Penguin68

M&S is only going to be a clothes shop. Selling suits and bras' For which they have applied for a drinks licence. If you are going to troll, make sure that the thread you troll doesn't already betray your trolling.

Veolia bring a van round to Sainsbury's on DKH once a month (first Wednesday in the month) - I know that they will in June, but it is up to Sainsbury's whether they continue - they would take these items I believe - they take 'small electricals'. They give away the garden refuse sacks from the van (when they have any) and will also sell their composting bins (for ?10).

The Forest Hill Road Group Practice (1 Forest Hill Road) has many fans but lost appreciation lately because of a failing appointments system - a new system was put into place recently and my own experience is that things are much better. In general the GPs (and nurses) at all the practices get good ratings, it is their systems and office support staff (or lack of them) which have enraged posters. Some of them undoubtedly over-trade - and some of them rely too much on contract (locum) staff. I have been at the Forest Hill Road practice for close to 30 years, and have been generally happy with my choice.

This is clearly a comprehensive report written by a consultancy that hopes and expects that any work recommended will be offered (as it always is) to their construction arm. Even then they confirm that traffic levels are lower and slower than might have been expected (contrary to the earlier claims by those who initiated all the fuss) and only make the case for full width road humps on the basis that this will stop motor-cyclists speeding (as they can drive through what exists) - which will presumably help reduce the accidents suffered by - oh yes motor-cyclists. I am sure that the road (like almost every other road in the borough) can be 'improved' in some way by extra work being undertaken (by Conway's, of course) - but I see many others (such as Barry) with a far greater claim to being actual accident black-spots plagued by real speeding over the 20mph limit. Given the limited resources of the borough, the survey itself was a waste of money - any work triggered by it will be a scandalous waste of money.

Department of 'be careful what you wish for' ... A wonderful stately tree lined street will be reduced to a parking nightmare sterile tree-less hump-fest - with every good chance that the costly work by Thames Water will be negated and at least parts (probably all, knowing insurance companies) will become a costly to ensure flood risk once the equipment is believed to be failing. That'll push up property values no end... well done the gated community mavens. Edited to add - OK, hyperbole I know - but, when you think of the things that do actually need doing locally, this is a huge waste of money, time, effort, resource and a generator of anguish well beyond its actually possible contribution to future well being. And when you think how long the Northcross Road build out took could make life generally unbearable for residents for some considerable time, on top of all the others works that have been going on.

Schools will tend to be built where there is good public transport - so that children can get to them or parents delivering them on foot can then readily catch buses etc. to work. Unfortunately this places them on, or close to, busy roads. The governments (tory and labour and libdem coalition) have been convinced that diesel is good, because it releases less CO2 into the atmosphere, and this is seen as contributing to climate change. So - law of unintended consequences - schools are massively exposed to NOX. [Car firms fiddling the pollutant output figures haven't helped, making the effects even worse than intended]. Oh, and 'poor people will tend to live in less nice areas than rich people' - well, that's amazing. I'd never have guessed.

With the French Doors or patio doors thing, you will almost certainly have to put in steels (rolled steel joists - RSJs) for structural integrity. This is non-trivial. While the work is being done your house will be (relatively) open to the elements and insecure.

My memory (and I was in the MR business at the relevant time) was that it was MR people who moved from the clear concept of sugging to describe similar charitable based activity as chugging (I don't recall the 'frugging' usage myself)- I suspect that relating the 'ugging' element to mugging - and extending it to all activities to raise money from charities was a back-derivation by the media who did not relate it to the earlier 'under the guise of research' formation - very much an MR issue - but chose the homophonous 'mugging' link. As they didn't recognise the 'research' element they could extend it then to all aspects of raising money for charity. But that's the way language develops I suppose.

Just out of interest (or not) 'chugging' used to refer to those people who pretended to ask you Market Research Style questions which then segued into requests for charitable donations - it was a neologism based on the older form of 'sugging' (selling under the guise of research) - the same but (often) with attempts to sell types of insurance or investment on the back of it. Simple approaches by charities for donations (without an MR pretense) are just that, charity collections. When I was involved with the MR industry - mainly as a buyer - sugging and chugging were seen as bringing a respectable information collection trade into disrepute, as people would avoid legitimate Market Researchers fearing they were suggers or chuggers. I would tend to call those who ring on the door asking for donations to charities - charity collectors. If you want to check, a legitimate MR person will have some form of identity linked to the Market Research Society (MRS) as well as to the agency currently employing them (many, perhaps most, are freelance).

Whilst I am sure that all the necessary and relevant hoops were jumped through (at least, I have no reasons to doubt it) and recognising that Buildings Control is about meeting (just) certain build standards in very specific areas, it is nevertheless somewhat disconcerting that a new build (of this nature) can be declared unsafe with 50% of the buildings needing to be torn down, and the remainder rebuilt over 2+ years, having passed all necessary building control standards. It does suggest that these standards do need review (poor quality build is one thing, terminally disastrous quality build is another). The somewhat checkered history of the ownership of these buildings (and the changes in those involved during the build) cannot have helped, but Wandle's approaches to due diligence do seem lackluster in the extreme. I wonder how many other developments (undertaken, one would have thought professionally) of this scale and nature fail quite so quickly?

This is a local forum, it is not any sort of official channel, and nobody is obliged or required to respond on this forum 'officially' - we are lucky that a number of local councilors do chose to use this channel to inform, but they don't have to. What is important is what Wandle (and the Council) is actually saying officially to the tenants and (part) owners in the blocks, and more important, what they are actually doing, rather than just saying. It is good to hear what this is (when there is anything to report) and no doubt when the full story does come out, and if the council has under-performed etc. - this may manifest itself in the ballot box (eventually). And prolific posters may be 'keeping their heads down' because there isn't yet enough of the story out there to make useful (or even troll-like) statements.

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fusercontent1.hubstatic.com%2F9243844_f260.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhubpages.com%2Fanimals%2Fpopulardomesticducks&docid=gj-BZu7yDFTg_M&tbnid=xnCC4_Oed6TBqM%3A&w=260&h=260&bih=913&biw=1638&ved=0ahUKEwiix8ePjcXMAhWIKcAKHYmlCHcQMwglKAgwCA&iact=mrc&uact=8 or https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.timeshighereducation.com%2FPictures%2Fweb%2Ff%2Fv%2Fw%2Fduck_0_450.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.timeshighereducation.com%2Ffeatures%2Foff-piste-learning-how-to-keep-ducks%2F2002262.article&docid=1Hq_gVaSNSwJRM&tbnid=YQ0fIJsUaguOMM%3A&w=450&h=300&bih=913&biw=1638&ved=0ahUKEwiix8ePjcXMAhWIKcAKHYmlCHcQMwgnKAowCg&iact=mrc&uact=8

but were working nearby in local businesses and indeed schools etc. The point was made that these people were coming into the area from outside to benefit the area by teaching our children, serving us in shops and restaurants, mending our houses etc. Southwark wants to increase parking pressures because these will tend to precipitate calls for CPZs and CPZ revenues and fines offer them revenue sources which cannot be impacted by government fiat on local taxation. They also don't like cars or car owners. They use the concept of wedge, so as soon as a CPZ is installed it brings pressure on zones outside it to call for their own CPZ etc. It is interesting how, in many London areas, CPZ charges begin to escalate over time (well out of line with inflation) as they are used to boost council coffers. Calling for a CPZ is like helping the council to stuff their hands in your pockets. I can think of no instance (happy to stand corrected) where a CPZ decision (i.e. to have one) has ever later been reversed. In areas where public transport links are poor (i.e. east/ west traffic around here) the imposition of CPZs has a tendency to isolate areas. The 'just hit the selfish out of area commuter' half an hour in the middle of the day CPZ idea is hardly ever actually used - even though it is often the 'reason' why locals are encouraged to vote for a CPZ. Instead the CPZ hours tend to be extended - I have seen 8:00am to 8:00pm Monday to Saturday (and worse) emerge in some areas of London - I even remember (I hope it's a false memory) a 9:00 or 10:00pm cut-off. Once a CPZ is there councils have a tendency to extend to extend its reach, scope and cost. And once it has been agreed at all, they feel far less need to consult or take notice of peoples views (in so far as they do at all).

Granted it is disruptive, but placing polling in the heart of the education system (making it part of everyday life) - if used effectively by teachers might help encourage future commitments - voting and participative democracy is a cornerstone of our lives (or should be) - the more normalised voting can be seen to be (and the more aspirational reaching voting age can be positioned) surely the better. I am old enough to be a regular (indeed obsessive) voter - but that started at school with mock elections to mirror the real ones then taking place. Rather than chivying elections out of children's (even primary children's) lives such opportunities should be embraced.

I think I noted that rate reliefs were available - you stated that they would 'avoid paying business rates' by claiming 'change from commercial to domestic use'. You have not established this. Indeed you have quoted 'reductions in business rates' - which is I think what I also said was happening. As business rates are there as a tax on commercial activity locally, then the virtual absence of such activity - and hence the reductions in 'costs' to the local authority in supporting such activity through necessary expenditure would suggest that the loss of business rates might also be mitigated by a loss of costs associated with having local businesses trading. And again, in many instances it is public buildngs, not just private commercial buildings which are being guarded. A reduction in business rates here presumably aids, rather than otherwise, the public purse.

It is particularly shocking if it is a Housing Association which owns the properties. These should have a professional care for such things as build quality (if only because they are investing in their own stock - unlike speculative developers aiming to get shot of developments asap). Indeed, it would call into question their capacity and right to continue as a Housing Association at all, and certainly their rights to undertake any future developments. This really is the sort of issue which the local MP (and not just local councilors) should be involved with. Are those directly concerned with this (the tenants about to lose their homes) aware of any contact with, or comments from, their elected representatives nationally or locally?

but landlords use the system to claim the property has changed from commercial to domestic use and so avoid paying business rates I am not sure that this is true. (a) You need planning permission for such change of use - simple declaration doesn't cut-it. (b) In my experience (my daughter was a guardian for about 3 years) guardians do not pay council tax - thus they are not being treated as 'domestic use' residents. There are reliefs for business rates (I believe) for properties which are not being currently used for commercial purposes (though not full relief) - but these are always seen as temporary use - whilst the building is either waiting to be sold or refurbished/ rebuilt. The landlords get some protection (from squatting and damage) through the guardianship scheme - they maintain the services (power, heating, light etc.) in the properties - which are 'free' to tenants paying reduced rents and who can be thrown out at virtually a moments notice (although companies running such schemes, such as Capita, do try to find alternative accommodation in other schemes for displaced guardians). Landlords include those the public sector - one of the longer tenancies my daughter had was in a former council office block near The Elephant, and she has also 'guarded' a redundant West End police station.

I suspect that the lack of comment reflects the facts that if the buildings are dangerous then they must be either torn down or, where that is possible, repaired - albeit that this may mean vacating them for up to 18 months. Nobody would argue that the work should't be done, or that it should be skimped. When it is clearer who (if anyone) is to blame - whether it be the developer (very likely) and/ or the council planners and councilors who agreed this scheme - and what the actual remedies and impacts will be on those now living in condemned and (presumably) unsafe buildings - then comments and suggestions (and accusations and attacks) can ensue. This is a very different kettle of fish than protesting against a business closing possibly caused by greedy rent demands (and that's a moot point). Other than posting (as I am happy to do) that this is both shocking and very worrying, and that someone (but who?) should be called to account for it there is little practical or of use available to ED posters at this stage. And again - hearing a view from relevant elected councilors about what has happened, and what remedies are being propose would be helpful - but I suspect that they may be as in the dark and confused about this as we are.

I know what we really need - when will the powers that be sort out an Iceland store for Lordship Lane? Can't wait http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/nine-year-old-girl-finds-five-inch-tapeworms-in-iceland-duck-pancake-11364056159287

Perhaps one of the councilors who (helpfully) use this forum could ascertain what is the current Southwark policy on manning (personning?) phones and answering calls. To rely only on IT based solutions is to disadvantage many who live in Southwark, who may not have easy access (or know how to use) emails and internet.

shame about the hundreds they've cut down in COC. And indeed the millions in Brazil. Or maybe the issue for the OP was a tree planted somewhere relevant and close to them, which they could see and enjoy. The net loss of trees in COC (if one believes the council and ignoring saplings which would not have survived to maturity in a true 'wild wood') is claimed to be, over time, minimal, when replanting is then into account. It is far better for a community if the streets are indeed 'leafy' rather than concentrating trees into corralled areas. The council's policy is short-sighted. There are numbers of slender and/ or slow growing trees which could be planted - rather than the spreading London Plane or Sycamore - which would not cause the sorts of problem clearly being envisaged by the bureaucrats. Anyway, since they can build out for buses, why not for trees?

Modern cars are designed to 'crumple' apparently catastrophically, but this protects the area where people sit - the force of the impact being taken and absorbed by the outer shell. So nowadays crashes often look very bad, but people are more likely to walk away from them relatively unhurt. From the photograph you can see that the front windscreen appears undamaged - which suggests that the impact force was mainly taken by the front box before it reached the driver/ any passengers.

Over 50 of them are marked as 'Reduced', and quite a few of those were reduced in the last week. I predict prices will have fallen 10% from their peak by October this year. Any takers? The problem with this is that you do not know where the 'reduced to' price sits against achieved prices at the peak. It may be that the reductions are back down to last year's peak only (i.e. that they were over-inflated to start with). If that's the case we are talking about prices holding, not necessarily falling. I tend to look only at recently 'sold' prices rather than any offer price. The most recent list of sales I have close to me is:- 30 Hillcourt Road ?1,060,000 12th February 2016 Flat 3, 218 Dunstans Road ?525,000 9th February 2016 Flat 42, Bredinghurst Overhill Road ?310,000 5th February 2016 157 Westwood Park ?790,000 29th January 2016 13a Westwood Park ?580,000 29th January 2016 63 Underhill Road ?1,440,000 29th January 2016 Ground Floor Flat, 162 Dunstans Road ?460,000 29th January 2016 178 Dunstans Road ?427,000 18th December 2015 107 Underhill Road ?1,750,000 15th December 2015 This doesn't look quite like a price collapse to me

If this is the case it should be either very obvious, or easily provable - and you have nothing to worry about. Once there is an absolute offence of 'carrying and being in possession of a knife in a public place' then mitigation ('tools of the trade or hobby') falls by the way-side. The Law in England doesn't acknowledge 'implicitly'. The Napoleonic code would, but both Common and Statute Law don't. [Which is why the EU Competition Law (Articles 85 & 86) in the Treaty of Rome is in two paragraphs, each about 150 words long, whereas the UK Competition Act runs to many pages of tortuous prose].