Penguin68

No, the quickest way would be to implement more, and more frequent buses, and indeed more frequent trains, neither of course in Southwark's remit. If you made housing more dense without doing this it would make the PTAL much worse, as even more people would not have access to decent public transport. Housing density may make supply of public transport more fiscally attractive BUT IT HAS TO BE SUPPLIED (my shouting). As it is you'd just have more people trying to catch the same number of poorly supplied buses.

I think PTAL scores are a function of the availability of e.g. public transport - clearly where there are wide open spaces and the public transport availability is low then the scores will be as well, but this doesn't stop it meaning that people have to go a long way (longer than those with high scores) to get access to public transport. Or are you thinking that's a trade-off people should accept, whatever their age and disability?

Because the NHS nowadays is nothing but taking the p*ss.

It's part of the active travel initiative, TFL is steadily withdrawing all forms of public transport to ensure that if you can't walk or cycle there you can't go there. In south Southwark anyway.

As I've said before, cyclists tend to act as if they're pedestrians on wheels. They don't think they're on vehicles as such, to be constrained as other road users are.

Before this re-design bicycles mainly (obviously there were always the illegal exceptions) went on the roads, and pedestrians on the pavements. Pedestrians entered roads at controlled crossings (although of course cyclists did ignore those). Now pedestrians and cycles have to share space coterminously. Which increases by some large margin the chances that they will be in exactly the same space at exactly the same time. Hence the chances of accidents between cyclists and pedestrians have increased. And that includes little pedestrians much more likely, because of their size and relative weight, to be damaged by such an impact. Yes, the cars, driven in the main by trained drivers who had to pass a test, have now gone - to be replaced by untrained cyclists who don't have to pass tests of any sort. Not, to my mind, a good or fair swap. And showing pictures (above) of cars (a car) which was being driven very carelessly in the small hours is not an exemplar of everyday risks to pedestrians - very few of which would have been about, if any, at the time of the accident.

As he died of wounds in a hospital there would be no need of a post mortem. The recorded circumstances and the death certificate would be sufficient in any court case. For those whose faith requires swift burial, courts and coroners are generally careful to meet requirements. Hold ups are generally only likely where defendants dispute cause of death, highly unlikely in these circumstances.

And my point - cycling errors were not the story being told, no reporter worth their salt diverts between stories, that's just bad journalism. You may have only one fixed point in your universe but reporters focus on just one story at a time, and tell different stories.

I've had recent UPS deliveries from India & Sweden which have been delivered with no problems and in a very timely manner. I suspect problems may be more evident on internal (to UK) movements, I've nothing to complain about with their international service.

Can I just make the point (malumbu) that CPZs are not part of the climate change/ clean air initiatives - indeed, as they actually encourage cars to drive endlessly round looking for parking spaces (or circling till a passenger can return from their errands/ shopping) they may be seen as contributing to climate change/ poor air quality - no better than those LTNs that simply shift traffic to different and longer routes. For streets that actually want them, they are about parking pressure - but for all others, and indeed as regards their forced introduction against local resident wishes - they are about revenue generation for councils (specifically not allowed under the legislation that permits them at all, of course). For Southwark, in addition, they are part of their stated desire to drive out (sic) privately owned cars from the borough as part of their class warfare objectives. Need I remind you that the north of the borough is very well served by public transport, and where residents have little or no need of private vehicles to lead a normal life, very much not true of much of the south of the borough, poorly served, if at all, by London's public transport, and notoriously not with a flat, Dutch style topology which readily supports unpowered bicycles.

Which is exactly the object

Generally speaking 'life-changing' is normally a euphemism for 'physically disabling' a term which we now cannot use, but in practice there are many hidden disabilities (such as those linked to PTSD) which are actually life changing as well - where people are frightened of, for instance, going out in the dark, being with strangers and so on following e.g. attacks, which may not leave them physically challenged at all, but psychologically severely damaged and life-changed. But that's not what the police, or hospital authorities mean when they say 'life-changing', it's just they can't now refer to physical disabilities because they are now 'different abilities'. And they want to say that it's been a pretty bad time for the injured with long-term effects.

Terrible news and a terrible way to die. If the dog was already known to be dangerous, as has been suggested, then it's owner and nominal controller should be charged. And whatever book can be found thrown at her if found guilty.

Apologies, of course it is, but I tend to think of the 'brown' bin as being the one the same size as the blue and the green but for garden waste. The others I use location names for (kitchen and kerbside caddies).

Although the waste is combined eventually it's now collected separately, so you cannot put kitchen waste in the brown bin or it won't be collected. And it never was, I think. Just to show you. It's what it appears not what it is, that matters.

I think they do.

What's really annoying is so much now is meant to have been completely replaced, with road works for months, and yet the same sections keep on failing. I know we are all hills and clay, but the Victorians managed to put in sections which lasted 10s of years, but our repairs don't seem to last even 10s of weeks!

My experience is that good traders know each other, sometimes, so if you know someone in the building and related trades who you trust you might ask them if they could recommend a roofer who they may have worked with. It can't hurt and you might find a star that way.

If you're happy with an, 'it'll cost £10 grand' or '£15 grand' quote, them I'm glad for you that thousands of pounds isn't material to you. It's true that if you're quoting for a standard job you may know the standard price, but very few roofs, even for similar buildings, are that standard,depending on their current state of repair. And if your getting competitive quotes, knowing what they're made up of is, if not key then certainly helpful in making a decision. The lowest quote is not always the best depending on its components. For 'flat' roofs zinc is half the cost of lead, for instance or less (I haven't looked at prices recently) but with a third of the life. As an example.

Get detailed quotes, for materials, labour, plant hire (i.e. scaffolding etc.). That forces them to cost properly, and if they can't do that you don't want them. It also allows you to compare costs. And check what they're actually doing with your money. Ask for reference contacts with previous customers. Appear, at least, to be an informed purchaser. Ask for an estimate of time on site. Make timing part of the contract.

Lockdown was an active travel measure, you were allowed to walk a bit but otherwise had to stay in your house. Pollution caused by traffic reduced etc etc. What's not to like? So let's have permanent lockdown as an active travel measure and anyone who disagrees with a permanent state of lockdown is a fascist secret Tory who must be despised for their views.

The guide is being delivered to every household, I believe, mine arrived only today. I think it's basically no change. But they are not requiring people to use compostible bags for kitchen rubbish, presumably not to impose costs on people, but you still can, and the black sack for dry non recyclables I imagine is for those without green bins. Hopefully foxes won't be interested, although they can contain baby and pet waste. I imagine if there was a change they'd make more of it. But kitchen and garden waste are now being collected separately, even though Veolia doesn't have the plant locally to us to process them separately. So it's just for show (by Southwark, not Veolia as it just adds cost to them). Veolia does have anaerobic digesters to process kitchen waste into fuel at some of their UK sites. But I think for London it's all just composted.

Actually, I don't think registering a car with the DVLA makes you the owner, though you may well be, but what it makes you is legally responsible for the car, outwith issues of ownership. If you are the registered keeper you have legal responsibility, although if the car is stolen and reported as such you may eschew some of this. It is assumed that if not the owner you have registered it with the owner's agreement.

Sorry, of course it is. As Monday is the 2nd. And Tuesday the 3rd.

Monday is the 2nd December, the 4th is a Thursday. Which?