Penguin68

The police can change their internal operational 'rules' at any time - hence the armed force now deciding that in certain circumstances shooting at moving vehicles will be acceptable (following the Westminster Bridge attack). However there is always a need to balance security with safety (and justice) - to cause the death or serious injury of a moped criminal may not be considered a proportionate response. Better to track them (e.g.with helicopters) on the basis that they have to stop eventually and can then be more safely seized. Of course this means that at times the little sh1ts get away with it, but on balance this may be better in a civilised society. However I believe that sometimes this 'use of appropriate response force' may have segued into 'don't really bother even to try, we probably won't catch them' - and this isn't an acceptable police response. I would like to know, where police could be in a 'hot pursuit' mode how frequently they have pulled back and not tried alternative methods (i.e. following/ tracking and later arrest). I also wonder whether the police could, for instance, spray the criminals with dye or marker, without intercepting their vehicles, so as to later identify them more readily.

Hi P68, I'll ask why these details are being asked for. It'll be quite simple. The Council has a standard demographic and diversity set of questions which they boilerplate (without thought) into all surveys. That's simpler than actually exercising thought in choosing questions which might remotely be relevant, and no one gets fired for using the full set. A sad comment on laziness trumping thought, and why so many people's jobs can be replaced by machines.

The requirement in the survey to know my religion and sexual orientation seems unnecessary on a survey about dog management. Since this is a self chosen survey response (no sampling) there can be no accusation of intentional bias in recruiting respondents - and clearly these facts are likely to be irrelevant to any analysis. Sometimes the dog-whistle (see what I did there) need to include this sort of data in surveys where it is wholly irrelevant really really annoys me.

Although her creative support and stimulation of the street art is perhaps her most visible impact on our community, she was much involved in many other aspects - even a driving force behind the monthly open film club The Bigger Picture at the EDT. It seems a very fitting comment on her impact that so many people are having to stand in to 'back-fill' what she did so willingly and well.

Don't buy something you'll be bored with or outgrow powerwise in six months. I'm not a biker (but I am a buyer of stuff) and I would suggest not buying something which you will only use very rarely to the full - so if you are mainly going to be a commuter than buying a big touring bike may be too much, unless you know that you will be taking it touring every holiday. There's only so much power you can use in a 20mph limited world. I have found that, as a car driver, hiring out-of-the-ordinary stuff when I need it is a better (financial) bet. Of course you don't want to buy something which makes your every-day use less enjoyable, safe, etc. (i.e. you don't absolutely need power steering on a car, but it really makes driving more pleasurable). And of course buying something which is multi-purpose may well be a good thing, as long as those are really purposes you will explore.

Sorry, genuinely confused - have they been more active elsewhere? I haven't noticed much. Earlier links suggest that there has been quite a lot on Twitter - with ssw's 'onlie begetter' seeking the identities behind a number of ED posters, including me. As I don't do social networking (I'm not sure I count the EDF as such) I have been blissfully unaware of this.

As described it's a different vehicle (beamer and merc both mentioned) and a different sequence of rescue. So if it is the same incident it shows how witnesses can have very different takes on the same incident. If two incidents then one may have led to the other, either directly (one car avoiding another) - or if later then if one was a diesel which then spilled the other may have lost control in the diesel slick. Be interesting to know. I do hope anyone involved is recovering and wasn't too badly injured. One report suggested that the driver 'box' (of one car if there was more than one) didn't seem badly compromised.

Are you sure it's not a shower pump? Those can be noisy, particularly if they aren't put onto some sort of noise insulation pad.

Her's is a very sad loss to our entire neighbourhood, but so much more so to her family.

Thank you, Admin; that was 'sort-of' the reason I started this thread in the first place, following the effective collapse of an earlier thread into abuse and accusation. Outwith general (and lounge-able) discussions about burial mores and trends, there are some specific ED issues about our cemeteries and how they are being treated/ developed which are worth keeping live. In particular I would like to see some real detail about the proposed re-planting - species/ design etc. and what impact potential climate change is having on those decisions. And also whether keeping a (very small) plot of scrub - assuming that new burials can take place around it, to maintain diversity which its complete eradication might lose - is possible.

If it is true that the noise profile of the pub has changed significantly since someone moved close to it (and assuming that complaints only started when it was clear that this change was permanent) then the complainer has some more right on their side than has previously been assumed by many posters. If. But, and in general, if you are close to useful facilities (be that pubs or late night shops or whatever) - then you trade disturbance for convenience. To choose to live somewhere and then try to change it to more closely match your real needs (having perhaps obtained your property at prices which reflect the current realities) is less than admirable (as those who have tried to make 'their' streets private to them, or to exclude others from using them e.g.to park may wish to note).

"proposals for tree felling which go beyond what has clearly been identified ... may require to be approved by faculty." I'm afraid that the Diocese may have been misleading you and themselves. They have no jurisdiction covering trees in municipal cemeteries (they do in their own parish cemeteries) other than, possibly in cases where removal of trees would disturb remains or grave furniture - i.e. trees growing out of graves. Technically they may have to give a facility on those occasions - but it seems most unlikely they wouldn't (such trees should never have been allowed to grow there in the first place in a properly managed facility). I suspect that they may also have been misled, as was ssw, by Diocese rules governing Diocese rights in parish ground being extended to all cemeteries. They aren't.

I quote directly from the letter sent to me from the CEO's office. It may refer to on-site secure parking (in mitigation) which I would not know about The main driving reason to relocate is size. East Dulwich Delivery Office does not have enough capacity for the increase in parcels and doesn?t have sufficient parking for our vehicles. Peckham Delivery Office has the capacity to alleviate all these issues.

and the Church has final say over trees over 75mm in diameter In its own (parish) lands - NOT in municipal cemeteries, or even just in the consecrated areas of those cemeteries. This 'fact' has been drawn from a document which refers to parish land only (and was - once - actually cited by ssw which is why I know their source for this). Either they cannot read (or don't bother to read fully) or they know that they are perpetuating an untruth. Why they think this will endear them to church authorities bewilders me. I believe this started as an honest confusion (because I like to think well of people) but it has gone far beyond that now.

Sorry - parking problems for their own vans...

I have also received a reply from the CEO's office - not a clone of the recent one quoted which is a good sign. No differences in view where they match (i.e. final decision not taken) - but mine concentrated on their alternatives (delivery to a different person/ on a different day etc.). I have responded by saying that for working people (most of those possibly receiving mail) Saturday would be the only viable alternative delivery day, and it is likely most would have alternative addresses also lived in by working people with the same restraints. With a collection office so far away/ difficult to get to from ED they couldn't expect people to try to pick up first thing in the morning on weekdays, so probably their Saturday Postmen (and Saturday collection office staff) would expect to be very busy. I again asked why they could not do a deal with Post Office Counters to act as a collection point (as they do for Parcel Force). It was perhaps an irony that one of the reasons given for the need to move from Silvester was parking problems - precisely what they are wishing to impose on their customers!

It is not just being on the inside of a large vehicle which is a danger to two wheelers - I was struck (on a moped) by an artic's trailer when on the right of it - when it swung out as the artic. turned left - I was too far ahead to see him signalling (and couldn't have done much anyway had I seen it, as I had nowhere to go to avoid the trailer at that stage), and his cab had turned sufficiently that I was no longer visible in his mirror (which I had been before he made the turn). I was not expecting him to turn (we were in queued traffic at lights on a narrow-ish road) - but I was still in a dangerous road position (and I had not worked out just how much the trailer might swing into my lane on that manoeuvre). Didn't make that mistake again (I was knocked off my bike, but no real damage to it or me). Two wheelers and large trucks do not come well together, and simple physics says that it is the two wheel driver who has most to lose and is at most risk in any encounter. So (very) cautious driving should be the rule of the day for the two-wheeler. Being 'in the right' is no real recompense. Which is not to say that bad or reckless driving by HGV drivers should not be punished. Nor that additional warning signs and voiced warnings are not appropriate or necessary.

and parts of Peckham Rye, Nunhead Cemetery and Camberwell Cemetery - This is an odd note - there is no 'Camberwell Cemetery' - you would refer either to the Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries (or specifically to just one of them) - or possibly just to 'the Camberwell Cemeteries'. Was Camberwell actually meant? I think that Nunhead may not be the only closed cemetery in Southwark. If there is another one it may have been that which was meant.

Bad timing of Mrs May - this may not be the best moment to divert the attention of Ms Hayes and Mr Barber away from the Sorting Office(s) closure towards trivial issues of national elections. Hey ho.

Today we warned the Church of England that Southwark Council intends to cut down hundreds more trees in Areas J, K and L of Camberwell Old Cemetery without needed permission. Sorry if I go back over (very) old ground. (1) The C of E has an interest only in the consecrated areas of municipal cemeteries. I do not believe there are consecrated parts in J K and L - even if there are, only parts of those areas will be consecrated (as only parts were in Areas Z and D where a faculty has been granted). (2) That interest is restricted to the the disturbance of burials (bodies), disturbances to grave furniture (monuments) and the creation of any paths or roadways in the consecrated area (as that would restrict the land that can be used for burials). (3) Whilst the Diocese has an interest in trees within parish church (i.e. their own) lands and must give permission for trees above certain dimensions to be cut on this land, this interest does not extend to consecrated land in municipal cemeteries. ssw has in the past made this confusion and has (wrongly) cited the document relating to parish land as if it referred to municipal cemetery lands. Southwark Borough Council is the authority to give permission to gardening and arboriculture plans within its own municipal parks and cemeteries. Not the Diocese of Southwark. If ssw really has been warning the Diocese about matters outwith its (the Diocese) remit or scope - more fool them.

I get the impression that burying bodies on top of one another is the root of SSW objections to the council's plans No. I'm afraid its simply yet another dog whistle in their root objection which is the continuance of any burials at all in these cemeteries, or indeed any in Southwark, and the conversion of all Southwark cemeteries, but particularly these ones, into parks and recreation areas so that they can picnic. Family plots, for instance, have always had burials close to/ on top of each other. They also wish no tree clearance, for any reasons, so also the wilding of these areas such that (look at the bits in Camberwell Old Cemetery) they become impenetrable (and hence no good for recreation) - but don't expect consistency or logic in all this. This started as an objection to proposed tree cutting and clearance in bits of the cemeteries (very small areas, proportionally) which had been woefully neglected - but spun very quickly out of control.

This correspondence rather ignores the fact that the 176 Northbound in the early evenings (which is when I use it) regularly terminates well away from its sign-boarded destination (the destination signed when I have boarded it in East Dulwich). More often than not, in my experience, it terminates on Waterloo Bridge (north end), rather than reaching its initially intended destination - which means that as a route into the West End/ Charing Cross Road it is a failure. With fewer buses the wait for one which is actually going where it promises will be even more extended I fear. It would be interesting to know what %age of buses are re-designated whilst on their journey - that is how many have to change their destination sign during their journey. The one-hour re-use rule was, I'm sure, a remedy to the cost of re-issuing tickets for early terminated trips - far too common on this and other routes (i.e. 63) in my experience.

Actually - although these are 'lies' they are very creative - the whole campaign is about creating an entirely false sense of reality - where the scrub growth in the cemeteries (through wrecked graves) becomes a gentle natural woodland, full of beneficent wild-life and native species, a delight to the eye and the other senses - and where Southwark's work to reclaim actually only a very small percentage of the cemeteries not now fully managed (and to replant) becomes a work of wholesale devastation and destruction. The fact that most of the 'thousands' of burials to be mounded over or recovered are in fact in unmarked graves is glossed over - you can't see them now and you won't see them then - (and I think that the council far from 'digging-up' private graves will be following the lift and deepen policy so that the bodies will remain buried in the same spots, but deeper, so not really 'dug-up' for more than a few hours - and those only where the last burial in the grave was 75 or more years ago and thus mostly without any mourner who would have known them). The picture carefully painted seems plausible (if you don't know the truth) and is what has stimulated many to join in to support ssw - they believe what they are told, not what is actually there. That's how propaganda works, and I admire Lewis for his careful scripting of what is, in fact, a false prospectus. His attempts to paint those who oppose him as rogues and crooks (for which, of course, he needs to find our identities) belongs to this same propaganda tradition.

This is a confusion of the story that a young William Blake 'saw angels' on Peckham Rye (a story which is anyway disputed as being a true account of what he said he saw, or indeed if he said he saw anything). In his day the cemetery spaces would have been the open meadows and farm land (not woodland) which were later bought for the cemeteries to be created.

beautiful native woods that Southwark intends to cut down next These 'woods' are the result of sapling growth - based on seeds (and suckers) of trees planted locally in the last 150 years, particularly by the cemetery managers. I am sure that many of these are 'native' species but they are not, I believe, exclusively 'native woods' as described. They certainly have Japanese Knotweed (not native). Southwark is clearing part of the sites certainly (not quite 'cutting down woods' as described, but certainly so in some parts, and thinning elsewhere) - it should be remembered that Southwark's plans include replanting - with the threat of climate change not necessarily, I hope, just with native species, but those best placed to cope with possibly changing environment over the next century or more. I would also argue that the 'beauty' of the area is in the eye of the beholder. Many of the trees are growing far too close together (any even wood management - let alone cemetery management - would be thinning these) - there is little room now for the sort of under-planting that normal wood management (if that's what you want, which I don't) would require to deliver 'beauty'.