Penguin68

Although it may be true that there 'is no legitimate reason for a kid to carry a knife' - and even that is moot, there are legitimate reasons for adults, even young adults, to carry them. Not big bladed Bowie knives perhaps, but many artists uses craft knives (necessarily very sharp) for their work or hobby. And jobbing gardeners carry pruning knives. As soon as you start to institute knife carrying as an 'absolute' crime - where the fact that you are found with a knife is sufficient to send you to gaol (albeit after due process) then perfectly legitimate part times or jobs are put in jeopardy. That is why intent (and mitigation) are important elements in dealing with knife carrying. Legislation cannot be put into place which would exclude the artist or gardener but include only the tear-away. Having custodial sentences within a judicial armoury is important, as is their use, but having any non discretionary sentence imposed on knife possession offences goes well beyond clumsy.

There has to be Mandatory Custodial Sentencing lets call it MCS ..for those who carry kniives.. There are always real dangers in imposing absolute/ no discretion sentencing laws. Judge?s discretion takes into account mitigating (or exacerbating) circumstances, and allows for appeal by the defence or CPS against the sentence imposed. Where there is no discretion (and compelling mitigation) juries may be tempted to acquit as being a ?more just? outcome than a harsh, compulsory, sentence. That is not to say that it would not be a good idea (a) to make all accusations of knife carrying a crown court (rather than magistrates court) offence (if they are not so already) ? nor (b) in extending the possible sentence that could be imposed, at the judge?s discretion. The actions proposed here, to report local supply which appears reckless, makes sense. Although it is possible to acquire knives over the internet, it does require some access to on-line payment systems, normally not available to minors (under 18). Of course a big brother or friend might acquire knives for a juvenile in that way, but it is more cumbersome and therefore more difficult. One issue that is more difficult to address is the carrying of knives (or other weapons) by those too young to prosecute (but on behalf of older people) to avoid these legal difficulties.

As reported these incidents seem to be increasingly wide-spread, and yet some of the reported modus operandi of the perpetrator suggests some significant local knowledge (with animals being left close to or at the homes of their owners etc.) I wonder whether the same person can credibly be undertaking all the offences, or whether there are either people copying him/ her or whether other incidents are being 'added' to the total of the real and original offender. If there is more than one offender, then any alibi which excluded a possible offender from a particular offence might not then exclude them from all the offences. Mapping software which geo-links offences to look for an epicentre would again not be of so much use, if the 'wrong' offences are being bundled.

Actually, on a number of occasions I have had to match photographs (so far food, coffee, construction vehicles and pies(!) - But no awkward lines of unreadable text. Amended to say - and a second ago (16:01) cars Amended again to say that the system clock seems to be out about 5 minutes!

Along Underhill the workforce are beginning to replace the rather ratty wooden fencing (close to or past its sell-by date) with what seems quite elegant iron railings (not the security fencing put into place when the stretch of wooden fence was first removed) - I am not sure how far these are to run, but, once the ground cover has recovered it will give a better and more open vista to those walking etc. past the cemetery. No doubt these are contributing to the costs of the work, but they seem a reasonable investment, and should have a reasonable life; longer certainly than the wooden fence they are replacing. It should also make any attempted dumping more immediately visible (the wooden fence could hide quite a multitude of sins, especially when over-grown as it was).

I have found that I am now (today) being questioned as to my human existence, not just (almost) every time I log into the site from a different piece of kit, but even when I am logged in, on one piece of kit and one browser application - that is that having proved my existence once, I am asked (several minutes later, but without closing the application or link) to prove it again. I do open posts in new tabs, but I would assume that shouldn't cause a re-set of my initial 'proof' of existence. I am not against checking to see whether I am a 'bot - entirely reasonable although there don't seem to have been so many spam posts recently - but several times in a session does seem a tad excessive. My computer remembers I am logged in (even between sessions)- but not, apparently, that I'm human. I do have high-ish levels of security, including avoiding unnecessary cookies, but other sites who do have anti-bot checks don't seem to do this to me. I am using Chrome as a browser.

The vacancy is advertised as permanent though... In which case not a pop-up - although clearly you could start work in a pop-up and then be permanently employed in another outlet.

Pop-ups tend either to be seasonal (so Christmas special products, or products in an area which might buy during a specific season but where 365 day trading couldn't be sustained) or be used as try-outs for specific business models (or shop lay-outs). Neither of these feel like a credible strategic option in this case. However a pop-up can also be used to determine general demand in an area, without too much outlay for leases etc. This is possibly the case here. [Pop-ups are also used to shift product bought-in i.e. in a fire sale etc., but obviously not the case here].

Oh joy

Who are "Grip Nomco 3" and "Grip Nomco 4" from Jersey? These are anonymous companies (obviously linked by the names) which will have probably hidden beneficial owners. The ?1 fee paid will be a token transfer cost moving ownership off-shore (from on-shore). This suggests that the whole square (freehold) is owned by one entity, but that is typical of many London squares - in central London owned by such as the Duke of Westminster. An individual buys up a plot of land, develops it (in London often as a square) and lets the housing on it on long leases. Often the freeholds are later sold individually, in this case obviously not. At some stage a tax adviser will have suggested that it would be better to hold the property off shore - possibly for IHT reasons. The Freehold of course may have been sold to an off-shore holder recently. The fact that it's all together now I feel reflects not someone buying up the square piecemeal, but someone buying (or moving off-shore) an estate that was already together, probably since its very first development.

Leases are often sold with the business as a going concern, so I don't think it's a given that the restaurant/caf? will close. Necessarily, which makes me think that as the only offer for sale anyone has come across is the bare lease (and not the business itself) it is the lease which is up for sale - without (necessarily) a business attached. Of course someone might wish to buy the lease and continue the site as a cafe - but were it to be continued as 'Le Chandelier' the fixtures and fittings would also need to be sold - and I have seen no advertisement for these. As I said, someone might choose to make an offer for the business as a 'going concern' - but this is not what is being put up for sale (as far as I know).

Penguin68, do you know for sure that it will close and it isn't being sold as a going concern? I have no knowledge of the owner's plans for this cafe, however it would be odd to be intending to sell something as a going concern and to be separately selling the lease (remainder of) which is all I know is up on offer. Most of the 'charm' of this cafe sits with the eclectic collection of antiques (the residue of a former enterprise) - especially the chandeliers. I suspect that these set dressings would not be sold cheaply, if they were to be sold at all. This thread would additionally suggest that 'goodwill' might be a difficult asset to judge effectively. Were an offer to be made for the business as a going concern I would be surprised if it were not to be considered seriously, but its valuation may be a moot point. It is not clear to me that the business model necessarily holds water (and the way it is implemented at times causes problems) so whether it is actually 'a going concern' which would attract bids is moot. But I don't (as I have said) believe its closure is imminent, unless and until an offer for the outstanding lease is made and accepted.

The lease is up for sale (as it has been for some considerable time) - if it is sold the cafe will close - the new owners of the lease will choose what to put in its place - if the lease isn't sold (hasn't been so far) I imagine it will continue trading, until (I would speculate, no knowledge) the existing lease runs out. Assuming nothing else happens with the owners. I don't believe such a closure is necessarily imminent, the thread was only started when someone noticed the lease was on offer.

haven't been adjusted for maternity leave Two questions - are the doctors FTE and have you included (indeed are there any figures for) locums? Very useful, anyway.

But you can only "build, build and build" if you have the infrastructure (particularly public transport) to cope with the increased population. Maybe Southwark could be encouraged to implement a planning rule which would stop any extension of residential property 'footprint' unless and until effective public transport is delivered in locales where it is absent - which might include longer trains/ more frequency in the ED area if the tube isn't to arrive. I am sure with 10 minute trains into town from the ED stations throughout the day/ evening and 5 minutes intervals at rush hours the additional pressures that more housing locally would put on parking etc. would be alleviated. Of course, how you'd pay for these (or manage them into and out of the stations) is entirely another matter.

A number of the 'big builds' locally in my part of ED have been speculative, by developers doing up the property (often massively enlarging it) then selling on. 'Getting to know the neighbours' or indeed giving a stuff for them hasn't been an issue, when the new/ current owner never has any intent to live there once the work is done. Hope this isn't so in your case. But it rather drives a coach and horses through 'the usual courtesies' if it is.

When we had young children we had two (second hand) buggies - one packed flat down to nothing (we used that on public transport, and when visiting places) and one was slightly more commodious and comfortable - nowadays buggies are massive and obtrusive (and I am sure much more comfortable for their occupants). I can quite understand why some small outlets would wish to restrict these 4X4 Chelsea Tractor buggies entrance. On the other hand, if you are running an expensive cafe in ED and expect to survive whilst making the yummy mummy brigade unwelcome then your business plan is badly flawed. Setting aside a secure buggy park would seem the sensible option. Not to take it (and to make those with pre-school children feel unwelcome) is asking for failure. And if you are travelling at lunch time into town from ED by bus it is often logistically sensible to take a snack on route so that you can use your (often 45 minutes to an hour, with all the cr*p at the Elephant) journey time effectively - but I would absolutely agree that hot and smelly snacks are unsocial.

I think you mistake criticism of your methods with criticism of your ends. I don't think anyone (happy to stand corrected on this) has suggested that they would wish to see the nursery closed (other things being equal) - merely that the way you have chosen to go about it (outwith anything you have done before posting notification of this petition) doesn't make a lot of sense. It was as if you had declared a wish to drive from London to Glasgow, but insisted that a route via Brighton, Cardiff, Nantes and Skye would be your optimal choice. Others have suggested otherwise, but that doesn't mean they don't think you shouldn't end up in Glasgow, they just feel the chosen route won't necessarily get you there. To assume because we disagree with your methods that we are uncaring, childless trolls (pretty much your response on this) is perhaps an assumption too far. By inferring (I would guess wholly wrongly, certainly on my part) that we don't want money spent on early years education, for instance, is in no way relevant or consequent on our arguments that you have petitioned the wrong people, too late and/or have asked a Council to act outwith its legal powers. Nor on an argument that by spending more on one nursery, given agreed budget heads, the Council would thus have to deprive another nursery. Once councils have agreed budgets these are no longer discretionary spends.

The plant in the foreground of the picture on that petition page actually looks a lot like knotweed. Yes, I'm pretty sure it is knotweed - one must hope the photographer didn't then accidently spread it further. Unfortunately the clearance is going on whilst the shrub is dormant - so it's not clear that it will all be removed. As a gardener I really don't want a reservoir of that pest sitting a few hundred yards away from my garden.

Lewisham Council is the correct body to direct our petition as they provide the funding for the schools! Then your petition should be about Lewisham Council changing its overall funding policy on nursery provision. It cannot allocate additional funds which don't meet its funding criteria or formula just to support your favoured nursery. It would, inter alia, then have to remove funds from another nursery to meet its budgets. You could use 'your' nursery as an exemplar of why you want them to change their funding formula and budget allocation - but that's what they would have to do. In your position I would have inquired of a local councilor what the options were for additional funds to be found - if there are any. But tax payers' money is not available for disbursement just at the discretion of any local authority - they have to allocate funds based on open and agreed criteria. Funds under their criteria are not sufficient to keep your nursery open, based on its falling roll. What you are petitioning the council to do, I would suggest, is likely actually illegal - since such a funds allocation would not then meet its declared criteria for funding. And the decision to close was not the Council's - nor could they then make a decision to re-open.

So you are saying that the Forest Hill Leisure Centre and the M&Co shop were both the result of petitions addressed to an authority without the power to make relevant decisions and after the final decision had been made? I must say that surprises me.

I doubt if the cafe will close voluntarily until and if the remaining lease is sold (as I have said above). Which is not to say that, if an acceptable offer were made, it wouldn't close like a shot. As time passes, the residual lease is worth increasingly less, so if the 'owner' is serious about selling, some review of the price being asked needs to be made. However, I am sure it is right that there are no immediate plans for closure. Even if there were, the management style frequently evidenced would suggest that the staff working there might well be the last to know.

I think that what he said was that you were addressing your concerns to the wrong authority and at the wrong time. Political campaigns (real campaigns, not virtue signalling) are about achievability - if I now start a campaign, addressed to the Pope, about stopping the building of the Channel Tunnel, and somebody points out that it's nothing to do with the Pope, and the Tunnel is built, they are not suppressing debate - they are simply identifying a reality. The Council were not party to the decision about the nursery, which has already been made following consultation. Nobody doubts your sincerity in regretting the decision, indeed I doubt whether anybody would doubt that, were the finances to be there, continuing the nursery would not be a good thing; but your efforts, well-meaning as they are, are wrongly directed and untimely. Pointing this out is not about stifling debate but about evidencing its futility. And I have to stay that political campaigns which are the equivalent of tilting at windmills help nobody.

Just for the record, trolls are not just people who disagree with you. These are simply posters, just as you are, but not of your opinion. If you put forward views on a forum you must expect them to be open to challenge. You might note that Admin is very good at identifying the work of trolls, and removing it and/ or blocking them. But I agree the 'conversation' at the moment might as well be lounged.

Right? So, what exactly are you looking for? Being professionals, as you are. People you don't have to pay?