Penguin68

The %age of waste recycled is a function of the volume of waste that is recyclable - if I 'generate' 10 tons of waste one year, of which 60% (6 tons) is recyclable - and recycle it - and the next year 'generate 11 tons, still with 6 tons recyclable and recycled, has my recycling stayed the same, or gone down? I have now recycled only 54% of my waste (down from 60%) whilst still recycling all I can and the same weight. We are in the hands of suppliers as to how much packaging etc. can be recycled. More recyclable packaging (or less packaging overall) is not in the hands of the consumer. I have seen figures for % waste recycled - but not of % recyclable waste recycled. In terms of public take-up and commitment it is the latter figure which is important. [And, as a side issue, is the important figure weight or volume - as regards land-fill I might suggest volume?]

Shame that children can't be taught to dead-head spent daffs rather than picking fresh ones. That would be a service.

James wrote:- The area is experiencing more parking pressures. I've been getting a greater incidence of residents complaining 'they can't park'. So is the problem speeding or parking? Reduce parking (as a CPZ would - about 2-3 spaces are lost per 'reasonable' stretch of road once CPZs are introduced) - and speeds will increase as the road de-congests. Mind you - the huge double yellows proposed would decrease parking even more - and reduce potential CPZ revenues as parking slots were lost. And I would believe the guff about public transport if bus frequency in LL wasn't being reduced (save at rush hour). Changing buses because you have to - as they stop early or don't even appear - is not exactly a bonus, it's a bit of sticking plaster to hide a failing service. Charging more for a failing service would add insult to injury - the one-hour ticket is a get-out to disguise failure.

But I think, Robin, you fail to note that Melbourne would be a prime candidate for a CPZ - that wouldn't, of course, address any of the (non) issues identified by a minority (it seems) of residents, but might almost be as good as sealing it off as a private road - once Melbourne falls the knock on will take the rest of the streets on that side of ED station out - the long game here, I would suggest, is to bring ED car owners into line with the rest of Southwark as a revenue generator - allowing local government to tax motorists just as national government does. If it reduces car ownership that would be all to the good as well. And with reduced and reducing public transport (176s to be cut back, rail services a joke etc.) that will punish ED for being, well ED and not something else. Hence the support of James and Charlie (though not in concert, there are political positions to be held) for more and more work on the road. It (it's residents) are seen as a weak link. The next death or serious injury on Barry will be a consequence of this fiddling, as attentions are focused on areas where speeding really, really, isn't a problem, but that will be a reasonable sacrifice to achieve a CPZ Southwark, I'm sure you would agree?

There is nothing magical about being a WW1 soldier - about 25% of the UK male population served in WW1 - which means about 25% of those aged between about 16 and 40 during the years 1914-1918 and buried in Camberwell Old Cemetery will be WW1 soldiers. Many fewer will have died as a direct consequence of WW1 - most of these were buried close to the battlefields, where (and if) their bodies were found. Only those repatriated to UK hospitals as wounded who then died would have been buried in local cemeteries - many in 'ordinary' graves. The War Graves Commission was only founded in 1917 - before that UK burials would have been 'private'. So it is entirely possible that there are graves of WW1 soldiers (indeed certain) and also graves of those killed in the war and buried privately before 1917. They will not be 'Commonwealth War Graves' if buried before 1917. And indeed those buried under that 'flag' are buried together in a special area untouched by any works. My maternal grandfather was a WW1 soldier (from the beginning) - who died in 1960 (about) - were he to be buried here (he was actually cremated) his grave would be too 'young' to be disturbed. I doubt if there is anyone now living who would actually remember, except by reputation, a relative buried before 1917. And, as I have said, there is nothing magical about being a WW1 soldier. For those buried in unmarked graves - other than the paper records kept - their presence, absence or disturbance would have to be purely hypothetical. If you have people to remember, then there are Cenotaphs, inscriptions and services to give a focus to those memories. As if ssw actually cared!

Again, danger of lounging, but I know of at least one culinary snail farm in the UK (Canterbury) - but it supplies only local restaurants. It is also used for research - so the eating snails are a bye-product. Edited to add - snail farming is the oldest recorded farming enterprise, based on archaeological remains. Predates all other animal husbandry, or growing of crops, at a time otherwise of exclusive hunter: gatherer activity.

How they will remove the tree without disturbing the graves, as... Precisely - this scrub growth has grown through the graves - thus disturbing them - hence, I would guess, the fact that some work has not commenced until the facility was granted. The whole point about the wilded area was that the burials there were becoming over-grown and grown-through - had you any real care for those already buried there such remedial work would have been welcomed. But of course what you want is your picnic area, not a graveyard at all. There are NO Commonwealth War Graves in the area, as I understand it (these are in a different area entirely, well tended), although there are graves of WW1 soldiers there, not part of the War Graves remit. [i am happy to stand corrected by someone who is sure of the facts - which I'm afraid does not include any ssw mavens.]

Yeah P68 I was being ironic - I had assumed as much, based on your previous posts, but irony is not infrequently overlooked by some on this forum - and I wanted (I was hoping) to add to your point. But also perhaps to point out that branding and price points are all factors of marketing - sometimes you are (one is) not the prime target market segment - if not it is good to know that early to avoid disappointment. I don't expect every outlet, even in ED, to have me as a target. I also like all the clues I can get, if that's so, so that I can focus elsewhere.

Using the posh expression 'Bourgogne' to describe an ordinary French region. No doubt to justify the massively inflated costs of menu items ! I'm hoping this is ironic - but just to clarify, this is a restaurant that is branding itself as French - and uses a 'proper' French menu (with some more unusual terms e.g. - 'Merlu' - 'Hake' - translated into English) as part of its branding. 'Escargots de Bourgogne' is a simple description of what they are and where (in culinary terms) they come from (and would appear as such in any French menu) - as would Poulet de Bresse. The prices, as far as I can see, match pretty well prices for this quality and type of food elsewhere in suburban London. In rural France it would be much cheaper, of course. And home cooking - assuming you could source the ingredients - would also be cheaper. Whilst they are happy to translate or explain they are positioning their guests as knowledgeable people who are comfortable with a real French Menu - hoping that their guests will feel flattered to be taken as such. This presumably is part of their segmentation strategy - people going there because it makes them feel good about themselves. Rather like Franklin's - which uses often robust English terms - (I can recall 'Gloucester Old Spot' appearing without any need to indicate the type of animal this was) - as part of its branding.

If your mother-in-law is moving to you permanently then she will also need to get a new Driving Licence issued to the correct address (that's the law, not an option) - if she has lived for a long time where she is moving from then she will probably also need to apply for a new photo-ID Driving Licence (clearly with a photo) - as she probably still has the old pink paper Licence.

We went to La Bonne Bouffe yesterday (not a busy day for them) - the restaurant lay-out is fine, good sized tables and comfortable chairs - the menu is properly limited (and properly French) and the menu items we chose were well sourced and correctly cooked and presented (and tasty). [No, we didn't in the end order snails]. The price - for a modest two courses and limited wine (2 of us were drivers) was about ?30 a head with service. Overall it delivered what it promised. If it can sustain this - and if it does change its limited menu on occasion - it will be a good addition to the ED restaurant offering.

Once again I must ask the question - does ssw - as manifested by Blanche and Lewis - want the continued burial of ANY person in Southwark or not? They are on record as saying that they want ALL burials to stop. In which case the 'discrimination' rubbish is a clear red herring and is otherwise irrelevant to their case, and is essentially lying obfuscation.[i should be clear that there are those who support much of their protest who do not form part of their coterie, and I would not wish to tar these people with the same brush. I think they're wrong, but they're wrong in the right way, as it were]. As for ssw's apparent links to the far and racist right - I do hope those who are 'green' and support their wishes will reflect on their bedfellows.

Does anyone know where the nearest 'wild' populations of pheasants actually are (not really wild, obviously, as pheasants are normally bred for shooting, but 'maintained') - I'm assuming Kent countryside - unless this is a 'tame' escapee.

Well, apparently they do want to see more of them...

It's good to see the chips there - presumably some sort of mulch. Seems a good deal for two-thirds of a year usage. Remembering how much value the relatives of those lying there will be placing on having a local cemetery to be able to visit. And in a nice setting. Do remember that graveyards may contain the dead, but they are there for the living. Hence the somewhat lack of tragedy when the dead that have been buried so long they have no living relatives or friends are 'moved' in one way or another to make way for a further generation of interments.

There are perhaps a couple of things worth noting. The first is that the general legislation bars the disturbance of 'nesting birds'. It sets out no dates for this, and indeed different birds will nest at different times at different latitudes (and indeed depending on local climate). Southwark Council well may have 'rule of thumb' guidance as to dates - thereby precluding normal working during those times. However, because of the interference of ssw there have been hold-ups in their plans, and there is nothing, in law, to stop their work where there are no nesting birds to be disturbed. [indeed, and as an additional issue, I believe that where there are safety issues regarding the state of the tree the 'nesting bird' rule can be ignored, not least because a tree collapse in itself would somewhat disturb the birds.] As to the timing condition placed on the work - as I have said, there is no legal definition of 'bird nesting season' - there are accepted windows certainly, but without the weight of law - so I believe such a condition, though I am sure entirely worthy - is also entirely challengeable as having no actual meaning in law. So long as Southwark can demonstrate that they have checked for nesting birds (and not found any where they are working) they can argue that it is not 'bird nesting season' where they are active. The underlying law, as I have said, is about the disturbance of nesting birds, and is not date related.

However, dog-rose hedges, or other (naturally growing) thorny barriers would not be so treated. And encourage both bees and birds (rose-hips). There are numbers of spiny friends you might consider.

It's only ?10 - but he actually wrote "?90 for two". And nowadays, sadly, ?45 a head is par for the (London) course at anything with any aspirations to medium or high end. Because of deals (i.e. Tastecard, vouchers etc., lunch time or pre-theatre menus etc.) you can actually normally eat for less - but these are quite common 'headline' costs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/restaurants/la-bonne-bouffe-london-se22-restaurant-review-mixtape-old-school/

Honor Oak Nature Corridor 1022 burial plots in somewhere which exists only in the imagination of ssw. Well, nice work if you can get it.

I have lived in ED close to 30 years - at the beginning bits were perhaps 'seedy' and 'down on their uppers' - LL had a number of second hand pram shops and many of the pubs were much more traditional South London (what are now known by my children as 'old men's' pubs) - but the neighborhood was never 'rough' or dodgy. Like many areas of 'nearly' inner London it was at the bottom of an economic cycle and was heading upwards, after a bit. But you absolutely could walk round the streets and feel entirely safe - which wasn't true of bits of Clapham from whence (pace Louisa) we had blown in.

"Local Burial for Local People" Sorry - you and your crew are clearly on record as wanting NO Burial for ANY People - this is yet another attempt to flim-flam by pursuing any idea which might get traction (like nesting birds, war dead, the graves of the parish poor etc.)

Birds sing throughout the year. They sing less, some species, once they are paired and nesting.

Dear HopOne Firstly, disturbing nesting birds (however you disturb them) is contrary to the act. I think that assuming that council operatives will not break the law is better than 'a supposition'. Particularly in a time/ place which is getting a lot of publicity. (Cross posted with Sue - sorry) Secondly - (an earlier remark of yours) - you may be confusing sapling with seedling. Saplings can be both quite old and relatively substantial. This website may help you http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-tree-sapling.htm .

HopOne wrote - in reference to my statement that tree surgeons wouldn't disturb nesting birds:- (1) Supposition NO - it is the law - The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 https://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/our-positions-and-campaigns/positions/wildbirdslaw/birdsandlaw/wca/ and I think it most unlikely that Tree Operatives working for the council would knowingly breach this.