Penguin68

The general grocers and CTN in Wood Vale was attacked last night; shutter padlocks cut and plate glass window smashed - the till was taken and smashed open on the forecourt (coins scattered about) and cigarettes taken. Police were there 30 minutes ago - I would guess they will try to open today, if they can, but things are in a mess. Very sad, unnecessary and depressing. These are good people who offer a good service and range of products.

and I am sorry that it is having to close though. As the lease has been on offer for some time now I suspect that it may well continue trading until (and if) an offer is made and accepted. Unless the overheads are greater than the revenues it makes sense to continue trading rather than having an asset (the lease) lie fallow. Indeed, even if there are losses, these may be discountable (for tax purposes) against any other revenues associated with the trading company. The business may be more valuable as a going concern than just a lease on an empty building. The lease being on offer does suggest that the business may close, but the timing of that closure is by no means certain or imminent.

Wasn't fond of the mice (note plural) either. BUT (amended to add) there were/ are elements of charm in the eclectic collections of crockery etc. The wide range of teas (assuming they were fresh) was admirable and the coffee was normally good. But the cake display was, when I went, always parsimonious, and there were often items on the (drinks) menu listed but not available. Haven't been there for some time. Things may have changed. But I have found many better (and even better value) places elsewhere on the LL strip and adjacent.

I think the lease has been up for sale for some time.

The builder is liable with or without a party wall agreement. The party wall doesn't create any new rights for either party whatsoever. This may be true, but the builder may be more difficult to persuade (outwith legal recourse) if his insurance is unhappy to pay out. And there may also be issues about consequential loss. Of course it is possible to proceed without such an agreement, and 9 times out of 10 (possibly 99 out of a 100) this will all be fine. But it is the tenth (or hundredth) time that it may be an issue. Your risk.

What you have to take into account is that a party wall agreement (amongst other things) documents the state of your house before the work starts - that is a good starting place to negotiate from if the builder does cause any accidentla damage - which might include e.g. cracking in your walls caused by work on the other side. If you really get on with your neighbours you could take photographs 'before' and get them to agree these - but a party wall agreement does give you a legal framework - their builder would have to put right any consequential defects but it's much easier to get this done if such an agreement is in place (and you may find their insurance will require such an agreement in place before they agree to pay out!). Whatever your relations with your neighbour, these agreements exist for a purpose.

Yes

The problem is that the motivation for these crimes can be quite different - opportunistic theft for gain or benefit, casual vandalism and (for things like hub caps and insiginia) 'collecting' mania, which seems to come in waves - a remedy and precaution against one will not necessarily deter another (although some of the things described above do not fall into the 'low level' crime category, in my view).

Much of the problem with the practice (and most others) is in meeting scheduling - a system which allows both real-time on-line and in-office scheduling - which has to 'cope' with 9 diaries (possibly more with non GP staff on the roster as well) - most of them not standard 9-5 meeting times, which has to cope with expected no-shows and avoid selfish over-booking, which has to leave time slots for emergencies appointments as well as for routine elements is actually non-trivial - and amongst other things a good system has to incorporate queuing theory algorithms. In the recent past the system, as far as I can gather, has had management interference to suppress and then release appointment slots to avoid (I am guessing) people booking up too far ahead on the off-chance that they will need to see a doctor in the future. It has also relied on office staff triage to judge both urgency and appropriate level of medical support - and these are not necessarily fully trained people in triage systems. The most recent problems (again I am guessing) may be an attempt to get a 'clean start' when a new booking system is introduced so that its value can be more immediately judged. This may (or may not) be a good idea. At least I am getting text alerts to remind me of appointments (and these are also logged on the IT system - which does seem to work for repeat prescriptions). Not all is uniformly bad, some things may even be improving. We may just be in an uneven transition period. At least the practice is trying to change - which suggests it is aware that problems exist - that not all the changes are necessarily always positive on all fronts is, I'm afraid, pretty typical of process changes. And existing staff (who will always resist change, that's just a rule of thumb, unless they are the authors of it) may not be responding well in a transition period. Amended to add - my experiences more closely match those of Growlybear (above) than others on this thread. Maybe I've just been lucky.

How much of this is actually 'new'? Many junctions already have some double yellows on them (not necessarily 10 metres - and that clearly is overkill for many 'slow' roads) - so how much is actually additional? I ask not because I think it's a good idea (I don't) but because if you are to make an effective case against, then actual increased (as it were) parking reduction and not a back of a fag packet calculation would offer better evidence. I suspect that most of these roads already have 5 metres of restriction (or self denial restriction) - so are we talking perhaps 4.9km additional space lost, rather than 9.81km? And what percentage is this of the overall 'parking space' available on these roads for the 3 wards? Don't get me wrong, as I said I'm agin it - but I would like to know exactly what I'm agin.

Is this one of the services which is due to move to TfL in the next couple of years, and is there (if it is) any chance of getting someone from TfL to your meeting (the holding of which I can only applaud)?

There are excellent incinerators available locally (think metal dustbin with big holes punched it it) - these will reduce wood and paper to ash - but when they are first alight it is good idea to be prepared to damp down surrounding areas as they can be quite fierce. Remember to separate papers a bit - if you try to burn them in big wodges even with this type of incinerator they may not burn through. But they should burn quickly and efficiently - and smoke from papers isn't too offensive (but watch out for neighbours' washing)

Why can they not take on more doctors to see patients or extend the surgery opening hours? Cost? GP practices are private business or partnerships - they are paid on their NHS contract for the number of patients they have and for undertaking specific health care procedures (such as vaccinations and inoculations, certain types of health check etc.) This money arrives regardless of their costs - more doctors or longer hours open mean that the surgery operating costs go up, but their revenues are fixed (or at least, not associated with their costs). All practice staff are contracted to the practice (not the NHS - although some types of primary care NHS staff may work out of doctors' surgeries - such as Health Visitors and Psychotherapists in the IAPT programme).

Leaving knives on the floor at a children's party is a little different to possibly 'turning your ankle' whilst walking through a wood. But maybe, and Southwark's warning notices suggest they think this is so, leaving gaping and unstable graves and grave furniture partly obscured by undergrowth and scrub is quite similar to leaving knives on the floor - if, for instance, young people (say teenagers) were to go chasing through 'the woods' unaware such hazards were there. If the cemeteries are to become simply leisure areas (as wanted by ssw), such actions would not be unlikely.

the scaremongering claiming that the area is unsafe is just plain ridiculous. I was trying to highlight just how ridiculous. The council already warns of unsafe areas off the paths in the un-managed parts of COC - and has sealed off the dumped waste. My point has always been not that individuals might not be prepared to take risks, but that the council, with a general duty of care (and not wishing to be sued) will err on the side of extreme caution - which, if the cemeteries were allowed to become wilded would eventually mean (in my view) that the council might seal the cemeteries on the grounds of health and safety (and actually, probably, using that as an excuse so they would no longer have to spend any money on their upkeep as 'wild' areas). Yes, of course, that could well be an over-reaction - but it is one which only someone who has not noticed the trajectory of H&S decisions could ignore. Oh, and if you were hosting (and thus liable) for a young children's Christmas party, would you decide not to use fireguards, or put easily toppled candles on low surfaces, or leave knives and scissors on the floor (to help cut open the parcels)?

In fact, laws on trees that relate to Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries include the Church?s Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 which state clearly that all trees over 75mm girth measured at 1.5m above ground level require a Faculty from the Church in order to be felled by anyone, including the Council. No - these rules (link here http://www.churchcare.co.uk/churches/faculty-rules-2015) specifically cover what can be done in Church Property - that is to say, Churches - and makes no reference to municipal cemeteries. The ssw crew regularly cite the Diocese as having the right to dictate tree removal policy to the council as regards consecrated areas in municipal cemeteries, as part of the ?Faculty? that they have the right to grant (or not) regarding ?substantial alterations? in such consecrated areas. The examples given in published policy for such ?substantial alterations? cover the removal or re-siting of bodies, interference with grave furniture and the creation of new paths and roads. All of these are directly consequential on the consecrated status of the land ? buried bodies in consecrated land are meant to stay there unless church authority is given for their removal; grave furniture may (and often does) contain Christian symbols or statements, and can be considered to ?inherit? the consecrated nature of the ground ? as does church architecture and, finally, new paths or roads ? where burials thus cannot take place ? alter the nature and extent of the area consecrated. However to extend this to something clearly not consecrated ? trees ? is I believe a mistake under law. Trees cannot be consecrated ? indeed that would be tantamount to tree worship ? a pagan rather than a Christian tradition. Trees, as much as grass and flowers, may adorn areas of consecration but do not thus form part of them. I believe that if the ssw people have been advised by Diocesan apparatchiks that the Faculty extends to trees, and of particular dimensions, they are wrong. The confusion may lie in the right (as shown in the above link) that the Diocese would have to set rules for their own lands (i.e. with Church property ? such as Churchyards associated with churches - which the municipal cemeteries aren?t) about tree conservation (just as I would, as a landlord, perhaps give my tenants the right to prune shrubs but not to cut down trees on my property without my consent). I suspect that any attempts by the church to lay down rules on tree conservation outside their lands, as an attempt to extend the remit of their Faculty granting powers, could (and should) be challenged by the council as being ultra vires. It has nothing to do with the consecrated nature of the land, those buried in it or their memorials ? which is what is covered by the powers of Faculty regarding consecrated land in municipal cemeteries. The rights given to the Church over non-church property are specific and limited to the nature of consecration ? and are not the equivalent of those rights the church has over its own lands (also covered by grants of Faculty - but in this case covering different rights). It may be that church clerks are advising differently, but I believe that advice, if being given, is fundamentally wrong and is readily challengeable in the courts.

Virgin is cable and Sky/BT are phone services anyway...aren't they? In origin Virgin (actually NTL/Telewest originally, before re-branding) were a cable TV service using (originally) coaxial distribution (optimised one-way). Over time they have used their networks (much enhanced) to distribute voice and data services additionally. BT delivered locally, for itself and later others, voice and then data services, initially over its copper twisted pair telephone network (using technology to boost the signal) and then over fibre. In fact modern domestic voice and data networks, even when still terminating over a copper pair in the household, can take diverse routes through BT's networks, with data and voice terminating on different equipment in the exchanges. In addition voice can be packetised and carried over data lines (VoIP). What this means for BT services is that data and voice often quite quickly separate in the network away from the premises - so that you can at times lose one whilst still retaining the other when parts of the network are compromised (theft of cable, breakage of cable). And of course things can go wrong with the bits of kit in the exchanges, some now BT's but some those of rival carriers - or in the links between exchanges or in the software controlling the traffic (and these links may be physical - copper or more likely fibre - or radio - such as microwave links). Basically the communications networks that service you can be very mixed economies - very different from the very simple distribution of gas, water or electricity.

Because they share the anti car agenda.

BT Services are still working - so far (land-line & broadband).

That's what I intended to imply.

Of course, the cemeteries were wheelchair accessible (before the neglect), and now increasingly won't be - if those who want burials stopped and wilding to happen get their way, whereas Dartmoor and Brighton Beach are becoming more accessible - different trajectories here...

https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/leisure-and-libraries/seafront/beach-accessibility-all http://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/visiting/accessible-dartmoor/vi-accessforall http://www.devon.gov.uk/easily_accessible_paths_dartmoor

I too have had no real issues with the practice - in general urgent problems are dealt with, routine appointments are (eventually) available. I think their current method of 'releasing' appointments in a dribble isn't working - but the alternative (make everything available at once) would almost certainly lead to multiple slots being booked and then not taken-up by a small minority of patients. If their booking system was more open, it would be possible for doctors to book-in follow-up appointments during a consultation themselves in 'their own' calendars - which would offer a better continuity of care for a particular medical problem. That way you wouldn't reach the impasse of the doctor telling you to come back in x weeks, but such a visit actually being un-bookable at reception. It would also stop doctors setting impossible return times based on an ideal rather than a practical timetable. No point in saying 'come and see me in three weeks' if you have no 'routine' slots available for a month and a half.

I've walked through this cemetery, and Abney Park Cemetery, and Nunhead Cemetery, and somehow managed to come out unscathed. Am I normal? If you stick to the marked paths in the unmanaged area that is fine, but penetrate into the woodland scrub (as you are warned not to do) and there are many trip hazards (and chances to turn your ankle quite badly) - there would be no reason to maintain the paths if they are to lead nowhere, so I would assume that these also would become overgrown eventually. The paths themselves (because the soil is impacted) are regularly waterlogged, and may be expected to become more so if the area is to be generally abandoned - which will increase the slipping potential. The area will become increasingly unsafe for the elderly or infirm, and will not offer, e.g. wheel chair access - so, until sealed will be the cynosure of the fit, young and active. Nothing against them, but a park which might eventually only be 'enjoyed' from its borders by a substantial minority of potential users is hardly a community asset.

Can I suggest that, rather than pursuing those who do not fully engage in debate, but use this forum as a propaganda outlet (their choice) we, where we can, refute statements which are clearly wrong or tendentious, challenge those which are unsubstantiated with evidence (for the record) and carry on debating with those who wish to curtail or restrict the council's plans and offer achievable alternatives. As I have said, above (not actually a straw man) I believe that the nub of the debate is between those who wish to see burial continue locally in Southwark (without necessarily fully endorsing all the council's long-run plans for full re-use (100%) of the cemeteries, if that really is their long-term game plan, (whilst accepting some re-use) and those who would like to see burials substantially curtailed or stopped, at least once existing first-use space is fully utilised. As a side issue, there are those who would wish to see the cemeteries back in full management, and those who would wish an element of the non-managed areas to be left unmanaged (though I still believe that for safety reasons, with unstable and gaping graves there it would likely have to be sealed off from public access). Those waving the nature flag would however presumably be happy with that, excluding them to the benefit of wild things. (Moot point - what if Knot-weed starts growing there - can the council leave that?) I would like to see some discussion of what those of us who support, within reason, the council's plans would expect/ hope to see as an end-game of a fully managed cemetery with their re-use vision.