CO2 the government has managed to substantially up actual pollution levels. To attack all vehicles as being a significant cause of asthma is not correct. [CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but NOT a pollutant].

The key is having a planting theme for each road agreed in advance rather than throwing random trees into random pits across the ward, Couldn't agree more.

It would be good if the powers that be actually recorded the reasons for removing trees (which they may do) - some are of course legitimate, and disease problems could preclude either like-for-like replacement, or perhaps (e.g. honey fungus) any replacement at all. It would also be nice to see evidence of planning the street environment - so looking at what the range of trees in a street are and what they offer. At the moment for instance Court Lane is a good example of exciting planting for autumn colour, although many trees are on on private rather than public land.

Yes, people are using literally four hundred and fifty times more power - Actually, fit and healthy people are using... Try being old, infirm, asthmatic, rheumatic, living in the hilly bits of SE London (surprisingly many), having to move shopping, equipment, other people even more infirm etc. around. Try stepping into another's shoes, if only for a second or two. Yes, of course, for the youngish and fit cycling is a good option, but not, for instance, for the very elderly cyclist I was driving behind a couple of weeks ago who fell off his bike (quite badly) when he tried to pull into a kerb, and, when several people helped him back onto his feet, insisted on continuing to weave - I was going to say through traffic, but actually just along the road. No doubt he had bought into the cycling story - but really, perhaps he shouldn't have. I am in favour of a mixed economy, where different road users are allowed to coexist, exercising their choices on how to get about. Anti-social by design and by definition (convertibles with the roof down aside) If a car, carrying up to 4 or 5 people, is 'anti-social', how much more so must a single user bicycle be? - And how many conversations with strangers have you struck up in a London tube or bus (or train) recently.

So if people have houses or flats that are not in cul-de-sacs they have no right to campaign for their streets to be cleaner, quieter and safer? Gotcha. In fact, you have, ONLY, if the ONLY route to CQS is to institute borough wide cul-de-sacs. In which case I hope you are protesting, loudly, at all expenditure proposals under the CQS banner which are not devoted to cul-de-sac creation. I would be very happy, personally, if pedestrians were stopped from walking down my street, peering into windows and dragging pooping dogs behind them. That, for me, would make my street cleaner (definitely), quieter (no barking) and safer (few houses are actually robbed by passing cars). It tends to be pedestrians who break into houses (even where they additionally have wheeled transport). As a pedestrian I could also argue that my life would be safer without any traffic, including of course bicycles. Why should they be excused 'no entry' into cul-de-sac roads - they are vehicles after all, with expensive dedicated roads for which they do not have to pay. Or maybe I'd look for ways of creating a CQS environment which didn't chose one group of citizens to inconvenience above all others.

Of course it would be a contentious process deciding which roads were allocated "resident cars only" status (for that would be effectively what they would be) and, as this discussion shows, there would be much anger and resentment from those who didn't get it. But one feels it's a discussion worth having, rather than resigning oneself to every residential area being a free-for-all in terms of motor vehicle access. And of course once a 'main' road was blocked by road works or whatever (as for instance Underhill and Barry both have been during this year alone) - the sealing off of 'residential' roads save for the lucky few would lead to complete gridlock, with individuals unable to get to their own homes because they are blocked from passing others'. If people want to live in cul-de-sacs they should buy houses in them. Not retro-fit cul-de-sacs around them.

That is often the cause, yes, but now the structural weakness has been caused, then pure load may cause further degradation. Whilst this is so, point pressure is important - 10 people are unlikely to walk so close together that they occupy the same road space as a single car. In fact, to further obviate the issue some form of lightweight spreader plate could further ease the point pressure. In practical terms I assume that the 'small cars' restriction assumes that small cars may actually queue (nose to tail) over the bridge and still not cause a collapse, which is a much higher weight on the structure than just a single small car.

Generally the police accept a 5%-10% error in speed indicators in cars - so in a 20mph zone going 2mph over the limit will not trigger a prosecution. Nor will 7mph over the limit in a 70mph zone.

Also street art is meant to be temporary not guarded and revered like the bleeding Sistine chapel That might be true of some types of street art - but think of the exterior detail (including bas relief etc.) on some buildings, particularly Victorian and earlier - that is 'street art' - that is art designed to be seen by those outside a property - and is very much not to be considered temporary - neither, for instance, is signage - such as pub signs - again 'street art' - just not one type of street art. The pictures (albeit some by 'street artists' such as Stik) that we are talking about - murals inspired by (not commissioned by) the Dulwich Picture Gallery were all painted with permission of the wall owners - they are not wild graffiti tagging which can be temporary (ideally most of which are extremely temporary). These were all intended to be long term additions to the street environment around Dulwich and East Dulwich.

All local network is delivered to domestic premises either by BT/ Openreach (which has a Universal Service Obligation) or by NTL/ Virgin - who provide where they can make money, mainly in cities and conurbations. Only services branded Virgin are delivered over the Virgin local network (which is not required to open its network to others) - all other services, whatever their brand, if delivered over landlines/ fibre are delivered by Openreach. Some terminate on equipment in exchanges (racks) which are provided and maintained by third party suppliers (local loop unbundling), others will be a service fully managed on behalf of a wholesale customer by BT wholesdale. BT itself operates, as a retail service, Plusnet, as well as its own branded broadband service. If you choose any supplier other than Virgin for a landline delivered service it is BT Group's network you will be using (and BT is a significant supplier of network to mobile companies linking their cell towers). Supply into the business market is more complex.

Any area may be in one of three modes - stasis; gentrification (improvement?); decay. Some clearly prefer stasis (but in fact that can rarely be achieved and many would consider it unattractive) - in which case of the choices gentrification or decay I would prefer gentrification. Stasis can only work/ will only happen when the population is entirely static, and when the economy is stagnant - if you live in a dynamic city (and I like doing so) then change is inevitable, and I would prefer change to be improving, not decaying, my environment.

Actually, the types of shops that have odd or eccentric opening hours are antique and second hand furniture shops - often of a very un-gentrified nature and operated by people either as hobbies or by people who are otherwise at sales or fairs or out buying. There used to be a number in LL - now all overtaken by regularly open 'gentrified' outlets. It is gentrification and rising rents/ rates which tend to drive these occasional outlets away.

Is this one of the junctions that the council is proposing to extend the no parking yellow lines?

A bark mulch would be a likely growing medium for fungi. Depending on the size of your dog a relatively small amount which might not be too harmful to human adults could well be so to a small dog. Fungi can often look (and indeed, to a dog) smell attractive. Truffles are hunted out by dogs. Outwith the intentional placing of poison, the advice - 'it's your responsibility' - seems fair.