Penguin68

All schools have a system in place for the many Children who cannot keep up with an institutional Learning, for whatever reason the child has difficulties. It is not that traveller children 'cannot keep up' with institutional learning, it is that they have not had the opportunity to do so. It would do them no service to place them with children who do have learning difficulties, and who need quite different styles of teaching, which may be wholly inappropriate for them. The initial point was made that they were automatically placed in their actual age group, when assessment might suggest they were better placed with children who were younger, but who otherwise needed no additional educational support.

So three chains/franchises replacing 3 indies? The problem with independent outlets is that, when it comes for the owners to retire/ move on there will be no continuity - obviously there are 'family' businesses (Le Chandelier, in its declared ownership was technically one of those) - but the family may not actually wish (or be able to afford) to continue the business. Le Chandelier had its remaining lease on sale for some time - so the business was always aiming to close anyway. Chains/ franchises offer continuity of delivery. When you have true independents then almost inevitably you will get (eventual) change. This only doesn't happen when an owner is able to sell the business as a going concern to someone else - but even then you get change. Both Le Chardon and Le Chandelier had formulae which were no longer (if they had ever been) cutting edge. They may not thus have been attractive businesses to buy into as going concerns (and I don't think Le Chandelier was ever offered as such).

is caused by travellers children not being able to keep up with your level of teaching, Surely the issue here is that traveller's children's education is very disrupted (necessarily) and thus that they may well not be at an equivalent age level (in terms of what they have been taught) to children in regular education. This makes no judgement (as far as I can see) about innate ability, but rather more about actual time spent learning. The less time you have exposed to teaching, the further 'back' you might be expected to be.

Le Chandelier is becoming Spinach - which I believe focuses on, but does not offer exclusively, vegetarian style cooking.

Overgrown hedges are of a particular Hazard to Blind people who are likely to walk straight into them. For anyone who doesn't know, there is a home for the blind/ partially sighted at the Forest Hill end of Underhill. Residents often walk locally, particularly (obviously) up Underhill.

They think they can do more than they actually can and come off worse than if they'd done nothing. Takes a long time to be effective. I was trained (in self defence, not formal 'martial arts) , many many years ago, by a former (wartime) Royal Marine Commando RSM. His advice was 'run first' - but if you have to fight make sure the opponent doesn't get back up. But unless you keep up practicing these skills (I definitely don't) running and screaming seem a good option. Just going to a class (or even classes) and then fancying your chances simply isn't a real option even only a few months afterwards.

If you need to use your phone (for instance for checking bus times, calling an Uber etc. (all of which are often station associated activities) it is best to stop, turn your back to the road (or have something between you and the road) and hold the phone close and firmly - all of which will tend to discourage the moped based thief. Also take account of your surroundings. Walking along the street blithely texting or checking social media only advertises your vulnerability. There are circumstances when phone usage should only be on a need to, not a nice to, basis. Of course we shouldn't have to be protecting ourselves from the malevolent - but needs must. Using your phone as a distraction from a commuting walk, for instance, may not be the wisest choice.

Rachman was a bullying slum landlord, exploiting tenants in existing slums which were hell to live in - rebuilding an existing building into 3 flats (which may be sold rather than rented) - and which don't seem in anyway to be now, or likely to be in the future, slums, isn't Rachmanism. The overseas taxation nature of the owner/ developer is an entirely different type of issue. Deplorable no doubt, but different.

How can the height of someone's hedge be of any relevance to a passer-by ? Ah, but what about a nosy passer-by? (and you are advised not to have hedges so high that a passer-by couldn't see someone trying to enter your property nefariously - but that's to your advantage not that of the passer-by) Additionally some local authorities do have bye-laws about hedge or wall heights.

I have had many good meals in Le Chardon (they did good deals at one time) although I have also had a metal staple in a piece of meat and broken glass in a salad - their lack of either apology or contrition was a marvel to behold. But the un-ordered items were 10 years or more ago - no problems (other than Parisian levels of service) since then. If the ownership is changing (as suggested by some) I hope that the basic food formula (glitches apart) remains.

some people rate rats quite highly as pets. Indeed, and these are bred from established blood lines -AND ARE VERY DIFFERENT from feral urban sewer (brown and back) rats - both carriers of (multiple) diseases (not their fault, but they are) and very destructive, which is - they will strip electrical insulation - causing fires - amongst other things. Feral urban sewer rats are simply in the wrong place - and getting rid of them is a necessity where they start to interact with us - which they do because we are their way of life. Very different from (large) field rats in e.g Vietnam, which are trapped and eaten.

My understanding is that Sainbury's is only prepared to give up prime parking spaces during relatively low use periods. Not surprisingly.

if we agree it's not acceptable for dogs or cats to die like that, why is it ok for rats? Because they are unwelcome, disease carrying vermin? Just a thought.

This topic is close to becoming Lounged. Why? because it goes down the predictable route of: Timely

The problem with the stretch that runs up to Sainsbury's is that the dotted line starts far too late. If the inside lane was 'buses and left turn only' (and very clearly marked as such) - as it is in the stretch of Lordship Lane which runs up to the Barry Road left turn - people (buses, cars etc.) would be in the correct lane for their allowed manoeuvre. Then photograph and fine any (non bus) vehicle which is in the left hand lane and doesn't turn left. As it is, the very short stretch of dotted line looks like a revenue generation road marking, rather than one concerned with traffic direction and through flow. This way you also avoid late turns by cars which may put cyclists in jeopardy.

I think Spinach is replacing Le Chandelier - which I assume can now be mentioned on the forum!

Oh, that's a shame, I had hoped they were building a subway under Lordship Lane so they could get rid of some of those dammed crossing points!

But in the meantime...two dogs have fallen seriously ill, one fatally, (anecdotally) closely following incidents in Peckham Rye where the dogs were assumed to have ingested something. A reasonable prima facie assumption is that the dogs were effected by something in the park - whether that was a rodenticide or something else (fungus?) toxic is unclear. At the least the area where the most recent incident possibly occurred should be examined, presumably by park gardening staff who may be able to identify possible culprits (misplaced rat poison or toxic mushrooms) should they be present as a matter of urgency. If nothing is found that doesn't necessarily rule out the incident(s) being park related, but at least it has been checked.

To whit...

In general the landlord should clear drain/ waste-pipe blockages which are a function of inherent problems with drainage, but where these problems are caused by the tenants usage then the tenants should pay. It is important that this is made clear by the landlord at the time that a plumber is called in - and that the plumber is specifically asked to identify the cause. Pet hair blockages will undoubtedly be the responsibility of the tenant, unless the plumber can confirm that there is an inherent problem with the plumbing set-up (an inappropriately sized outlet pipe, for instance). [An issue which could be the landlord's would be the clearance of a blockage caused by a previous tenant.] It is normally understood that landlords should make repairs which are the result of normal wear and tear etc. but such frequent blockages do not seem like that, unless for instance the drain itself has been compromised by damage (roots into drains are not uncommon for more major blockages). Keeping internal waste pipes clear might well be considered part of a tenant's duty of care (which would include keeping the flat clean etc.) But best to discuss this up-front rather than entering into a row by employing a plumber without letting them know that problems at their door should be paid by them. You/ your agent should have a deposit from them which (in the worst case) you might call on.

I think it's quite clear what most of the discussion here is about. A dog has died, suddenly and quite horribly, very possibly (but not certainly) after exposure to something toxic in Peckham Rye. This may have been misplaced rat poison (in which case the council needs to investigate pronto) or - possibly - a toxic fungus - in which case such investigation is also important. It is also possible (but not probable) that the death was caused by an infection - only a proper set of lab tests can determine what actually caused the death, and therefore what follow-up/ remedies need to be applied to avoid any occurrence. I think we can all agree that actions to avoid another dog suffering in this way would be good, but until the actual cause can be established it is difficult to know what these actions would optimally be (nor what other dog owners should be looking out for). Posters have simply been suggesting that jumping to any conclusion - however 'probable' that might be without evidence - may mean that something important is being missed. I would certainly say that keeping dogs close to you, and intervening if they seem to want to be eating something in the park would be a good idea. But what exactly to watch out for is at the moment moot. I would not wish the horror and tragedy that has hit the first owner should be visited on another.

The time-line on this is that the vet did not start to treat the dog until Sunday (as far as I can see) - it is thus most unlikely that he/ she could have got definitive test results back (it's not like CSI when you get results in the next shot) - therefore he/ she made a reasonable assumption that the symptoms (and x-ray evidence) were most likely to be poisoning based on the speed of the onset of sickness and its symptoms. These symptoms are also, apparently, noticed in infections (such as Alabama Rot). Until (and if) there are tests to identify definitively the cause of death it is a reasonable precaution to assume the most likely cause - poison - although this could well be a tragic accident (with rat poison inadvertently moved to where dogs might get it) rather than any intent. I doubt (outwith appropriate tests) that the vet could, at this stage, 'confirm' it's poison - amongst other things I doubt that they normally carry appropriate testing kits for such screening. It is worth pointing out that it would need a huge dose of warfarin to kill, so quickly, even a quite small dog. Rats take some time to die from ingesting it (normally dying from internal haemorrhage). That suggests that it may have been a far quicker acting toxin, or a mixture of toxins. Amended to say - this was a cross-post with rendalharris - I agree that fungal toxins can act in this way - if it was a fungus/ mushroom then it is worth checking (and quite quickly) - this sadly may not be the only dog to be poisoned if such mushrooms are growing locally. People also can pick, eat and die from poisonous mushrooms.

As this is a consultation the the loss of trains to Gatwick from SE London is absolutely something that should be fed back as part of the consultation - and the more voices (ideally supported by our councillors and MP) to that effect the better. At a time when the use of public transport is more important, and when Gatwick might still be the preferred supplier of an additional London airport runway, there is no excuse to let this one slip by. Edited to say - I believe the relevant question to respond to is Q60 here https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/2018timetableconsultation - it is well hidden.

sells dog roses which could be trained to climb over walls as a prickly deterrent! Also blackberries! Mahonia ( https://www.rhs.org.uk/plants/details?plantid=1232 ) and holly also provide deterrents, - and are evergreen and have nice flowers (mahonia) and berries (both). They are good winter companions for roses and blackberries (both deciduous) and less invasive than blackberries. Amended to add that some Mahonias are winter flowering - which can a be a bonus.

Clearly trees are a real amenity (although I'm afraid the exotic species listed above may be even more vulnerable to the sort of mindless vandalism we occasionally get) but it would be good to know what is the cost/ budget for a tree planted in an existing space (i.e. replacement tree) and what it costs additionally (i.e. labour and planning costs) to introduce a tree into a new site? I suppose the first set of costs would be (1) buying a tree - presumably 3-5 years old for one of sufficient size (2) labour to plant tree (and clear old tree roots etc. if necessary) and (3) on-cost of managing planted tree annualised over expected tree-life. At a time of stretched council budgets trees will cost money - although as the concomitant well-being produced by having tree-lined roads cannot probably be accurately measured as a costed amount it is probably not possibly to offset that cost with some putative down-stream cost benefit because people are happier. [if you assumed your well-being was improved on a monetary basis by as little as 10p a year per tree in a street you frequent that would probably amount - assuming say only 200 residents sufficiently regularly impacted by the tree to 'count' - to ?20 a year of contribution to local well being - or perhaps ?1200 per tree over a 60 year tree life.]