Penguin68

It's just a typo - the left the 's' out of hostel

Neat the way we get a cinema where the 'best' bus for many would be the P13 to see it diverted away from the cinema almost as soon as it opens. Taken with the continuing chaos around London Bridge and the completely laughable disruption around the Elephant for 176 and 63/ 363 users - and many others (the buses no longer even reach part of the tube at Elephant) - the bit that the buses are now barred from actually isn't being worked on, and probably won't for months, but still a full 15+ month closure is enforced - and you might think that the public authorities are out to punish this bit of Southwark for being, well, this bit of Southwark.

HelBel65 and indiepanda are both referring to Camberwell Old Cemetery - the New one isn't on Underhill, Langton or Woodvale. Which isn't to say more entrances wouldn't be useful there as well, but the thread seems to be concerned about a different cemetery.

The 'opening weekend' (17th-19th April) is a soft opening for 'members' - the cinema opens to the general public, as I understand it, in the following week. As you all know, we've been on an incredible journey to bring this cinema into being. Unfortunately we're just a hair's breadth away from having the building ready for our planned opening date. We will open to the public on Thursday 23 April. The good news is that we will be opening exclusively to our ever-patient Founder Members for the weekend of Friday 17 ? Sunday 19 April.

To answer ruffers, 'no, not at all'. Indeed helpful people clearing skips means that the householder can throw more away, hence getting greater value for money out of his/ her skip hire. The problem, surely, is in entering premises and removing objects not being put out for disposal (which includes making bold decisions about building materials not actually locked away) - which is what the OP was complaining about. It may have been the same people who did both, but skip trawling is entirely OK in my book, indeed, in the sense that goods are being recycled and not land-filled, skip trawling is wholly commendable.

If I (or my children) had been weeding a public street tree pit (where dogs regularly pee, and then some) I would certainly be getting them (and me) to wear gloves or at the least to thoroughly wash my hands afterwards (and not lick them!) - regardless of what chemicals the council might have thought about spraying.

Over 20 years ago I walked into Herne Hill Station in the morning with a large rat pacing me on the pavement as I walked, almost like a dog on a lead. Somewhat disconcerting.

Agreed, reversing in and driving out is my preferred choice - and I knew that you did realise the impact of all this - it was just for emphasis - nonetheless it does say '(and in most instances) enter'... they clearly do not think of the meaning of what they write, and in regulations too - and the elected councilors and cabinet members who are meant to oversee this are slipshod, careless or stupid. Possibly all three.

agreements with the Borough Solicitor agreeing and undertaking to ...to exit (and in most instances) enter the Vehicle Crossing in forward gear You do realise that this would require cars to have sufficient space to turn right-around in the parking space to both enter and exit facing front (or have a railway style turntable installed). This is clearly madness, and perverse madness at that. Anyone subsequently buying a house with a dropped kerb, as I did, would have not been such a signatory, and unless the deeds were changed to make this some form of restrictive covenant (they won't have been) unenforceable. This convinces me that the Southwark people purporting to be in charge of this are either mad, or bad, or (probably) both.

The moths themselves are pretty harmless, save as potential parents, it is the grubs/ caterpillars which cause the damage. Killing existing grubs and then discouraging adult moths from laying more eggs are your two remedies, and you need to follow both. The eggs (and grubs) can last a long time, the grubs can even survive without eating - so constant vigilance is a watchword. If you have organic insulation in your loft, then you have created a constant banquet site.

This is a classic mistake of correlation for causation. Waitrose locate its stores in areas where their demographic live (as does Aldi) - so the high value houses probably cause Waitrose - Waitrose does not cause high value houses. In fact (as those who have complained about a possible M&S in the Iceland site show), too close location to a store, of whatever variety, can be problematic, with visitor and delivery traffic etc. Edited to say - cross posted with above

In general there have never been significant complaints about the medical care actually received at DMC, and individual doctors have been praised; it is the (lack of) an effective appointments and contact system, shortage of appointments and other back and front-office failures which have caused anger and alarm. This is about failure of management and not failures by medical staff.

Saddle soap

Ginger line fro Peckham Rye or Denmark Hill to Canada Water then Jubilee Line to Baker St. Or from Honor Oak Park or Forest Hill if that end of the borough.

Technically I believe Parish Councils actually have to map on to parishes - which makes sense in a rural community where a parish geography pretty well defines a rural community of interest but which makes no sense in London, where parishes and communities of interest do not map together. The 'interests' of the local community who participate in this forum do not map on to either a local ward (East Dulwich, but also parts of surrounding wards) or to a post code (SE22, but also just outside SE22). So defining - further than something very lose like the Dulwich Society - who should be playing into a local planning group who would properly represent the interests of this community (given that the councilors of wards which go to make up this group apparently don't serve) would seem impossible - particularly if you wanted any form of real democracy (rather than self selecting self interest) to inform the actions of such a group. I do think we are being faced with some extreme impositions from apparatchiks with agendas to follow which do not match (all of) ours (anti-car, pro driving further revenues from car owners, pro-bicycle without concern for knock-on to public transport etc. etc.) - but that is the penalty we pay for democracy. Even were Dulwich (East, West and 'Central') to bind together, invent its own political party and sweep the local polls, other Southwark voters would make this irrelevant.

As house prices rise the numbers of 'young parents' (and indeed young pre-parents) coming to Dulwich and East Dulwich will tend to fall, purely on economic grounds. People brought up locally who want 'their own' accommodation will be tending to move away from the area to more affordable areas. [i am not saying any of this is a good thing]. Those who can afford to move in with young children will be more likely than in the past to choose private (or at least non state primary) routes, although the quality of state primaries is generally high locally. So a falling away of demand for state primary places is not an unreasonable planning assumption.

Well, I have a dropped kerb (there when I bought the house over a quarter of a century ago), and can park 4 cars (regularly park 3). In my street most neighbours have room for 2. But smaller houses (with smaller or narrower frontages) are more limited.

The Law of Unintended Consequences... at the moment Gallery Road seems mostly parked up when being used by families with children* - the school, the park and play area and playing fields, the fairs (when they're on) etc. The heavy parking on both sides slows down traffic immensely - quite a good thing when there are lots of kids milling about. Ban parking on one or both sides - traffic will flow much more freely (and quickly, 20mph zone or not) and the chances of accidents involving children rises. So, maybe, the restricted traffic is actually a good thing, here, on the occasions it is restricted. (And cyclists can get through without much bother...) *Special events in Dulwich Picture Gallery notwithstanding

Drop kerbs effectively amount to privatisation of public space. It also leads to the loss of front gardens, which is undesirable in both environmental and visual amenity terms. I would like to see a general policy of refusing drop kerb applications except in exceptional circumstances. And I am sure all those in the council wanting to implement revenue generating CPZs will be entirely in favour of this approach - after all, you don't want the suckers escaping your claws, do you? A dropped kerb takes the space of a parked car. Parking 2 cars on your forecourt (if you have 2 cars, or allow a neighbour to park) increases available space for others (although the loony 2 meter double yellows on both sides would negate this).

Of course, they're primarily tourist attractions Considering the revenues coming into London from tourists, expenditure on tourist attractions seems entirely reasonable. You may not like them (nasty foreigners cluttering up the streets) but they are a pretty vital part of London's economy, and a major source of employment.

There is some irony here, I believe. GP practices get bonused (more money for the owners) if they meet certain treatment targets, such as vaccinations, check-ups of the elderly etc. Presumably DMC is searching for more income sources, but its own poor record keeping and processes mean that it cannot demonstrate that it's actually delivering the bonused activities. My heart bleeds.

No, I think the Boris buses are meant to replace the Livingstone bendy buses - all presumably routes seen as being fashionable or visible. Originally all London bus (within the GLC) routes were Routemaster - and there were no single deck small 'hopper' buses. Edited to add:- there were some residual Routemaster buses left in service, mainly servicing routes through central London, but I don't know how, if at all, these mapped onto the bendy bus routes.

Presumably some go private? Exactly - there are a significantly large number of private schools in the area offering nursery and primary schooling (that's partly why Louisa's dreaded blow-ins blow in in the first place, for the education offered). So 17 classes doesn't seem unreasonable - even though some of the schools do take those travelling in from further (but less so for primary than for secondary private education). The problem is in Nunhead (and I am happy to accept that there is a problem) not in ED. This is more about empire than education, possibly on the 'build it and they will come' principle.

2. This is the type of transmitter appropriate for rural locations with low population densities not for heavily populated urban environments with a high density of young children. I believe the choice of transmitter will have been driven by the topology, not the population density. Generally in dense urban areas you will put in a lot of relatively low range masts which assume very small cell sizes and a lot of hand-over - this was to take account of mobiles being, well, mobile. But now mobiles are used for a lot of fixed activity (particularly broadband) and there is a lot of local urban wireless access - so the issues of ED hills and valleys (like you have in rural locations) becomes a bigger design determinant. We need the tall mast so that we have fewer masts, but with better reach. The (much more expensive) alternative is lots of smaller masts with lower reach, and more complaints about poor or no signal - particularly important when you are talking about high bandwidth applications, as you are with 4G. The issue of children (being effected by a 25m mast) is frankly irrelevant - there were (probably unfounded) concerns when some small masts were situated on the top of school buildings (with transmitters perhaps less than 3 meters from classrooms on the top floor) - but a 25m mast? It could be used as a maypole for school celebrations quite safely (structural integrity notwithstanding)

James There are still disputes about this, but one of the most recent reports (and full, being longitudinal) studies http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2014/02/11-year-mthr-study-finds-danger-wireless-mobile-phone-radiation.html does not confirm your views - which were clearly based on evidence 'eons ago' in your own words. Two years previously http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/26/mobile-phone-radiation-health and http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/cancercontroversies/mobilephones/mobile-phones-and-cancer picked up on the initiating research and also poured doubt on a risk link with mobile phones. Arguments about children's use of mobiles (a different issue) are not yet fully resolved, although there are no contrary indications as yet. So I would suggest that you do not rely on your memory on this one - look at recent, full (large sample, preferably longitudinal) studies to inform you.