Penguin68

Passengers should use local buses or London Underground to complete journeys if travelling to/from stations between London Blackfriars and Herne Hill/Streatham. Like to see them try...

The pile of tarmac and paving rubbish dumped in Langston by Conways over a month ago is still there, blocking across one lane. As Langston has no houses (or voters) fronting on it, and is, I believe, a ward boundary, it doesn't really have a councilor who 'cares' for it, so nobody really bothers. Conways have always used that road either as a dump or somewhere where they can park-up their kit, but this is beginning to get beyond a joke. If the council's own contractors can fly-tip, why would anyone else not just join in?

This is not a 'shed' but a 1940s pre-fab - post-war housing meant to last 10 years but (some) still sound after 70. They are well proportioned and soundly built (although out of asbestos sheeting, frequently) - my grandparents lived in one after they were bombed out of 3 houses in the war. They were built on a decent sized plot (with gardens) and, for the time, were well appointed with good indoor plumbing etc. As bungalows they were ideal for older occupiers. With asbestos cladding they were warm (and, of course, fire-proof!). They are part of our London heritage - although use of the site can now be 'improved' - in terms of occupancy rates - these 'sheds' provided real comfort to many, and a limited few still do. There were quite a number in Underhill 20-25 years ago, sadly most (bar one, I think) now gone.

In practice (and assuming the police were not otherwise engaged) it would be possible, using police helicopters as spotters, to 'kettle' the riders, blocking roads to channel them somewhere where they can be stopped. This avoids the dangers of chasing them. Even where they are split up rather than wholly kettled, the impact of their riding will be much reduced on the neighbourhood. There have been numbers of accidents arising from police pursuits - and these would be exacerbated where riders (although more fool them) do not have helmets.

I think you will find this is a regular patient participation meeting - not called specifically in response to 'complaints' (though I am sure these will be addressed) nor a meeting which is offering mediation. I have found occasional processes problems here, normally immediately and effectively addressed; have not had problems getting appointments at appropriate times (I am prepared to wait to see a named doctor on non-emergency issues - i.e. annual medication reviews) and have found their telephone consultation services effective. Maybe I have been lucky (and I have been a patient for nearly 30 years at this practice, and have grown old with the doctors).

... and recycling is factored in in our Council Tax. So we pay twice.. At least the council doesn't get the second charge - unlike its proposals about charging for large item removal - and it has great hopes (now) to roll out lucrative CPZs into the rest of the borough. If the turkeys are still keen on voting for Christmas.

Yes - (1) they are not in the ruling party (some of them) and (2) nobody in the Southwark council apparatus cares a tuppeny damn for the posh gits in the south of the borough.

A cynic might suggest that this sudden breakdown of a service which hitherto has worked well is an expected precursor to the introduction of charges, when, no doubt, more items will be discovered to be suitable for collection, and when there is a back-log of items (and hence revenues) to be collected.

To be fair to Mr Barber (something regular readers will know I am loathe to do) for him to complain would be the equivalent of North Dulwich councilors complaining against the decision NOT to have a CPZ around ED Station - a decision (as was the one to have this CPZ) based on the collective wishes of residents. The reason many campaigned against the ED CPZ was precisely because of the domino effects of CPZs spreading through neighbourhoods - the ant-car brigade work hard to start the infection on one locale knowing that like a plague it will spread its evil across the land. This CPZ is of course 'caused' by the Herne Hill CPZ. And it must be remembered that Mr Barber is actually pro-CPZ - so to ask him to interfere in another ward - against the declared wishes of that ward's residents and against his own conscience - is perhaps an ask too far. What we in ED must to is to continue to resist the evil blandishments of CPZ-ers as the consequences of this latest intrusion into our freedoms spreads its poison. I suspect it will not be easy.

What, and spoil a win-win?

Whose best interests are served by arguing for increased tariffs to 'pay' for necessary infrastructure improvements - and who can use age as an excuse for breakdowns and leaks. It is possible that all the ancient infrastructure left in the country is concentrated in SE London (which would at least be consistent with the failures to invest in roads and mass transport south or the river) - however I can recall programmes of replacement locally leading to road disruptions which would suggest there is some new infrastructure here, at last for gas.

Sorry to be boring about this, but from https://www.ucl.ac.uk/energy-models/models/uk-markal/dodds-_-mcdowall-2013-future-gas-networks--energy-policy) it would suggest that most of the current gas infrastructure is far less than 100 or so years old - with the estimate of existing iron pipes being 50-100 only. 'Some' pipes are indeed estimated as being over 100 years, but by no means all. I have highlighted those sections which do support arguments for 'ancient' infrastructure - it should be noted that iron pipes (for gas) are much more robust than the pottery etc. water distribution and removal infrastructure. 2. Estimating the age of the UK gas network Future uses of the gas network depend on how long the existing infrastructure can be expected to remain in good working order. We estimate the age of each part of the existing network in this section. Construction of the NTS began in the 1960s and the majority of the current network was built over a 10-year period (Williams, 1981). Transmission pipes have an expected lifetime of 80 years (National Grid, 2011b) so we expect the existing network to become obsolete from around 2050. The mains distribution networks have been constructed over many decades as the number of customers has gradually increased and some pipes are now more than 100 years old. We have estimated the development of the networks using data from several sources (DECC, 2011c; ENA, 2010; Gas Council, 1960, 1970; Mitchell et al., 1990; Transco, 1999; Williams, 1981). The total length of the distribution networks was approximately proportional to the number of customers until around 1960, when construction of higher-pressure distribution pipes commenced to reconfigure the previously fragmented system for national gas delivery. This development added 50,000 km of pipes while the customers totalled 13 million (Fig. 1). The introduction of natural gas also enabled the huge increase in domestic gas consumption per customer since 1960 that is shown in Fig. 2. Estimating the age of the network is more complicated than finding the total length because pipes are occasionally replaced before the end of their life. It was necessary for us to estimate the replacement level, particularly in the early years, as described in Dodds and McDowall (2012a). ... A more uncertain factor is the lifetime of the mains distribution pipes, particularly as polyethylene pipes have been used instead of iron pipes since 1970. The 89,000 km of iron pipes that remain in the system have been in service for between 50 and 100 years (HSE, 2001). There are little data to determine the lifetimes of polyethylene pipes; Ofgem assumes 50 years for accounting purposes (CEPA and Denton, 2010, p. 71) but a review of the Dutch network, which has used PVC pipes for more than 50 years, concluded that they will continue in service for many years to come (Visser et al., 2008). We assume an average lifetime of 80 years for both iron and polyethylene low-pressure pipes in this study. We examine the consequences of this assumption in a sensitivity study in Section 4.2. Little data are available about service pipes. Mitchell et al. (1990) estimate the total length using an average service pipe length of 11.3 m per customer and we have adopted the same approach. Service pipes are smaller than mains pipes and are more likely to be replaced due to changes to the built environment; for example, between 1970 and 1990, 64% of the service pipes were replaced compared to only 24% of the distribution pipes (Mitchell et al., 1990). We assume a shorter average lifetime of 60 years for service pipes in this study.

Most of our gas and water mains were installed in Victorian times That's (mainly) true of water (and sewage), but many gas mains locally post date this - in my house (c1912) work in the front discovered old (disconnected) gas installations which had later been replaced (these were contaminated and had to be removed by a specialist team) - so the gas installations in my part of ED are certainly post Victorian (as the ones actually replaced were Edwardian). Much ED building work and infrastructure post-dates the Victorian building boom and supporting infrastructure will as well. And there has been considerable remedial and replacement work since WWII. The amount of Victorian infrastructure remaining original in ED will now be very small (outwith 'feeder' links from houses into the mains).

Yes woodland burials would be the most environmental friendly but unfortunately that isn't being proposed for either area. Probably because they are both (traditional) cemeteries. For people who wish traditional burials and memorials.

Thread revived after 8 years and 4 months quietude - is this a record? And has an Admin instruction to stay on topic ever been so well obeyed? (sorry, off topic)

Just to get the environmental cat out of the bag, one cremation (the chosen alternative of the mavens here):- uses as much energy in the form of gas and electricity as a 500 mile car trip, and releases a staggering 400 kilos of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, not to mention mercury vapour and other pollutants. In the UK in 2013, over three quarters of funerals end in a cremation. With a death rate of around half a million people every year, this means around 375,000 cremations are taking place annually, potentially releasing some 150,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the air above us. These figures look at the actual carbon cost of burning bodies, and ignore the costs of heating and maintaining crematoria premises. And when you consider the areas to be cleared in the cemeteries, it is worth remembering that some of the trees there were part of the initial cemetery planting (as trees were planted and are being planted in the areas now reclaimed and being re-used for burials) - it is likely that these trees - where they are in good condition - will be retained or replaced. So the claims that there are big trees amongst the 15 years old scrub growth is both true, and to some extent irrelevant.

(a) The purpose of the 20mph was to mitigate and reduce the impact damage caused by vehicles in an accident. The momentum of a bus is a great deal more than that of a motor-bike, so the concomitant damage, if there is an accident, will be much worse. (b) Individuals make road entry/ road crossing decisions based on anticipated speed and distance. It is very difficult to accurately estimate speeds of vehicles heading towards you - so you make assumptions about distance and permitted road speeds. A bus travelling (at 36mph) almost twice the anticipated (legal) speed of a road gives you far less time to cross or enter the road. It's not a matter of just seeing it (because it's big) but also of judging when it's going to hit you. Which is a lot sooner than you might anticipate if it's going close to twice the legal speed for the road.

My family and I have been with the Forest Hill Road Gp Practice (1 Forest Hill Road) for 28 years or so. Overall we have found this good, with some, but not major problems; it is has always been possible to see or talk to a practitioner in an appropriate time scale when actually ill. Routine appointments with a named doctor can only be for some time ahead, normally. They are generally good about telephone consultations when these are suitable (e.g. to discuss test results). I have had some issues about their on-line prescription booking service (which has not delivered on at least one occasion) but problems have generally been remedied with good grace. There have been numbers of problems with their service which purports to send prescriptions to particular pharmacies, I don't use these now. Despite some problems (over, as I say, 28 years) I would still recommend this surgery/ practice. However, I know some posters on this site would not agree.

Penguin - didn't you ask the administrator to move the discussion of a new Sainsburys in Dulwich Village to the Lounge, on the grounds that it isn't in East Dulwich? So, why aren't you asking for this one to be moved? Or is your choice of topics to get moved selective? For the record I have never asked for any threads to be moved anywhere (other than reporting SPAM posts) - as I live only 2 minutes walk from the Old Cemetery, and walk there very regularly - as I have done for much of the nearly 30 years I have lived in SE22 - I see this as very much in East Dulwich - and I even believe that parts are contiguous to ED ward itself - which I am not - even if no-one in the cemetery is now an elector.

Actually, you weren't defrauded by Amazon, but by a third party using the Amazon platform. I do think that Amazon should pursue fraud, but they weren't the principal in this, and I am assuming you had no material loss.

The campaign have a petition with over 8,500 signatures. They've confirmed addresses for neighbouring ward they have around 1,500 signatures which means they have around 17% of the electorate there. So I think the poster is quite reasonably stating huge anger etc. Oh, come on - anybody will sign anything nowadays, it takes no effort or any real commitment. Many have signed believing the hyperbole and misleading statements by those sponsoring the petition, or because they think it's 'hip' to be seen as 'green'. I suspect that very few are even actually mildly annoyed, or even know the areas, or the arguments on the other side. And 17% isn't 'huge'. 75% might be. Or is that how you judge the 'huge' support you got over CPZs etc.? And out of interest, have you compared the signatures to the electoral role - how many are registered electors - do you know, or is your 17% claim a simple extrapolation?

Very few people chose burial any more - actually, about a third of funerals in the UK are burials (about 1.6m a year) - there would (it is thought) be more, were burials not both so expensive and burial grounds so short in supply. Further reducing the supply (against what is clearly a demand) is not helpful. Although many people are happy to cremate (or otherwise dispose of their bodies in a non-burial manner) there are still a sizeable portion of families for whom burial is a necessary and important part of the grieving process. The trees to be removed (actually, not that many in the grand scheme of things) are not 'majestic' in any sense, most are no more than 15-20 years old, many younger, and their growth is not as would be planned in modern forestry. If the graveyards were allowed to become fully 'wild' they would be inaccessible and dangerous - so very shortly (on H&S grounds) would be sealed and people not allowed in them at all. The (real) woods we actually do have around Dulwich are properly (and expensively) maintained to allow access. What is being proposed here is anything but that. And if anyone believes that actions in these two cemeteries will have any impact at all on climate change they are, frankly, kidding themselves. The real likely environmental impact (as it was when the areas were last neglected) is uncontrolled fly-tipping - probably encourage by Southwark's apparent plans to charge for large item collection.

The blue and green bins are collected by the same crew on alternate weeks, hence those two, but not the brown, being marked. Presumably the crew that collects the brown bins every week don't have the same allocation problem.

I figure that living in a depressing or non-depressing neighbourhood does actually have medical effects. Unfortunately what is no doubt of benefit to NHS costs is of no value to council budgets. Our systems are not (yet?) that joined-up. But it is clear that making a budgetary decision isn't unreasonable, but hiding it in some sort of 'it's for your own good' policy is disingenuous. On another thread I have suggested lower profile trees/ shrubs that would cause less root damage and occupy less pavement space than the (albeit glorious) London Planes. (And it was a more modest tree which would be replaced here anyway). One issue raised (not unreasonably) by Mr Barber on his thread is that trees would require tending - and keeping a tree small and in control would take more than is normally allocated to tree maintenance. However, I would have thought that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility for street residents to 'adopt' trees and care for them outwith the tender (??) mercies of the council. The trees do after all add to their environmental benefit. Rowans and silver birches are reasonably shallow rooted and take a long time for their trunks to achieve any girth. Birches are slightly drought sensitive (being shallow rooted), but recently drought does not seem to have been a problem, locally. Since the council doesn't really care that much, maybe it's time for some guerrilla gardening?

Why is it that closing a few fairly minor roads, which carry a small percent of total traffic Were we able to be sure that there was any stopping point to this, I would tend to agree, but in practice we see a juggernaut rolling forward with no clear end in sight. Each 'attack' on what I might call traditional road usage seems but a stage before the next initiative is announced. And the council is clear in its aim, not (just) to encourage cycling, nor (just) to make it safer, but to drive cars and car usage out of the borough. 'More' cycling seems determined on 'less' cars - and on making driving more intolerable. For the number of cars on the road to decrease because more are choosing to cycle is fine (i.e. a voluntary and consequential move), but to plan to 'stop' cars being owned or driven in Southwark, with cycling being the offered alternative (whether appropriate or not) seems to be the route being taken by the council, on the back of their manifesto. We all know a reasonable policy when we see one - but I am not seeing one here, if only because there is no apparent limit to it.