Penguin68

The volume and extent of overground trains has actually increased over time, I suspect some linkages have been rationalised - I would hope on the basis of passenger surveys. The H&I trains run regularly through Forest Hill and Honor Oak Park to Canada Water and then up - so those on the PR route can readily change there. PR is on an east:west route, which crosses the north:south route (Croydon to H&I) at Canada Water - making that an interchange has some logic to it, and probably allows a larger number of trains to serve both routes.

I checked a week or so ago and it looks like now the only way to make the Overground train journey is by changing at Canary Wharf. Did you mean Canada Water?

If you are a 'real' person, wanting to buy a property for you and (if you have one) your family to live in then choose a property you like, in a location which is 'right' for you, at a price you can afford (or the nearest approximations you can to those). Expect to live there about 7 years (on average, although I have now lived in my house for closer to 30). A lot can happen in seven years - and nobody now knows what that is. Don't be put off by gloomy prognostications about price movements - or indeed arguments about some absolute 'right' price. Don't look over your shoulder at others who might be 'making' more than you on house values (a gain which, until it is realised, is theoretical only). If you are buying a home, then it is the suitability (and affordability) of the property as a home which is paramount. [if you are buying as an investment, not as a home, then different rules may apply]. But if it is a home you are buying, concentrate on that, and don't be diverted by whether it may, or may not, be also an investment. Trying to ride two horses is a danger, you may end up falling off both.

It is also worth pointing out that (in the context of driver operated doors) main line trains (unlike the tubes) do not have an automatic door opening system if the closing door is blocked - e.g by a body of someone not fully in the train - which has led to dragging when a driver failed to notice this and set-off. The guard is meant to be more aware of this by getting out of the rain and looking. However, I only know of one such incident - and it was a trainee driver involved. But there is some (very slight) reason behind the claim that the industrial action and inaction is safety related (although, of course, it is mainly about job protection). The Victoria line was originally designed to be completely automatic (driverless) but has never been run as such (although it still could be). Likewise, I believe, the Jubilee.

Doesn't she have to vote according to her constituents' view? Otherwise what's the point of a constituency MP? MPs are representatives, not delegates. They are placed by the electorate into Parliament so that they can exercise their best judgement (given any policies contained within the election mandate). If MPs had to follow their constituents' views slavishly we would still have the death penalty and homosexuality would still be illegal. In this case 75% of MPs in Parliament do not 'agree' with the (albeit slim) majority who voted to leave. Do they run with their constituents or with the electorate as a whole? I wouldn't want to be an MP in these circumstances. The point of having a constituency MP is to have someone in Parliament who can represent all their constituents' needs when it comes to what may best described as 'personal cases'.

For those interested the petition to try to re-run the referendum (probably ill-fated) is doing well - although (bar Scotland) those wanting a re-run map on almost exactly to those initially voting 'in' anyway. http://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=131215

but when our house was built in ED 10 years ago it was an absolute planning requirement for the (pre-existing) parking space to be redone in a permeable medium to avoid runoff. I can well imagine that planning permission for building a house might/ would involve issues of 'finish' around the house - but I do not believe that, where no other build is being proposed, changes to the finish of a front garden would require planning permission. You certainly don't need permission to install decking or paving in the back garden. Or indeed any hard landscaping or fencing coming in under (is it 6 or 8 feet - some height anyway).

always assuming the paved-over gardens people have all applied for planning permission 1. I don't believe that you need planning permission just to alter the nature of your front (or back) garden in terms of its ground finish. However, if you want to park a car and you don't already have dropped kerbs you will, in effect, need permission (to get the dropped kerb). 2. Many types of cover are water permeable - gravel over membrane, for instance, or brick pavours over sand. All of these will aid absorption of (normal) rain - the level we had recently (a month's supply in a day) will cause run-off even over impacted soil. And you will also get run-off when the ground is already waterlogged. It's not been far off that, recently, either. 3. Coverings to avoid include asphalt and concrete. Both of these are non permeable. Large concrete or stone slabs, again particularly if themselves set in concrete, are also impermeable.

Holidays and/ or sickness can alter rotas. As can staffing problems such as recruitment. Always worth checking if you can at the sorting office - often they can let you know is there is a problem on your route.

I honestly don't understand where this constant stream of cruddy old furniture comes from! Well, I'm sure that one thing which won't be stimulating it is Southwark's decision to charge for large item disposal.

Cats (it is reported) kill 55 million birds (and over 200m mammals, including hedgehogs) annually in the UK. Which probably explains why I have seen no small birds at all in my garden for the last fortnight or more - when I used, only a few years ago, to get robins (a breeding pair), a variety of tits and sparrows in abundance on my terrace. Even last year I might have expected to see numbers of small birds feeding. But more recently I have only had cats stalking there. It is a feral wasteland, populated only by magpies, pigeons and screeching parakeets.

On the face of it, this seems to have been a flawed build exacerbated by poor or inappropriate maintenance - hand-over from builder to association seems to have been slack (i.e. suggested lack of snagging) - whether the faults which have appeared are part of the remit of buildings control or not will presumably (if 'they' bother to undertake a proper review) appear in due course. Whether they should have been (i.e. is the remit and authority of buildings control wide enough?) is a different question. What is blindingly obvious is that a build undertaken by or for a Housing Association should not need tearing down so soon after completion. No materials used should have failed so precipitately (even Ronan Point took some time for its flawed construction to become apparent). No doubt there will be a lot of blame shifting but this is a scandal - and anything but a victimless 'crime'. If poor maintenance was an issue (lots of suggestions it was certainly contributory) then Wandle cannot get out from under by blaming the earlier principals and the builder.

This is a continuing hazard for all fixed network operators - and whilst there are many reasons not to like Virgin, this is one which they can't be blamed for. How quickly they restore service will be key, and how they manage customers expectations as well. They should be able to recover their costs for restoration (and probably consequential loss for compensating customers) from the construction firm - who should anyway be insured for this (public liability). When BT gets a cable severed they often have to match ends (so that customers' twisted pairs continue to be linked properly at the exchange end) - I'm not sure whether for IP based services (packet switched) this is such an issue, so Virgin's job may be easier. The length of fibre optic they need to replace probably just means that they want to pull (or blow) a new cable through to link back to two existing flexibility points, rather than trying to splice fibre in the middle of a run (nightmare!).

Maybe this is how the cat ripper operates? He/ she has to catch them somehow.

I agree they look similar, but from the photographs the Euphorbia Peplus is much smaller - so it may well be an Euphorbia (looks like it) and the warnings about the sap are very relevant but I don't think its the Petty Spurge - the OP's example seems to stand 19 or so bricks high - a brick being about 3 inches that's about 4.25 ft - 4.5 ft (taking account of mortar). Petty spurge seems to grow to a height of under a foot and is described as a weed. This seem smore like a bush. http://www.luontoportti.com/suomi/en/kukkakasvit/petty-spurge

Maybe if ED votes to remain and the country votes leave we will be allowed a referendum to cecede from the UK together with the Scots.

Presumably the perpetrator is using poisoned/ drugged bait - hence 'picking up' both fox cubs and cats, both of whom may be tempted. If baited traps were being used I would expect these to be far more likely to be discovered. It is possible that bait is being left out without poison initially to acclimatize the prey - so it may be worth looking out for any apparently benign attempts to 'feed' wild animals in the street.

It is difficult to read this with the Solomon's Passage thread (or many others) and not feel that this is a tragic waste of effort - there are important causes to espouse in ED, this really isn't one of them, but seems purely diversionary. [And yes, I do know that, as a Councilor, the OP doesn't have Solomon's passage on his specific plate]. The forum isn't representative, so calling for comments here is (very possibly) pointless. I am very pleased that an official has chosen to make a judgement about causes (breaches of regulations) that are worth pursuing and ones that aren't. Isn't that type of judgement one we keep asking officials to make (proportionality and cost: benefit judgments?)

The Ed Forum is not an arm of government or administration, nor are the views expressed in it in any way representative (in the sense that a statistical conclusion can be drawn from them) - in those senses at least it is irrelevant - the Solomons Passage debacle will not be solved through it. But there are many other ways in which exchanging information and viewpoints can be relevant - in the sense of useful or interesting. Of course it is good when officials (such as the railways guy in the past) or representatives - such as councilors, or experts or business owners can come on the forum to inform or explain, or just listen - and that can be usefully relevant to our lives at times. But the forum can also be fun. And fun is good, too. The passing remark was not meant to be an attack on the forum (and when we get too irrelevant admin is there to haul us back) - but having such a forum locally is, in my view, a generally good thing. Long may it prosper.

Normally this is police tracking an intruder/ etc. from above and informing ground based police where the suspect individual is - or looking for a suspect individual after report, e.g. of a break in or someone suspicious in the area - particularly when seen in or crossing gardens. They often use infra-red (night vision) technology to track, so you may not see search lights. Unless this results in an arrest (and often not even then) this will not be reported in news media. The noise (and vibration) is annoying of course, but reassuring they have the technology and make the effort.

Agree with kibris

Officials are required to stick to rules set out for them (and often at least endorsed, if not debated and voted on, by Parliament) - it is senior politicians (government ministers) who can overturn these rules in specific cases - and most frequently do so. I would be very worried if individual officials were allowed to interpret rules willy-nilly. That is how corruption can readily enter the system. Although we can all see the reason why leave to enter should be granted in this case, for a specific and compassionate reasons I for one would be very worried if such decisions were in future to be devolved to officials. This is not, I believe Kafka-esqe (the reasons for the initial decision are clear and follow well published guidelines) but rather a good example of why laws designed for generalities will always have possible exceptions. It should be remembered that there are many occasions when immigration law has been subverted (for instance marriages to confer citizenship which are legal but bogus). How quickly might convincing 'documents' be made available to would-be immigrants if such mercy dashes were put at the discretion of hard-pressed officials. This one is clearly kosher - the next ones might not be, if such a loophole was put through the formal regulations regarding the granting of visas.

James Barber wrote:- Of course people who are the most materially affected carry more weight in such a discussion. That would be the teachers, doctors, nurses, shop workers, who work in ED to support our needs but have to travel in from elsewhere (because ED is now not affordable to many) and may not live somewhere were our curious 'public transport' bothers to serve effectively and who want somewhere to park so that they can continue to serve our needs. As they only come in during the working day they will be using spaces vacated by those living around here who use their cars to get to their work or otherwise get around. But them using their cars is fine, and 'their' parking spaces should be preserved, empty, for their eventual return.

BR's profits went to 'the railway' and stayed in the system. Privatised and private company profits go to the investors - many for UK utilities and rail companies outside the UK (and indeed some actually the state concerns of other countries). There is a difference.

The point that has been made (well, and frequently over time, with illustrations and examples) is that the introduction of a CPZ anywhere in a suburban or urban environment will have a strong tendency to shift any parking pressure into any adjacent non CPZ zone, hence cascading demands for CPZs (and the income derived from them by councils). Suggesting (or implying) that only those in any current area under pressure have the 'right' to comment (or that their comments only are 'valid') is ridiculous (but not unexpected, from that source). For the record I live in ED, and have off-street parking for 3/4 cars (that's not 0.75 of a car) - so all CPZs would do is to increase the value of my property - and I'm still agin them.