Penguin68

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].

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).