Penguin68

Veolia have been aiming for the first Wednesday in each month for their Dog Kennel Hill Sainsbury's car park collection - from about 10.00. This is a grace and favour offer of car park space from Sainsbury's.

Go away you have nothing of any value to add to this thread. If that were so (I'm not sure it is) that would not put edcam in a minority, as regards posts on this thread. Surely, Admin it is time to close this thread down or Lounge it. It has been off-topic or virtually so for pages.

yes that's exactly what isn't helpful because as I explained it's not a uk .gov list it's something written by people who have no legal basis for their views as such it's almost worthless This is simply rubbish - both articles are excessively referenced, from authoritative sources, and with bibliographies. You judge the quality of Wikipedia articles by the quality of their sources. These are both good. [i write as both a former academic and an historian]. And your view that something published on the (non peer reviewed) government website is somehow more authoritative than other sources is naive. Even for government publications the source of their information is key.

you have confirmed my suspicions that the baker hasn't done anything wrong Are, here you are confusing morality with legality. But then confusion often seems the name of your game. I have already said that context is key in determining whether legal breaches have been made (and moral, for that matter). Screen capture to illustrate a morally doubtful action is very different, in intent, from screen capture to endorse it. As it would also be for an illegal one.

Whilst I would not normally recommend Wikipedia as an authoritative source, these two articles are well referenced and may help those confused or dismissive about traveller populations to gain a better understanding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Travellers

Pop9770/ Fazer wrote Travelers they break the law. NO - some may, as may individuals drawn from almost any sort of grouping you put together, but their nature as travellers is not, in any way, illegal. I know this is trolling, and, frankly, unpleasant, but you should not think that assertions of this displeasing nature will go unnoticed. As far as 'illegal' language is concerned, context can be key, but I would advise you that 'hate crimes' are determined by the responses of those to whom they may be seen to be directed. If a Roma wishes to make the case that the use of the word Gyppo in the context that it is being used is a hate crime, then the police would have to take notice of that.

I use Direct Line - no complaints - they offer cover for most eventualities.

A similar term used by the French for Brits is les Rosbifs. - And also 'Lobsters' because of the red coats worn by the British army.

'Gypsy' - out of interest, is derived from Egyptian, which was believed to be the country of origin of the Roma - now actually believed to be from around the Northern Indus valley, I understand. 'Gyppo' is also a slang word thus for Egyptian, and was used thus by troops in North Africa e.g. during WWII, and indeed Suez. Its usage is not considered appropriate for either group. 'Acceptable' language of course does change. When I was young, referring to someone from the Caribbean, or an African or African American as 'black' was considered offensive. 'Coloured' was the preferred genteel (now PC) term - this has now been entirely stood on its head.

we live right underneath the flight path but in our neighbour's house across the road, it doesn't seem half as bad; you can hardly notice it in their garden. As you said, it may be a psychological thing - when you are at your neighbours' you have other distractions so the aircraft noise may become less important to you - at home you can concentrate on it. I normally only 'hear' the planes (consciously) when I am reading these threads - on other occasions I am oblivious - although I find police helicopters overhead really annoying! Finding ways of diverting your thoughts away from planes ('don't think of pink elephants') may be a solution, but one difficult to achieve. Maybe Mindfulness could help? For us in ED things are actually very different from those recognised to be in the sound shadow much closer to the airport - many here can ignore the planes - which is like trying to ignore a police helicopter just overhead if you are much closer to Heathrow itself.

This is the link to the various options https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/++preview++/environment-leisure/camberwell-new-cemetery-consultation/supporting_documents/Area%20B%20options%20pros%20and%20cons%20summary%20October%202016.pdf The Woodland option has the lowest overall cost, but the highest cost per burial. The 'cons' are listed as follows:- Provides only 1050 burial plots/internment spaces Highest cost per burial Absence of traditional memorials could make it difficult to sell plots Those who want to visit the grave may be unable to identify the exact plot Trees substantially limit the ability to re-use graves Longest time to reach maturity Revenue costs (management of woodland) greater than options 2 & 3 The pros are:- Lowest total cost Trees planted across the site Pond feature added Pedestrian and cycle pathways added from Honor Oak Responds well to consultation by creating a fully wooded area, without traditional memorials The pond and pathways are also pros for the meadow scheme.

If we do not vote for option 4 the council could choose one of the other, less environmentally-friendly, options to the detriment of the ecology and wildlife of the area. There is no evidence that a wood is more environmentally-friendly than a meadow. Nor that re-use of burial land is not environmentally friendly in its own right. Indeed, if the wrong (non-native) trees are brought in a wood may be far more unfriendly to native species than a meadow. I am not sure anyway that those who opt for 'woodland burials' think of them as being 'done' in an inner London borough.

Since transport links to the North are being improved why don't they just build a new airport in the North- after all trains and roads run in both directions! For a London airport to compete with e.g the Netherlands or France as hubs you need to be able to land, change planes and go somewhere else (at the moment people are going from London to Schiphol to transfer to travel further east). So you need to concentrate your runways, not spread them over the country. Land in London (or Leeds) and then transfer to Leeds (or London) is not a compelling sell to the international traveller (or freight handler). It is the hub traffic which is an important part of the justification for Heathrow (and which makes Gatwick less compelling). Two runways attract a third. To have two 2 runways airports close to London does not offer the hub opportunities that having a three runway airport does. Hubbing is particularly important for freight - where a plane bringing a load to London from somewhere can then split that load onto planes with other destinations, themselves being part-filled from other planes. This is the most economic (and also, because it cuts down on journeys, green) logistic solution.

Nice one admin

As the new runway will not be operational (at a best estimate) before 2025-2030 (I suspect the later date) I wouldn't start getting worried too soon. And there are strong suggestions that the new generation of planes will be quieter and less polluting - so things may even get better then. And I wouldn't be putting too much faith in anti-Heathrow propaganda - or pro for that matter. If the noise pollution over ED does get worse because of any new runway - you have between 10 and 15 years or so before it happens. We could all be gone in a nuclear war started by either Putin or Trump long before that. Look on the bright side.

She is a professional Roma beggar - Actually busker, I would have thought. Beggars seek sympathy and cash without return. Buskers (street musicians) look to give with their take. She may be a 'professional' busker. Whether she is Roma (or even Romanian, without any ethnic or cultural link to the Roma) would need to be demonstrated. It is not uncommon for groups of travelling Roma to pool their resources - I would again, as would Sue, need some evidence that she is part of a managed gang, or that she didn't substantially benefit herself from the money she raises. If she is a traveller she will not be homeless, so will not be competing for funds (in that sense) against Big Issue sellers.

I can confirm back to Autumn 1988, when I became an ED resident.

The views of those who understand aircraft engineering is that the current new generation of planes (and those being planned) are less noisy and (particularly) less polluting than previous generations and those planes currently mainly still in service. This was in the most recent report on airport expansion. On at least a like-for-like basis things are thus getting better and their estimate was that even with a new runway (and more flights) things would still be better in future than they are now. The expansion plans are clearly an issue for those living close to either Gatwick or Heathrow, but Dulwich is not really seen as falling into that category. For I would guess many people the aircraft noise is not really an issue, it isn't for me and (although I am old) my hearing is tested as being good (and absolutely, not just for my age). For those people for whom it is an issue, the level of irritation and upset they suffer (which is entirely 'real' for them) is perhaps exacerbated by their own focus on the noise. It is like a dripping tap in the night, where the drips start to boom and echo if you can't fall to sleep. I am therefore somewhat sanguine that my approach equates to supporting the infliction of pain on others. Are we to legislate for absolute silence across the land because people can be sensitive to particular noises (without belittling their sensitivity).

I have just come back from Copenhagen, a very cyclist friendly city ? BUT I noted (1) The main streets combine 6 lanes (3 each way) for traffic for cars etc., two wide cyclist lanes (wide enough for 2 cycles side-by-side) and pedestrian pavements. There is thus no contention for space. Even in (generally much wider) side streets the layout is sensitive to all 3 classes of road user. (2) The bikes used (including ?Boris? bikes) are all high and sturdy ?sit up and beg? slightly old fashioned bikes, heavy and comparatively slow. (3) Less than 10% of cyclists (possibly less than 5%) wore helmets, but then they cycled slowly and safely and (mainly) insulated from other vehicles. (4) 0% of cyclists that I observed wore either Lycra or any specialist cycling gear. I draw from this that London streets are not designed (or are capable of retrofitting) for this style of mixed transport economy and that cyclists in London approach cycling itself in a very different way from Copenhageners.

Bottomless when I went referred also the the Bloody Maries and the Mimosas.

http://greatexhibition.pub/post/124664497732/our-famous-bottomless-brunch-menu-food-served

Thank you

a plea for more cyclists to thank drivers who they make way for them? A couple of weeks ago I was thanked (twice, by different cyclists) for giving way in my car in a narrow passing place, where surging forward would have put the cyclist in jeopardy. I was really pleased that what I had done had both been noticed and acknowledged. It further encouraged me to continue driving considerately. I couldn't agree more with rendelharris about this.

Whilst I see very poor road behaviour from almost all classes of road users, it is those on two wheels who are most likely not to give warning of road manoeuvres, particularly turns - indeed when I see a cyclist signalling a turn it is a shock. In many instances I suspect it stems from poor initial training, and in particular uncertainty about riding with only one hand while signalling with the other. When a child (this is not the first time I have shared this) I was not allowed to drive on roads (in the late 50s very much less busy than now) until I could show an ability to signal left and right turns while retaining control of the bike. Bad habits and poor bike control when young lead to similar in the older (by which I mean mid twenties and thirties) commuter. Combine a lack of initial training with a gung-ho attitude to things like lights and road rules (and with bikes capable of significant speed, which my old Raleigh definitely wasn't) and you are asking for, and getting, trouble.

Mr Barber Development work (or at least more site clearance) appears to be starting again on the old Garden Centre site by ED Station. Can you discover from the planning department whether the last 'agreed' plan (for I think a retail space, Library and flats) is being adhered to? Some suggestions on other threads would suggest possibly something different. (The putative retailer coming onto the site is irrelevant, unless it is a change of use to e.g. a pub, as has been suggested).