Penguin68

I suspect that one of the problems with the practice is their method of allocating appointment slots. From what I have gathered (in part listening to conversations in the queue) only some of a GPs available slots are ?released? by the office manager at any one time to be booked. This, I imagine, was to avoid the possibility of people booking all the time slots ahead, and then no-showing. So only a few are trickle fed into the system at a time. This makes availability look sparse, although my family (4 adults) has never had a problem getting an appointment quickly when actually in the throes of illness. So if you want to see a doctor ?in three weeks time? there are probably very few slots available at any one time. The practice manager is almost certainly not monitoring the situation in real time (he/ she should be) in order to release more slots if they are all taken. The appointment staff cannot offer slots they cannot access. Hence both the reported problems and those countering by saying they aren?t having a problem. It depends, in part, I am guessing, whether you are asking for an appointment when the practice manager has just realised more slots, or not. There are algorithms which would make this work better.

Bues stripping short is often the result of road works which we seem to be particularly suffering recently - E&C, VHX. Road works clearly are c*cking up schedules, but the 176 stops (unexpectedly) either just before the Strand or Trafalgar Square, going into town; the 63 often in Peckham going out of town, both have already passed through the roadworks. And this has been going on for longer even than the cycleway works. Driver changes are almost inevitable for the 176 going into town at Camberwell. I often wonder whether the different drivers only know part of the route, but I am guessing it's a scheduled rest-stop - which of course drivers, as any workers, should have. The 176 is a long route.

A lot of buses serving ED inter alia also 'stop the bus short of ..(their).. usual destination(s)' - the 176 heading towards Tottenham Court Road and the 63 for Honor Oak (ish) - I would say 2 out of 9 have their initial destination changed en route. I am sure those using other buses regularly have similar experiences. Is this just an example of the disdain which TfL treats South East London - or do other areas suffer as poor a service I wonder?

Hi P68, Southwark Council is the planning authority. SO I am hopeful if the TfL plans look good that the freeholder and leaseholder will agree as part of any planning agreement. Is there any past evidence that the Dulwich Estate has agreed to alienate any part of their holdings? I can see why the leaseholder might wish to do so to improve pedestrian access, but I cannot see why the Estate would. Indeed I am not sure to what extent they would be allowed under the terms they operate under to alienate part of their land. The only practical route may be through compulsory purchase - but why would Southwark fund this?

Relinquishing some of the land for a wider road allowing a pedestrian island other than via a Compulsory Purchase Order will need the cooperation of the Dulwich Estate as freeholder and the leaseholder. So that ain't going to happen, is it? What they have they hold.

The offer of marking kits is only open to those in ED ward, other wards did not seek this funding. East Dulwich and ED ward are not contiguous.

How old was this man? You say he 'shuffled' which suggests some age. If he was old he may also have been confused, asking directions and then heading off another way can be a symptom of confusion, possibly age related and may not have been a threat to your boy. Is it possible that rather than asking for Crystal Palace Road he was wanting the road to Crystal Palace (which CPR really isn't)? Starting up CPR it would then be quickly clear this wasn't a route to Crystal Palace, hence his return. I do not think that you are wrong to be concerned, or to share these concerns with relevant authorities. But there may be other explanations for this man's behaviour than any which are actually threatening to your child. This is still intelligence which is worth sharing, but it may not actually turn out to be of concern to other parents. Hopefully.

Cllr. Barber reported just now: "At the Dulwich Community Council meeting the local Police Inspector commented on crime levels. Burglary - very slight rise in reported burglaries from an incredibly low reported burglary crime rate." This is clearly good, but I suspect the figures being discussed will have been drawn up at least 10 days ago - so probably the most recent occurrences haven't yet hit the books. And of course a significant increase over a few blocks will probably not have a great impact within a borough (or even ward) - being maybe a displacement of activity from one group of streets to another. So, locally, it may still feel like a significant increase, even if statistically it isn't.

Just a slight warning to those who have already been burgled - it's not uncommon for thieves to revisit former crime scenes a couple of months later to steal the (now modern and up-to-date) replacement goods bought on insurance (i.e. laptops and phones). Update and revise your security if you have been burgled. Also, if you have had windows broken remember that putty will take some time to harden, making it easier to lift out windows that have been repaired. Proper window locks (or even screwing shut street facing windows at least) are vital. But also remember that entry from gardens etc. is always possible. I remember a number of years ago (not in ED) when burglars managed to get into one house from the front, went through it, exited at the back and then hit a number of houses from their gardens - going through much more vulnerable patio doors etc. The ?good? news is that burglary teams (this spate of burglaries seems like a team is working) do move on after a few weeks, not least because they wish to avoid increased police vigilance.

No that's fine - ED residents can buy this to take to their second homes in the country...

Although it must also be remembered that the Dulwich Estate's policy of excluding the railway (as regards stations) from its environs will have contributed to growth outside the Estate's, well, estate. This will have helped stimulate housing growth outside that area. But yes, almost all Victorian urban growth (and later Edwardian) stepped out with the spread of mass transit.

It is very difficult to distinguish between 'need to' and 'nice to' have things - if only because individual residents will place different priorities. And to distinguish between the needs of different interest groups. People with young children need different resources from those with teenagers, or from pensioners. One criterion which is worth considering is 'investment' - that is does expenditure in one category avoid or reduce expenditure in others? - fitness classes and support for pensioners may seem like a luxury - but fit pensioners cost the NHS and social services far less than unfit ones, in general. Ideally a council would operate zero-based budgeting - where each year the case would be needed to be made for every expenditure category - without reference to what happened in the past. Actually most councils (and businesses) base their budgets on some top-down adjustment against previous years - hence 'across the board 20% cuts' etc. And it also means that particular budget heads continue, (because they always have). So the overall pot is automatically allocated across activities which already happen rather than challenging them as fundamentals. I believe that, for the best of all possible reasons, many councils have become involved in expenditure on areas which now might be hard(er) to justify than in the past. Perhaps the best thing for us critics is to look closely not at what is no longer being supported, but what still is. It is only when we see where the money is still going that we can reasonably argue about where it has been lost from. And yes, I do think playgrounds trump fireworks for expenditure prioritisation.

However, I think it's vital that staff man this site whenever it's open as it makes teenage kids feel safer I suspect, as things are going, that if the site is to only be open when there are paid-for staff to staff it, then it won't be open very much or for very long hours. Be careful about getting what you wish for.

No, not in Southwark. - So, not, in fact, 'anywhere they choose', then, despite your earlier protestation. And your ignorance suggests you know very little about the subject. There are many 'green' alternatives to cremation - not the least freezing and fracture (using liquid nitrogen) - then using the resultant granules as mulch. You are clearly not aware that people (survivors) who do chose cremation often wish still to memorialise and visit the 'graves' of their loved ones - even where ashes and not bodies are interred. Burials (all obsequies) are for the living, not the dead. What I see from you is a rather nasty streak of prejudice (your references to Israel and Mecca) of which, frankly, you should be ashamed. Islam and Judaism are by no means the only religions or sects who choose burial. Very many Christians (particularly Catholics) also are unhappy about cremation. [Parsis (alternatively Parsees) chose neither, preferring exposure to vultures in their Towers of Silence.]

Those whose religions dictate otherwise should be buried in Israel/Mecca or wherever they choose. Southwark?

Yes, it is meant to be funny, no, it is not a joke being made by someone else 'against' Paddy Power.

FACEBOOK wrote They've already taken space from Honor Oak recreation ground and now that's full it won't be too long before they take the rest. I had thought that the space used for recreation was on land already designated for burials, but was being alternatively used until needed (which shows a good flexible approach). Southwark's 'desperation' for burial space appears evidenced only in that they are using previously designated spaces for what they were previously designated for, or bringing back into use land already in cemeteries which had become neglected and over-grown (and where there were already burials). I am happy to stand corrected, but has there been any recent (last 5 years) new designation of land for burials locally?

As long as you will be letting the property you already have, and moving to live in the new property, then I don't believe the increased stamp duty would be triggered - it only comes in from 1st April 2016 anyway - so not an issue if your transactions are completed by then. There are no other BTL penalties in this Autumn Statement. Edited to add:- of course it has already been announced (I believe) that you will not be able to charge mortgage interest costs as an allowable expense on buy-to-let rentals - you will need to check the details on this.

This is clearly a good story - but it's worth remembering that there are far more nice people than sh*ts about - we tend only to hear bad news and extrapolate from that that bad people outnumber the good. They don't. No reason not to rejoice, however, when we hear of good deeds. That's positive reinforcement and role modeling.

They have cameras attached to the top of the machine which give them your PIN, It's always a good idea to shield the keypad (I use my open wallet) when inputting your pin. Doing that (and standing close to the machine itself blocking observation from behind) will (hopefully) offer some protection.

When I used to commute in Chelsea in the 70s Sloane Square tube station had a small bar actually at platform level - the west bound platform. Great. Maybe the pub could move 'downstairs'.

to provide burial for the few dead why cutting services to the living Actually, all burials, memorials etc. are for the benefit of the living, not the dead (who are not 'there' to benefit from anything). The processes surrounding death and mourning are all about the survivors, not the deceased. To many, formal corpse disposal gives great psychological well-being - and for some a focus for mourning - particularly true when the deceased is relatively young, or, indeed, still a child. Anyone who doesn't understand the role and importance of obsequies etc. to significant numbers of (living) people - or who thinks cemeteries are about the dead, rather than the living, needs perhaps to review their position. Perhaps a little bit of empathy is called for here? Or do trees trump people?

Perhaps the Peckham Coal Line isn't close enough to his back yard to impact his personal amenity?

Actually - 'we think our customers all look like w*nkers' - so an entirely reasonable statement, couldn't be challenged under ASA rules. Makes an assumption about appearance, not actual behavior.

I'd personally choose being left out in a black plastic sack for the bin men - but there are many people who psychologically or socially see ceremony and memorial as very important to them. Even the cremated can be then buried (as was always true - see excavations of Roman urns with ashes in them). Having somewhere to mourn (if that's your bag) is very important to some people - no reason not to choose something different for yourself, but I am against imposing my corpse disposal preferences on others. Hence my resistance to attempts to change an existing cemetery to a wilderness, when many people psychologically need cemeteries.