Penguin68

5. It is One Tree Hill and yes the woods there (that border the nature reserve) are under imminent threat. Unless I'm missing something, the only 'woods under threat' are those within the boundaries of existing cemeteries. Indeed, if you look at a map of 'One Tree Hill' you will see that the 7 hectare site is shown entirely separate from (but bordering) Camberwell New Cemetery. If the film is actually of One Tree Hill (as stated) then it absolutely isn't part of this reclamation. http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?startTopic=Designations&activelayer=lnrIndex&query=REF_CODE%3D%271421661%27 And yes, most woods are actively managed - indeed in order for them to qualify for the government's IHT exemptions they have to be. [Obviously local authorities aren't impacted by IHT issues].

Here is a video of the area we are trying to save. Please keep in mind that under the trees and meadows are tens of thousands (if not more) of London's dead. The council will be digging up or mounding over all graves over 75 years old and selling off the plots. I'm sorry, but I don't believe there are 'tens of thousands (if not more)' of burials in the area that is to be reclaimed for use. Even if there were, reusing the site (presumably for tens of thousands more burials, if that is what is being 'recovered' although other posts have suggested that far fewer are actually planned) is not a bad thing, where those who are buried here have been forgotten or lost by relatives. In what way are self-seeded trees in scrubland 'our children's' trees - you might as well say that every time a park is mown then 'our children's' grass is being 'lost'. Who, by the way, is 'our' in this context? My children will all move away from ED (they can't afford to buy here) - so I assume will care very little if ED scrubland is reclaimed.

Ain't me

The general rule of thumb about all inbound calls which are apparently about your computer (or your finances) is not to trust them unless you are expecting them (i.e. a requested call-back) - always call back (for finance) on a different line (i.e. use your mobile if called on land-line) and use a number you know is the institution's, rather than any given to you by the caller, and never give out security details on an in-bound call. Often people will try to panic you by suggesting that unless you take immediate action you are at financial risk - remember that (for banks) if they are alerting you to risk (such as a compromised card) then they are the ones who can block etc. accounts in case of fraud, and that if they are aware of the risk then they take liability for circumventing it. Despite all the publicity about hackers breaching commercial site security (which does happen) most frauds are still people based cons requiring the punter to make an elementary error (including, often, not having the simplest - and often free - security products enabled on their systems).

Bit concerned as to how the scammers know my mobile and that we have a Dell computer. I'm afraid the mobile number could have come from anywhere, unless you never give out your mobile number to e.g. commercial sites. They may very well not have known you had a Dell computer - but they are very common and, if you're a scammer it's a good bet to try with that. What's interesting is that they did come in on a mobile, more normally you would want to use a landline to make contact, as then you could access the computer over that. Unless you use your mobile as a hub for your Dell? I suppose if you were using mobile WiFi from an open site and your phone as a hub, then they could have hacked the WiFi (these are very often not secure) and then back traced from that. But I suspect that to do so requires some sophistication.

I do know someone locally who shifted a lot of VHS tapes on either e-bay or gumtree (sorry, can't remember which) - but he did have to list (by title or category - bit of a bore) the tapes he had. If you just want to avoid waste (throwing stuff away which might be re-used) then setting a very low per tape price and requiring collection should help here.

Comparison of ED to Syria... brilliant. I think your irony meter is set on low. But if you care to read many posts here you will find numbers of people saddened by any proposed changes - to road lay-outs, to shops, to building heights etc. etc.. Not all changes are good, not everything which is up-to-date is better than things which have worked in the past. For instance, and this isn't being ironical, permitted room sizes for social housing (and new builds generally) are far smaller than the just post-war standards. Many people prefer, as regards that, living 20, or 50, or a 100 years in the past. As I suspect you would, or do, too. I was attacking your disregard for the past. My Syrian point was a reductio ad absurdum point, of course.

It's like living 20 years in the past round here sometimes... And that is not, necessarily, a bad thing. Ask anyone in Syria.

But if those who can cycle, do, it reduces congestion on both public transport and the roads generally. It also reduces pollution. It's win win. Actually, if it made it more difficult or expensive to keep a car in ED (because there was less road space, because it was part of the CPZ leverage so desired by Labour and Lib Dems) it wouldn't be a win: win. Sadly, the way our political masters play it, car v bicycle is planned as a zero-sum game (winners and losers). A non-zero sum game (everyone wins) would be better.

anything that would encourage people to ditch cars in zone 2 and replace with bikes has to be a good thing. No it wouldn't. Public transport in SE London is bad, and wanting to travel East: West is appalling. SE London is hilly, and wishing to travel, especially in winter, any real distances by bike is not always (sometimes ever) possible. Many people, with children, with infirmities, racked with age (I've worked through all three of these!) finds car travel, at times, a boon, and cycle travel an impossibility. At weekends, when the bad public transport is even worse, car travel can be even more necessary.

I am amused that in this thread (or another) they (Virgin) are 'blaming' over subscription as a cause of their problems - which is actually the equivalent of saying - 'well, we've sold stuff we didn't have, so now we're going to have to build it, at some time, when we get round to it'. 'Over subscription' is another way of saying 'over-trading'. At least BT generally tells you you're going to have to wait for services they don't yet have available in your locale, rather than selling them, billing you, and not having them (really) to deliver - and hoping to get away with it.

I'd argue that the final "resting place" doesn't need to be a grave though. For example, many people are cremated then the ashes are burrid in a particular place, marked with a plant or something. That's exactly right, for those for whom such an action would meet their needs - for others, however, the formality of a grave (and the burial of the 'whole' body, not ashes) provides greater levels of comfort. It's of course a personal (and cultural) thing - but it is 'our' (people in the UK) culture - even though your alternative also works for some. Forcing people to bury their loved ones whole in a grave is as wrong as forcing them to cremate. We now allow multiple approaches to death, disposal and mourning - that is a wholly good thing, to my mind. Sometimes there are issues which may over-ride such choices - how you dispose of people in times of dangerous infections, for instance (such as Ebola) where local customs have to be ignored for the greater good. This, to be frank, isn't of them.

but they have been there since at least mid 19th century (see Nisbet) so are no less woods than those at Sydenham Hill in my view. I find it most unlikely that trees of that age, unless they are unstable/ weakened by disease would be cleared - on purely practical grounds the costs associated with clearing the root ball/ roots of such well established trees - necessary if the ground is to be used for burials, would probably be, if not prohibitive, at least not cost effective. Nor do I believe (happy to be corrected) that the entire area generally known as One Tree Hill is to be cleared for burials. it is true that the environment there supports many interesting species Whilst this is so (indeed suburban and urban gardens are notorious for the range of species, often new to science, found in them) it is also, I believe, true that there are no unique or protected species associated with this scrub area. Any area of uncared for land will support 'many interesting species' except, in the main, in non-native monocultures. I note that Camberwell Old Cemetery has its resident population of parakeets to accompany the crows. Indeed, there is a wide range of habitats in the 'maintained' areas of the cemetery which I am sure has a rich and varied wild-life. As there will be in an new areas of burial, once 'established'. Including, I would suspect, many of the 'interesting species' now resident in the scrub land.

So, Penguin68, as I understand it you do not believe that there are woods on One Tree Hill? Not in the sense you would like readers to believe. There are trees and scrub growth (yes) - as there is at the back of my garden, which I also do not designate as 'woods'. If you want (real) woods try Sydenham/ Dulwich woods (which actually are woods, are managed as woods, are named 'woods' on maps etc.) Is there (mainly) secondary growth on One Tree Hill? - yes, is it (all) to be used for burials? (as I understand it) - no. And, if 'woods' is meant to be something other than, 'a place where trees have happened to self seed' - then, no, I do not believe there are woods on One Tree Hill.

I have just checked my broadband speed (BT Infinity 2) Ping 14Ms, Download 31.78Mbps, Upload 16.2Mbps - I did not clear down my system or turn off other things etc. to do this, I am connected to my router through the power network (3 pin plugs). I use the BT Homehub 5. If I connected directly through my router (using Ethernet) it would be faster, but my PC is two stories away from my router.

As I understand it, Southwark's plans are to use only ground which was originally planned and designated for cemetery use - even if it has not been used recently (or at all) for burials. This will include clearing scrub growth - although all the cemeteries have well planned tree plantings within them as part of the cemetery landscaping. There are a plethora of actual, managed, woodlands and 'wild' places around the borough which are not designated for burials - we are actually peculiarly blessed with such public spaces. I find walking in the managed cemetery areas very satisfying - and appreciate the new memorials as I do the old. Curiously cemeteries are a fascinating living use of landscape - as funerals are the expressions of the living, only notionally on behalf of the dead. I keep posting here (and on similar threads) not because I expect to change the minds of those who have created the myth of Southwark Woods (which these have never been) but in case those new to the thread(s) should consider that an unchallengeable case is being made by those who keep these issues open. Edited to add - Otta - funerals have always been about what is necessary for the living to cope with their loss etc. - never really about the dead or the remains. Many people (I'm not one) find huge comfort in visiting the graves of their loved ones. And many people (quite wrongly in my view, but I'm not a dictator) believe that the dying wishes of their loved ones (or their beliefs) should be pandered to in their corpse disposal. By not doing so, real emotional and psychological distress can be felt by the living, and this I am sympathetic to.

Actually my comments were more about regulation than technology. I have no idea what Virgin's trouble is - but I'm guessing it has far less to do with technology than investment. The problems you have described sound very much as if they have too little modern capacity to deliver the data service they have promised (and are charging for). They may need to invest in both cable and 'switch' (actually line-card) capacity - this will involve actual network build - which takes time and money. They may even need to buy more 'big pipes' from BT to push their data traffic out on. Many service providers, particularly mobile, will use BT wholesale network capacity to link their local networks (or mobile cells) to the rest of the communication world - this is offered by BT Wholesale rather than BT Openworld, which offers the same wholesale services, but within the local network, and regulated differently. The fact that they have put a time-scale in months rather than hours suggests investment, not technical, issues. As investment (or lack of it) is strategic and also commercially sensitive I suspect that's why you're not getting much sense out of them. They would not like to admit investment and build issues as this might have an impact on how their performance against licence is judged. Edited to add - I have not had the problems described above with BT Infinity. My PC does occasionally hang and drop out - but when checking my phone and tablet connection I note there are no problems, suggesting the issue may very well be at my end.

My possibly overly simplified view is go to the company that runs the infrastructure. If there's a problem it can be identified and fixed with no buck passing. I am afraid this is over-simplified - the local (telephone based) network is run by BT Openreach as an arm's length operation providing equal service to all retail Service Providers - of whom BT Retail is but one. BT Retail has no more access to BT Openreach than any other ISP - but the buck has to be passed between the two as a matter of public policy. BT Openreach is not allowed to show favourable service to BT Retail over its other wholesale clients. The Virgin media (cable) infrastructure is wholly separate from BT's phone and internet infrastructure - and doesn't have to offer services to other companies under any terms. In fact Virgin is the one-stop-shop (when using its cable network) rather than BT Retail (from whom you buy service, it then buys services from BT Openreach on your behalf). So it actually ought to be easier for Virgin as a retail operator which owns and manages infrastructure directly to offer better service than BT - forced to operate as two separate companies. Go figure!

As usual big business gets their own way. As the numbers of Sainsbury's vehicles using this feed-in are relatively minimal, compared with the numbers of shoppers cars using it, actually the benefit (if there is one) is to ordinary people, not big business. I doubt whether we would use the shop less if there was a longer wait to get out - certainly if it has changed, when I first used the shop, when it first opened, such a wait was not too onerous. In my experience DKH still gets the longer time - actually extending it would make it far easier to get into the shop from the direction of Goose Green - which is the most common entry point - and thus to the benefit of the store which wants people arriving rather than leaving.

The advice posted from Ofcom is relevant if you have ADSL broadband delivery over your telephone service. If you have cable delivery (Virgin media) or any of the Fibre to the cabinet services (FTTC) (i.e. BT Infinity) then some of the advice is not relevant. All fixed delivery into the home (i.e. mobile wireless apart) will have infrastructure either from BT Openreach or from Virgin Media. Many internet service providers now have their own racks (terminating equipment) in BT exchanges - although some services will still actually be carried entirely (sub leased) over BT equipment. One problem that is faced is that the arm's length requirement between BT Openreach (who provides the local network) and all service providers, including BT Retail, means that identifying exactly where a single customer fault is occurring (BT Openreach equipment or service provider equipment - or indeed your own equipment) - can be problematic. Bigger service outages are easier to identify.

Doesn't with my BT service. I have noted lags on some sites in the afternoon (but not on others at the same time) suggesting that it is their service which may be laggy, rather than mine (if it was mine any lagginess should be site independent)

In many places on the Continent, burial is always only for a short time, with plots constantly being re-used and bones placed in ossuaries. In this case Southwark is trying to find 'missing' plot owners before re-use. These cemeteries are I believe well documented (unlike older graveyards). All grave sites are recorded although for a few, where bodies have been found and not identified before burial (John Doe-s) this may only be by number. Because of the records, I very much doubt that 'untold numbers' of paupers graves will be re-use, the numbers buried being well documented. These posts are, as ever, a mixture of unwarranted hyperbole and misinformation. A public (municipal) graveyard is to be used for burials, and old and now uncared for graves will be re-used, for the public benefit. It will be possible to apply for burial if not recently resident (but the chances are there will have been some past or current family connection, I am guessing) although there will be a financial penalty for so doing - i.e. 'resident' dead (their heirs and assigns) will be offered beneficial rates. There is much I hate about Southwark administration - but the cemetery plans seem orderly and sensible, and help repair previous damage by neglect. There are, clearly, issues going forward e.g. as to what will be the best re-planting strategy - whether native trees or ones now better suited to a changing climate, but these are issues of tactics/ implementation, not strategy, which seems sound. Clearly we still need careful oversight into how what is being planned is delivered, but this is a different order of concern.

People who are 'Friends' of the Gallery will have untrammeled access - a lot of people joined up just to get to see the Ravilious exhibition - and I think have also done so for the Escher. Annual membership is good value, if art and an excellent local gallery are your bag. It's a good place to introduce visitors too as well - the permanent exhibition is manageably small but with top quality paintings. You can join and enter on-the-spot.

http://www.itpro.co.uk/email-clients/19626/my-contacts-list-has-disappeared-does-mean-i%E2%80%99ve-lost-them-all http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/40830-63-retrieve-lost-contacts-hotmail http://www.worldstart.com/restoring-lost-hotmail-contacts-in-outlook-com/

I wonder what Southwarks stance was on the consultation. OKR, camberwell and peckham are all in Southwark but regeneration Other than trying to push CPZ and cycling policies as revenue earners and part of their anti-car stance, Southwark has never shown any real interest in the lives of its constituents in Camberwell and places south, even Peckham. When it comes to either actual financial investment, or investment in officer time and energy we are a lost cause. Most of the activity you see locally is a function of works by Thames Water on flood control or Transco on gas pipe replacement. Road works are desultory and patchwork at best (I think the South Circular work was TfL not Southwark). Don't expect any effort to be paid on lobbying for improved transport infrastructure; what little we have is done by local councilors, often fighting against, not in concert with, the aparat in Tooley St.