Penguin68

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.

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?