Penguin68

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).

Every week I (my family) generate about a bin and a half (or more) of rubbish (of one sort or another) - often made up of 'unnecessary' packaging. I am lucky; as someone of fixed abode, Veolia comes round each week to collect and dispose of the rubbish for me - as a community charge payer I also get free access to waste collection sites to dispose of other rubbish, or can pay for Southwark to collect bulky items. Travellers are excluded from these services (which I acknowledge they don't pay for anyway) - but they will still, in normal life, be generating rubbish at least at the rate I do. I do not excuse their fly-tipping - but it should be acknowledged that their options are limited. Better rubbish collection services can be organised on permanent traveller sites, but these are few and far between. Whilst we marginalise travellers we cannot be surprised if they marginalise us - caring as much for our sensibilities as we clearly do for theirs.

Often there are children studying in the library - it is possible that staff may have been warned about people wanting to photograph children and could have extended this to a blanket ban. As regards copyright - there may be issues where stuff is photographed and then put on to e.g. social media - which is a form of re-publishing. I have recently seen a number of re-published texts from books on my feeds. This would be different from e.g photocopies taken for private study.

Irish Travellers are a sub group of the Irish - one is contained within the other. So whereas all Irish Travellers are Irish, it is not true that all Irish are Irish Travellers. Simples. New Age apart there are only two key groups of itinerant workers who travel with their own accommodation, rather than relying on accommodation provided where they are to work. Irish Tinsmiths are one group - but the largest group (historically) of Irish Itinerant workers - Irish Navies, working first on canals and later on the railways, did not travel with their own accommodation.

Are these travellers of the Roma ethnicity? If not, the criticisms here are not directed at a race, but are directed at itinerant, nomadic people Apart from New Age Travellers (who you don't see around here) - travellers are either Roma or Irish. Attacking either can be seen as a race-based hate crime.

This is just going to go on isn't it? - as each tenant leaves, they remember that they have 'paid' for previous tenants' fly-tipping through their maintenance charges, so see doing it themselves as just getting their money's worth/ money back. Why would they want to pay twice (for the cost of removing other people's rubbish and then the cost of disposing of theirs). The maintenance charges can almost be seen as 'paying in advance' for dumping your rubbish when you go.

I think there's two issues here. I think there's a third issue as well - if these people were attacked by a group of school kids - including throwing stuff which is hardly lessening the litter problem - then this is unacceptable. Someone must have suggested to the kids, perhaps other kids, that these were 'deserving' victims. It sits with other attacks on the strange or foreign (people not like us) which are at least being reported now more frequently following the Brexit vote, and may even be happening more frequently. Whatever we think of the anti-social fly tipping actions of (some) travellers this behaviour must be seen as wrong. I hope the children, and their parents, feel some shame (although I suspect they won't). If they don't, then I certainly feel ashamed that these children come from the community in which I live.

http://thetab.com/uk/newcastle/2016/10/05/one-man-arrested-killer-clown-craze-spreads-newcastle-21011

As described by the OP it is possible that the problem may be age related - (one neighbour is in her 'late eighties') - forgetfulness leading to flooding, irascibility - all of these can be symptomatic of fairly common age related degeneration - in which case 'talking things through' is not really going to be an option. [Even loud noises, I assume music although this isn't stated, could be a function of poor hearing and sounds turned up so they can be heard]. If I am right - I hope I'm not - then there are real dangers associated with the possibility that, rather than a sink overflowing, a hot plate may be left on and burning. Are there younger people (i.e. younger family members) that can be contacted? It is possible that this is not really a case of a Problem Neighbour, but of a neighbour with very real problems.

because instead of seeing the life of their parents as a culture that goes back centuries, he sees it as a 'lifestyle choice' instead. That's certainly true of Romany travellers (possibly originating in or around the Indus Valley), and to some extent of Irish travellers (itinerant tinsmiths - known as 'tinkers' a name now seen as insulting rather than descriptive) - but it is less true of New Age Travellers - for whom this was a 20th century life-style choice.

I think what was being referred to was the disruptive effect (on teaching) of having children of very different levels of attainment (not capability) being taught together - not that these children were themselves disruptive.

Its a pop up over the Xmas run in. "Little Baby Cheeses" I so wish that were true...