Penguin68

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.

Aesthetic complaints about telephone masts are legitimate (but clearly subjective) - but, despite 'warnings' by bodies who have no understanding of physics or risk but are driven by the 'precautionary principle' - (if you never do anything, nobody can blame you) there is little evidence of any actual danger from masts (especially tall ones). We live in a district of hills and valleys - mobile phone signals are to some extent at least governed by line-of-site, so the taller the mast, the better the signal for those served by it (less likelihood of signal loss and attenuation associated with topology). The greatest risk from tall masts (as from any structure) would be storm damage - i.e. nothing to do with microwave radiation at all. As masts are built to resist high winds, (and are the sorts of structure that naturally do resist such problems) there is really nothing to worry about health wise. People working very close (within perhaps no more than a meter, and probably much less) of the transmitters when active themselves might need to be careful (and they are) - a 25 meter tower by definition excludes all 'passers-by' from any risk at all - much greater risks come from e.g. solar radiation, or indeed the natural radioactivity of granite - if you have granite in your house. As noted by Chick and Healey - the phone (for mobile users) is the risky area (if there is any risk, and longitudinal studies suggest not) - better signal from the masts will reduce this for users. In fact, having a mast near schools is evidentially beneficial for children, whose phone will be emitting that much less radiation than if they are struggling to pick up a signal.

In fact some studies would suggest that cats are a major source of small animal predation in the UK - a 1997 study (attached http://www.mammal.org.uk/sites/default/files/Domestic%20Cat%20Predation%20on%20Wildlife.pdf) has as a final paragraph 'In conclusion, this survey confirms that cats are major predators of wildlife in Britain. Further investigation of the extent and nature of predatory behaviour among domestic cats is clearly warranted by this initial work. In particular, detailed observation of cats in the field and description of the numbers of animals they kill and the proportion they retrieve are essential. Investigation of the response and attitude of cat owners living in a range of environments to the predatory behaviour of their cats would also be valuable (Coleman & Temple, 1993). Although this was not an experimental study, there were differences in the numbers of wild animals brought home by cats subjected to different management regimes. Experimental studies of the effects of equipping cats with bells (Ruxton et al. 2002) or other devices, keeping cats indoors at night and feeding birds will all be essential for evaluating the desirability and likely success of attempts to reduce the numbers of animals killed by growing cat population,' I am sure that a proposal to cull local cats will not however be supported. The RSPB, however, does not believe that cats kill significantly more small birds than would have died anyway, though the 1997 study above draws no such conclusions. I suspect the RSPB may well rely on funding, in part at least, from cat lovers. The RSPB does say that small bird numbers in built-up environments (towns and suburbs) are holding up or increasing - it is the loss of countryside habitat which is causing numbers to fall there. I do find that a suggestion to kill wild birds to save wild birds (ones you aesthetically prefer) is a bit stomach turning.

Do what James asks, this is precisely the area in which a counselor can helpfully intervene - or pass to an appropriate colleague if in a different ward.

Any milestones more than 3 months out can, in my experience, sadly be ignored - big long-run projects are notoriously difficult to track properly, particularly when public services are involved. It would certainly be nice to know what the current view of what the 'finished job' should look like, but any estimates as to the actual services which will run, their frequency, the length of trains etc. (which are what will actually define the customer experience) should be taken with buckets of salt. My guess is that we will be in some sort of stasis (nothing more being built, what's there is there) by 2019 (a year later than is currently being given as the end date), but that's just a cynic's guess.

The family might be upset, but they have no legal dog in this fight.

If he is dead, you can say anything you like. If he is not, as long as you have accused him of nothing criminal (and he hasn't been accused of anything criminal) then I cannot see that there are grounds for action - if the event described was invented out of whole cloth (i.e. simply wasn't true) there might be a case, but I am not sure what it would be.

ADMIN - there have been some really great sets of social history posts in recent years, is there any chance that these could be specifically archived? - not as a new forum area for new posts, but just as a set of links - I believe that social and history researchers could find this a really useful asset. People like computedshorty are research gold, believe me. Although it's possible to search the site for these things, you already have to know the site's value and, well, history to know what to look for.

BUT James - how will this be presented to Nunhead parents? - 'Do you want a primary for your children to go to, or not?' - pretty sure what the answer will be there, or 'Do you want to travel to an awkward and distant part of the borough to educate your primary age children?' well, mayhap a different answer. Harris is not exactly without a history as regards somewhat disingenuous questionnaire drafting. I think Tessa's letter pretty well sets out the views of most of the ED people who have bothered to post here, apart of course from your good self. Setting out the views of constituents sort of goes with the job of MP of course.

In Reykjavik (I was told by a local guide), which had a problem with dog borne worms infecting people, all dogs were slaughtered. Nowadays people can, again, keep dogs, but need a licence, which must be endorsed by all their neighbours before they can acquire a dog. If their behaviour (not picking up after them, allowing the dogs to bark incessantly) or the dog's (biting, being a nuisance) isn't acceptable, neighbours can withdraw their permission (one's enough) and the dog must then be disposed of. (This doesn't effect working etc. dogs outside Reykjavik). There is a dog-poo island in the harbour where owners are encouraged to walk their dogs. The Icelanders put hobby/ pet (as opposed to working) dogs rather below people. Can't say I blame them.

Southwark is an inner London borough.

As many others have said here (including me) the key issue with the speed reduction is not that it will reduce the incidence of accidents (although it might, given longer reaction times) but that it will reduce the severity of any accident - the lower the impact speeds the less the damage - and it appears that impacts (cars on people) are likely to be far more sever at 30mph than at 20mph. I do not expect a significant reduction in the numbers of accidents, but in the severity of injuries. So the 'cause of accident' breakdown that kford has included here is probably irrelevant - yes, similar numbers of accidents will probably occur for a similar number of reasons, the benefit (assuming that the speed limits are eventually kept to) is that the number of deaths and serious (life changing/ limiting) injuries should fall. The more traffic, of course, the more accidents (on average) - but the less speed, the less awful these will be.

Whilst we still worship the dead and fetishize the paraphernalia of body disposal then cemeteries will continue to be needed as body dumps rather than nature reserves. With a shortage of suitable 'free' land reasonably close to the living (and whilst these still think they need to visit the dead) then the plans for the cemeteries (pile them in, stack them high) are a necessary evil. Persuade people to dispose of the dead with the garden and kitchen waste, and not require a particular place to remember them in, and you can have your nature reserve. But until then...

Surely they can?t hand out a quarter of a million pounds without some kind of plan to monitor whether the money was well spent? Sadly this is what many public (and private) bodies do all the time - most people think that the effort is best placed in planning, not post-implementation monitoring - but it is only monitoring which will validate whether the plans were right in the first instance. I see this everywhere - advertising campaigns are pre-tested, but very rarely are they then monitored closely, for instance, and then only reviewed long after a campaign is completed, when there is no chance of adjustment or improvement. For public spend this is even worse. ?250k is probably 'below the radar' for TFL spend, which must be in the millions if not billions (think what cross-rail is costing, or the work to take the tube to Battersea)

Assuming your internet service is delivered over the 'phone line' (i.e. not cable) - then it is most likely that this is an external line problem, very possibly a problem in a roadside cabinet caused by other works going on it it. Report the problem to your carrier, who can get the line checked. However it is also possible that your phone itself is faulty - check with another phone if you have one. Or try calling your own number from a mobile - if you get number unobtainable, or engaged, then there is probably a network problem. If you get ring tone on the mobile, but your phone doesn't ring, then it may still be a faulty phone. There is quite unlikely to be a general fault where numbers of people have lost phone service but still have internet connexions, or at least one which is left uncleared for so long.

Richard Tudor wrote 'People who read and voted for Clegg on fees got shafted and call me Dave on inheritance tax got shafted.' Without any brief for either party quoted - the nature of a coalition government is that the full manifestos of the parties concerned will not be acted on - otherwise they would be the same party. Coalition requires compromise, hence manifesto pledges cannot all be delivered for both parties; if they were to insist on this they would never have any coalition in the first place. Simples.

Frankly, forumites are prepared to report a sparrow sneezing locally, so I would be very surprised if any accidents of any seriousness have occurred at this junction which have not been picked-up on - even if not in reported figures. As a fairly regular reader I cannot remember any such reports (happy to be corrected on this) - which makes me feel that national statistics on under-reporting are not necessarily valid in this instance.

I would tend to add (3) when a large coach or articulated lorry swings in and out of the much restricted road space to turn, and crushes thereby a cyclist, which apparatchik or counselor will stand up and admit that it was their mad scheme which has led to death or serious injury at a junction noticeably without either before the changes were made, and will resign? Oh, silly me, none of them will.

Not as easy to read as a note on the car windscreen - surely?! Actually, if you don't use your car every day (perhaps mainly at weekends) and you haven't parked it that close to where you live (not uncommon in ED) and don't walk past it as part of your commute you might actually miss a windscreen note - if you, or friends who know your car, read the forum, then maybe it is an effective communications medium. And, as has been noted, any port in a storm when an alarm is going off constantly (which, with an over sensitive motion sensor, these windy conditions could easily trigger).

If you enjoy waiting 4 weeks for a routine appointment, being left on hold for 15 minutes each time you call, y our results being lost and the odd snappy, rude receptionist then I highly recommend Forest Hill Road Group Practice. Not my experience having been a patient there for over a quarter of a century - I have had long waits for an appointment with a (named) doctor over the summer, when the said doctor was on leave, but otherwise seen within 48 hours (or telephone consultation) for anything urgent, normally same day. 'Routine' appointments are the ones which you can (reasonably) wait some time for - it is urgent ('I am actually ill, now') appointments where timeliness is key. Receptionists not rude in my experience, no results lost (for me or the other 3 members of my family). Have had some prescription mix-ups in 25 years, quickly remedied - (mainly one item left off, never the wrong drugs or the wrong strengths prescribed).

I recall some whining by the DMC Healthcare poster that if it wasn't for no-shows everything would be ros(ier) - maybe if it was possible to get through to the practice to cancel appointments no longer necessary (so much time has lapsed patient is better, dead or has found someone to treat them) then there would be fewer missed appointments - no one in their right minds is going to hang on as long (or dial so frequently) or actually go round to the practice just to cancel.

I have been a qualified driver for 48 years - one thing my years of driving have taught me is that accidents tend to happen when road users are (a) confused and (b) frustrated. The proposal as recommended seems to me to have a very good chance of (a) confusing and (b) frustrating road users (all, motorists, cyclists, pedestrians) - particularly when very large vehicles (coaches, lorries) have to swing out into roads which have been artificially narrowed. Where traffic is grid-locked (it will be) pedestrians may choose to hasten across the road amongst what they anticipate will be stationary traffic, until a two- wheeled vehicle dodging between vehicles knocks into them. In general I believe simple is always better - this is one of the least 'simple' traffic arrangements I have ever seen in what is or could be a simple, suburban street junction. The only possible upside is that most collisions will necessarily be low speed and thus relatively low impact.

I think we are talking about ADSL and fibre services here. ADSL can be significantly impacted by the distance from the exchange (the signal attenuates over distance). Speeds will also attenuate where the access is wireless, not wired - so wireless ADSL will be less fast than direct (ethernet) connection to your router, ADSL far slower than fibre (for BT - BT Infinity). The EDT may well be connected by Infinity - and will certainly be a business service. If memory serves 3.28 mpbs over ADSL wasn't that bad, with old(ish) equipment. If you (DF) are paying for BT Infinity however, then you need to contact BT, as something is clearly wrong.