Penguin68

The only 'rule' was that you needed the same type (i.e. cross-ply or radial) of tyre on each axle - although I think that different types may now be a thing of the past. It may make sense to replace any tyre that is very close to needing it (as regards depth of tread, even if still 'legal') - particularly in the winter when grip is peculiarly important, but there is no need to make a general replacement of tyres (you wouldn't if one was e.g punctured, after all). Remember to ensure that your spare, if your car is one of those that has one, is properly inflated in case you need to use it.

and upsetting a large proportion of the electorate Evidence?

We had a similar problem with our deliveries a number of months ago - holiday and sickness had left the sorting office with too few staff to provide cover for all the walks. Even in the best run firms this does happen on occasion. Normally the sorting office is very helpful in finding undelivered mail - Sylvester Road certainly is - and is open till late on Wednesdays for those working. Although the PO used to use casual relief staff more I am quite glad they now don't - A number of years ago I recall seeing two 'relief' posties meeting and holding envelopes up to the light to see what was in them - they hadn't realised I happened to be looking out of a front window at the time. Around that time I had a cheque book stolen 'in the post'.

Mr Barber wrote:- So yes, really, I don't believe in wasting tax payers money to provide more expensive burials that only some can use I wonder how he is unaware that all proper management of amenity spaces costs money - the fact that the cost is so high reflects the lack of investment and maintenance when the areas were allowed to degrade so badly - oh, when his party was in power (part of the time, anyway). Only commercial woodlands (planting and harvesting commercial crops of wood, which I am sure would upset the nature mavens stimulating this 'protest')) are self-financing - parks and other amenity areas cost money to maintain - for the benefit of all those who use them as spaces, not just the dead. I walk daily in the Old Cemetery, and enjoy all the local cemeteries as maintained areas of tranquility.. The only 'cheap' method of handling the space is as was done in the past, to neglect and ignore it so it becomes overgrown, dangerous and impenetrable. Oh - and the target for indiscriminate fly-tipping, as in the past. I cannot believe that Mr Barber is so foolish as to believe that there is no cost associated with just maintaining parks and cemeteries, even if there were no future burials. Or can I?

I am not sure, Ridgely, what your point is here - I was saying that blade violence (which another had referred to regarding the old razor gangs) was not then an in-school phenomenon. The use of knives in schools seems to be a new thing (violence in school being of the fist, boot and knee variety in my school days). There were certainly regular (probably weekly) incidents - as there were in the 70s and 80s on the terraces and around clubs when some of the fan 'firms' were rampant - Stanley knives were quite favoured than, rather than straight edge razors - but thugs went in more for cutting than stabbing in those days, and fatalities were fewer. So, my point is that I agreed blade based violence among the young is not new, but that it wasn't formerly a playground activity.

As this post has now appeared back from the lounge - here is my comment (necessarily also lounged) on it - apologies for repetition:- It's a cemetery - where they bury people. It got over-grown through neglect, now they are putting that right. There are loads of real 'wild' spaces and woods around the area, which are properly managed as woods, and 'wild' spaces. This is now being properly managed (at last) as a cemetery. Get over it.

I don't agree that it's a new phenomenon: "razor gangs" were a moral panic in London almost 100 years ago! The razor gangs of the 50s and early 60s were mainly made up of (admittedly young) working men - remember the school leaving age then was 15, going later up to 16 only in 1972. Their strife took place outside schools. Knife violence inside schools in the UK is very much a modern phenomenon (although, as I have said above, many school children then did carry knives). I recall I lovely Giles cartoon showing two groups of Teds, one with razors, the other swinging electric shavers on their leads with the comment, by a policemen watching and doing nothing - 'Now we'll see which shaves closer...' or words to that effect.

It's a cemetery - where they bury people. It got over-grown through neglect, now they are putting that right. There are loads of real 'wild' spaces and woods around the area, which are properly managed as woods, and 'wild' spaces. This is now being properly managed (at last) as a cemetery. Get over it.

at the same time I'm not convinced that stabbing someone requires skill. We are not talking about ritualistic "kinfe fights" here. My point was that NOT stabbing people (i.e. being in proper control of your weapon) is what requires skill. And not being stabbed requires skill as well (such as not running into a blade).

When I was a child in the 1950s it was quite common for pre-teens to carry knives - penknives and even sheath knives (indeed I think these formed part of the scout uniform) - teenagers however tended not to (expensive swiss army knives for status notwithstanding). Testosterone fueled adolescent aggression of course existed, but fists, knees and boots tended to be the weapons of choice. I fear that much injury now caused by teens fighting with knives in school is probably, at least in part, broadly unintentional, with threatening and bravado ending in injury more because the teens don't actually know how to knife-fight than because they do. Kids now carry knives because other kids carry knives, but have no control or ability if ever they think they have to use them. Teenage aggression is absolutely marked throughout history - and there is a long history of real violence ending in real deaths in London dating back to medieval times and before. Look up apprentice riots.

As the creditors/ debtors figures go towards drawing up a balance sheet a long term 'debtor' (such as a rental deposit) might be booked as such, rather than in any other asset class. Equally the business may have given a loan (e.g. to a principle of the business) - i.e. for purchase of a car etc. - which might be being treated in this manner. Although normal commercial loans would be expected to be paid down, in this case this might not have happened, or have been required.

Leaving the building effectively derelict (even if 'boarded-up' with sheet steel) will make the case for complete demolition simpler. Its position (with garden and parking) and near a school with a boarding house and thus parents visiting who weren't local could well have made it a viable 'pub with rooms' - for longer-term visitors to Dulwich (the route the Dog is taking) - although the worry was that the estate (where its drop-in punters in the old days came from) would have given the wrong tone to a more up-market establishment. But I do feel its very sad to see the 'big' local pubs ruined or closed - most in the Dulwich Estate portfolio.

I just know what debtors are in accounting terms and can't think of any reason a small retail business would have such a significant amount. It could be something to do with their payment system but it is odd. It very much depends on their year end and how e.g. regular prepayments work - if they pay rental quarterly in advance (many commercial companies do) then a year end at the end of month 1 would leave two months rental prepayment as a 'debtor' - i.e. prepayment. Equally the 'rental' element of utilities (as opposed to usage charges) is also an up-front payment - e.g. telephone services. Where retail businesses have regular commercial customers (not an issue here) they may deliver goods in advance of billing (or the bill being paid).

and the students get whatever counselling they need Counselling should not be forced too precipitously on anyone who has suffered a traumatic experience - to be shocked and to grieve is natural - students should be aware of where they can obtain counselling of course - but to engage students (or anyone) in counselling sessions too early may be to fix the event rather than to allow it to dissipate naturally. Most people who do have traumatic events thrust on them do not suffer from post-traumatic shock - some do, but to assume all do may be to actually exacerbate, rather then alleviate, future problems. Sometimes a shared formal grieving process can be helpful, as long as it does not become 'counselling' too early.

I assume the early start on leaf clearance would benefit those going to work/ school in the morning who thus avoid the perils of wet slippery leaves and hidden obstacles previously complained about on this forum. If I was the official in charge of leaf clearance, with complaints being urged on this forum to complain if it isn't, or if it is, being done, I'd probably think - well what I would think is rude.

In general (restrictive covenants and e.g. Conservation Area issues and listing aside) it is a good thing that we cannot generally impose our personal aesthetic tastes onto third parties. One man's 'scruffy' is another's 'lived-in'. At a certain stage there may be issues of danger (to health, to others structures etc.) - but where these aren't an issue then we should learn to live with other's choices.

I think that a security system which over-wrote footage as part of the design (except where that footage was of a malefactor and was intentionally retained) would escape any censure - that is the effect of cameras used on cars to record journeys in case of incident. I do not believe that anyone should be discouraged from installing a camera security system (CCTV) which overlooks the areas outside their dwelling and which may additionally overlook public highways or footpaths. Nor do I believe that having such a system would require registration under the DPA. The UK is the most heavily CCTV covered country (it is reported) - had this been a real issue we would have heard of it by now. Public use of footage gathered by a CCTV system, for instance by posting on the internet, may in the future be an issue, but I doubt it.

Wasn't it once a Military shop selling army stuff... badges, medals etc. I can only remember Target Arms, On Lordship Lane in the block next to the police station. Was there another?

But, that butcher shop with the old car outside, (near o the cemetery) is NOT my favourite It's by far the best butcher locally - and the most wonderfully eccentric shop - internally in very good order - the owner collects classic cars, the ones outside are settling into gentle decay perhaps, but it's not everywhere you can find a car in NY taxi livery.

I shopped regularly in the Brixton M&S at the time of, indeed on the Saturday of, the Brixton riots. It was then a well-used store. And, that Saturday, still untouched by the riots, which had started the night before, although the rioting on Saturday was more intense. It shows something of our own insecurities that we see M&S as a middle class destination store. It was just a store, in Brixton, way back then (and the go-to place for socks and knickers).

Please - I am NOT suggesting Southwark is in any way exceptional, just noting that (indeed like Lewisham) it has a mix of needs. And it is quite possible, based on population, that the south end of Southwark may end up with fewer councilors than previously - if so, again entirely fair (allocation of councilors should match population) but may mean that the voice of the south end is even more muted than before. That is part of what is behind potentially no longer operating an automatic 3 councilor per ward allocation, whilst still sticking with the same overall number of councilors.

I think you'll find no London borough is homogeneous - they all have more and less deprived area in them, even Westminster! I am not suggesting anything other. But it is Southwark, not other boroughs, we are looking at here - and it is clear that the priorities of the northern end of the borough are significantly different from the southern end. As the northern end is more populous it is (entirely properly) their needs which are first addressed. The topology of the borough means that whilst technically inner London we in the southern end have some similarities with outer boroughs. I doubt whether any of the fiddling at the margins which this review will in the end deliver will make any positive impact on us at all (possibly a negative one if our 'tail' becomes even more representative light and the dog even more influential).

Wards (ideally) should reflect communities of interest, the numbers of councilors per ward should have some tie-in to the ward electorate (to reflect case-loads). A 'ward' which covered all those areas which think they are East Dulwich would be much larger than the current ED ward, and probably should have more than 3 councilors. However some communities of interest actually go across borough boundaries (the houses on either side of Wood Vale have much more in common with each other than with either Lewisham or Southwark as a whole, for instance). It can never be got completely right. There are some odd corners in the current ward boundaries which look gerrymandered (the little intrusion of Peckham Rye between College and East Dulwich, for instance) What is broke is the clear difference in needs between north and south Southwark - and that's the one bit which ain't going to be fixed.

I've noticed that the mild autumn has considerably extended the period of leaf fall - I still have deciduous trees where leaves haven't even started turning yet. Maybe the recent strong winds will help - but the longer the period of leaf fall, the more costly it is to continue to sweep up. I recall when bonfire night saw the bulk of the leaf fall burned in bonfires - now this looks to be continuing through to December. 650km of roads will now need sweeping perhaps 4 or 5 times to clear them - whereas in the past that might only have been twice or three times. Hence the time taken to sweep particular roads. And the apparent ineffectiveness of the work done.

on behalf of Southwark labour Councillors Really? Not on behalf of the people of Southwark, or on behalf of Southwark Council, but on behalf of Southwark Labour Councilors only. Seems a bit excluding. First time I have heard of a partisan Remembrance ceremony.