Penguin68

In general 'no such thing as an accident' implies that all incidents could have been avoided - and thus implicitly that if someone had done (or not done) something differently then the 'accident' would have been avoided. This is (by another route) an attempt to apportion blame to someone for the incident happening. 'No such thing as an accident' has as an absolute corollary 'someone is culpable'. At one level it is of course possible to argue that every thing that happens has a cause - but for instance to argue (as logically he must) that the deaths in Nepal are not accidental (although clearly with a direct cause) would be weird. If wind brings down a tree onto a car it is possible to argue that had the tree been felled earlier, then the 'accident' would not have happened - or if the driver had not chosen to drive then or there - but to blame the driver for the incident, or indeed council officials for not felling the tree (unless it had been specifically reported as 'dangerous') would be unreal. And yet, 'no such thing as an accident' would require this. It is wholly lazy to argue that because some accidents could have been avoided (were not the outcome of chance events) that the set of 'accidents' (implying something that happens by unhappy chance) is an empty one.

Concorde used to fly over our house, around 6:00 in the evening as I recall, such a beautiful sight, certainly forgave it every decibel as it went over (and that was loud)

No such thing as an accident. This is a zen idea that everything has a cause and a link - such that the effects of random chance are denied. So, if any incident happens, it must have had a cause - this espouses the physics of Newton, whilst modern scientists accept that quantum mechanics requires that events have a probability only, and will happen 'by chance' (and, more to the point, given any fixed starting position, events are still impossible to accurately forecast - whereas Newtonian physics believes that given certain knowledge of a start point, it would be possible to forecast events through to the end of time). In terms of road transport it is a belief that it will always be possible to apportion blame, anything bad that happens must be someone's fault. So we see in James someone wedded to a blame culture - which in many ways is quite sad.

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.