Penguin68

Yesterday (Sunday) morning I was walking along Langton Rise by the cemetery and was attacked 3 times by a large crow; the first time I initially assumed it was an accident, it rose up and flew into my face/ head - but by the third time, when I saw it fly low down the length of the road before lightly pecking at my hat, it was clearly intentional. I was not (in any way) injured - and the object of the attacks seemed to be a brown homburg style hat I was wearing - but it did seem curious. Clearly it wasn't defending a nest (or fledgelings) - far too late in the season - and there was nothing on the hat which might have appeared food-like (didn't have an alpine hat feather cockade in it). The crow was very bold, after the first incident it sat on the road, and then a fence, staring at me and no more than 2-3 feet away. After the third 'attack' it went back into the cemetery where it then roosted. Has anyone else been assaulted by a crow around there? Is this usual behaviour?

To clarify this thread - a bag full of rubbish was found away from the property it purported to have originated from - the owners of the property have said that they didn't put it there - and neither would their cleaner (makes sense as described) - it still seems possible a bag was taken away by a third party (possibly to look for scrap or items of identity) and then abandoned by the scavenger/ identity thief. This does not seem, as headlined 'fly tipping, bang to rights!' and neither, as it turns out, has the OP actually appeared to have covered themeselves in clouds of glory (despite no doubt good intentions). Righteous indignation is not always, it might seem, the absolutely best starting point for neighbour interactions. Particularly if it comes across as threatening rather than righteous. pinecone does seem to have a point.

Even 25 years ago the Grove was a good family pub - great from May through to late September in the garden with children, a barbeque in the summer. Because the garden was so large children weren't oppressive to the un-childed. Even the very early Harvester days weren't that bad, then it just seemed to lose direction, and, eventually, customers. With (originally) 2 good car parks it could have been quite an attractor for groups. That site, and that footprint, ought to give great opportunity to revive a pub there. It's a scandal it sits there boarded up and decaying. It's not as if there was too much commercial land about locally that that shoudn't need to be used. But maybe the fact that virtually the 3 biggest (by footprint) boozers locally are all shut says something about changing mores and customs.

I have just read the original post to this - are you sure the addressees were the fly-tippers? - we have had some incidence locally of bins being 'explored' by others - suggestions as to why have included scavenging and identity theft - bag taken away, examined closely and then discarded would fit with this scenario. As rubbish collection in ED is generally good (I know some have had complaints) I cannot see why anyone locally would bother to fly-tip when local disposal (particularly of things like Amazon boxes, all recyclable) is so easy - as Alan Medic noted above. Possibly the addressees will be pleased to know that interference with their rubbish has been picked up - equally, if they thought they had disposed of this 'properly' they might just be very confused.

union membership is declining in the private sector Part of the reason for this is that the benefits of union membership - outwith those moments of industrial action to improve direct benefts or pay - are not properly understood, either by potential members or indeed by management. Unions' actions in terms of Health and Safety, looking after individual members at times of dispute, workng with management to ease necessary change (ensuring fairness of treatment etc.) can not only improve members' conditions but can help improve overall morale within a firm, by identifying, for instance, bullying manangers and poor IR practice which leads to low morale and performance. Not all relations betweeen management and unions are necessarily confrontational, certainly at the level of the workplace. There are as many problems with anti-capital union officials as there are with anti-union managers but there are many firms where union: management relations can be conducted in an atmosphere of respect and fairness, where neither 'side' has a political axe to grind which interferes with effective relations. Union H&S reps can frequently identify dangerous practices or circumstances which can be addressed before injury occurs - to the overall benefit of the firm.

The issue about carers is actually much worse than described, as they are often not paid for the time travelling between jobs, so 'minimum wage' becomes 'much less than minimum wage' when taking into account total time required to work (time with clients plus time travelling between clients). 'Normal' jobs don't pay you for travel to/ from work, of course, but most do (effectively) pay you for the time you spend e.g. travelling between meetings during your working day. Paying a LLW (under the current process) still wouldn't mean that carers actually got that for the time they spend 'at work'. One of the key issues with LLW is how close that is to the next pay level in an organisation - if differentials erode then (in the end) you get wage drift, which puts up labour costs, which leads to price inflation, which then erodes the 'benefit' gained from the LLW - inflation always impacts the worst paid worst. And when you set a measure based on the measure itself (wages set as a percentage of average wages) as has been pointed out, you get 'stupid' answers. Setting wages in terms of some index which isn't (at least directly) wage impacted would make more sense. (The same is true of measuring 'poverty' as a factor of overall wealth).

This is all clearly madness - unless you accept that it is part of the war against cars by the anti-car brigade (which includes, as I recall, the Lib Dems and Greens - happy to stand corrected if I am wrong here). Taken in this light, such a stupid idea, which will cause upset and distress with 'cars' seen as the trigger, may all be part of a cunning plan (and a Tojan Horse, again, for CPZs - nice little earners as a punishment tax on car ownership). If it is, basically, anti-car, then don't expect any quick or sensible resolutions - oh, and we don't seem to be getting any of those, do we?.

Look folks, it's quite simple - the only way (short of closing London airports) of shifting flights away from where you live, is to shift them towards where other people live. This is the biggest NIMBY issue we have, as (unlike those who wish to avoid something new, and possibly actually stop-able, like housing) the planes are there, will be there, and have to fly somewhere. What this petition is actually saying is 'not over my back-yard, make someone else miserable'. If flights were (miraculously) steered down some tortuous path which didn't over-fly housing not only would this add considerably both to flight times and flight costs, but these paths would tend to be so narrow and tortuous that the risk of in-air accident would soar. This issue has been exhaustively discussed on this forum - some are clearly genuinely made miserable by the noise, most (I suspect it's most) can either live with it, or have found ways of not noticing it. We are not 'attached' to our planes (fond memories of Concorde notwithstanding) - but we (most, by no means all) have learnt to live with them, and indeed generally ignore them.

Thanks, Jeremy, for closing off the second set of 'open italics' commands - I hadn't seen this developing. Intexas - you 'opened' italics twice (once whilst trying to close them) - every command needs a counter command to stop it working - if you open twice you have to close twice. Efectively, although you see posts in a thread as being individual, each thread acts as a continuous run of HTML embedded codes - and you can influence anything 'below' you if you don't stop what you start. Sorry, admin, all off-topic, but to a good cause (I hope).

Are you sure you are putting in the closing (no spaces) ? You need that to close-off the HTML command. I know that in one e-mail programme I use any formatting 'sticks' until it is changed - but that's not using overt HTML coding.

The aspect I find most surprising about this is that the Ritzy employed 93 people This must be 93 individuals, not 93 FTE. I have seen 4 or so in the ticket area, 3 front of house in the downstairs cafe, presumably 2 at each of the screens (one for tickets, one projectionist, although most screens are automated/ digital nowadays and withour projectionists (5?) - say 3 in the k i t chen, 2-3 roving cleaners, 2-3 security, perhaps 1-2 in an office 'managing' - assume they operate 2 8 hour shifts (so FTE numbers double)- I find it hrs to get much above 50 FTE - and that seems quite generous staffing levels, assuming all staffing is at peak levels.

which assists my neighbours with heavy loads, people dropping off children etc." would exist without you having a dropped kerb ? Not if it was in a parked-up street where people were parking through the day - the dropped kerb creates a (short) no-go area for permanent parking, thus allowing this type of visitor. Edited to add - put (no spaces) at the start of the section to be italicised, and at the end - you can do the same with b to get something in bold, to answer your second point. It's HTML.

They don't allow the world and his wife to park there . I have one, and neither do I, but I don't mind e.g. delivery vehicles stopping for a short time in order to make deliveries, strangers stopping to drop people off etc. etc. My dropped kerb therefore creates a 'universal' short-term stopping place - which assists my neighbours with heavy loads, people dropping off children etc. If I'm about (hardly matters if I'm not) I may go out to check how long people will be stopping - if I need to go out or am expecting someone back, but otherwise I'm reasonably accommodating - as most people around me seem to be. Of course, occasionally someone (often in a white van) may 'take the mick' - but over the last 25 years I have rarely had a problem. On occasion I have been asked by neighbours if I would mind a longer use of 'my' dropped kerb space - i.e. more than a few minutes for, e.g. engineers etc. to visit - if I can I do. I am sure I am not unusually generous in so doing. However, and in general, street parking is normally reasonably easy around me, so maybe fewer problems have had to present themselves.

I think we are all more precious about East, West or Village (or Common) than those looking in - I think the Thatcher house was in College Ward, which certainly covers parts of SE22 and parts which would be equally certainly considered East Dulwich. Most wouldn't consider the Thatcher house ED - but it was pretty damn close.

PLEASE NOTE Just in case the reference to 'harrass/ threaten' was an inference drawn from my comment about violence between strikers and non-strikers, this was in fact (and I have an eye-witness who was there) a physical struggle between strikers who were 'occupying' the stage in Screen 1 during a performance and people trying to eject them. The violence was apparently pretty two-sided (and not that violent, more a struggle than a rumble) - and I quoted it not to blacken the strikers' reputations but to suggest that there was clearly going to be bad blood between them and non-strikers, making applying for jobs in the ED Picture House possibly problematic (and always assuming the protesters were actually employed by the Ritzy and striking and were not just sympathetic fellow BECTU members, or indeed fellow travellers). I have no evidence specifically of 'threaten or harrass' other than normal picket line activity. Crossing any picket line obviously will make someone feel at least slightly threatened or harrased, but within the law.

discussed doesn't mean agreed tho Unions have no rights, or expectations, to 'agree' to management decisions about resource allocation - more true would be to say that the unions may not have believed this management statement, and determined to press for more pay in the hope (or perhaps even expectation) that this was a bluff. Clearly it wasn't. In fact, as I have said, the fact that the Ritzy continued to operate when (some) of its staff were on strike may have helped convice management that they could operate at lower stafing levels. Throughout the management does appear to have acted honestly (they said they wouldn't change their overall pay envelope, they haven't) - which is not to say nicely - and are following standard (and legal) procedures about redundancy. As a trade's unionist I might conclude that the principle of the LLW has been won, but at the cost of the jobs of some of my members. The principle may be more important, long term, than the jobs (but then, if I was a BECTU official, I will still be working, but some of my members won't be!). Maybe the long-run hope is that the Ritzy can't actually operate with a reduced staff, and that, in the longer term, they may have to re-hire (and they are hiring for ED anyway). A 'better' negotiation might have been to allow for the Ritzy reduction - but to negotiate for transfer of some staff to ED - but this might not have been welcomed - the strike was quite bitter and there was actual violence I am told between strikers and those not striking - the police were called (I believe) to the Monty Python live broadcast to eject strikers who were disrupting the show.

'Scouting for Boys' and Catholicism - why does this seem like a marriage made in, well, not heaven...

There are quite strict rules regarding redundancies (partly at least because of the tax free element of redundancy payments up to a ceiling), and trade's unions are normally very clear about them - to remove as many activists as is being suggested without real redundancy conditions being met does not make sense to me. You can either reduce the whole workforce through redundancy - or remove particular classes of employee (for instance those whose skill set is no longer required) - but you cannot remove people claiming redundancy and then back-fill vacancies. Any business can determine that it is necessary to reduce its workforce; that is of course very sad for the employees concerned, but it's business. It would not be possible to set 'legal' criteria for redundancy as being trade's union membership or activity - this must be based on clear (non-discriminatory) criteria (which can however include performance measures). LIFO (last In First Out) and FIFO (First In, First Out) have both also been used by companies. Most will look for voluntary before compulsory redundancy, and many will allow people to apply for jobs elsewhere in the organisation, should there be any and they be qualified. At the moment the company appears to be going through standard procedures (including consultancy). From what has been written, it appears that they plan to re-organise the Ritzy - probably to reduce staff overheads - and in putting virtually all the jobs at risk, they plan to re-staff the new organisation from within the exiting pay-roll. A cynic might suggest that since the Ritzy did continue to stay open and deliver service during the strike, the management may have decided that they can still run the cinema with fewer permanent staff, since they didn't appear to need the numbers actually on-strike at the time (numbers, not people). Edited to say:- I have been a committed trade unionist for most of my (long) working life and am still a (reasonably) active member of my Branch Committee - in case it is assumed I am writing from a different bias.

I think, Otta, you are being a little unfair - how many books for marking do you take with you to and fro when you use public transport? How much material do you prepare at home to bring in to your workplace? Of course, teachers could do all 'their' work at school, although they will tend not to have offices, and the teacher's desk in a class room is often not the ideal workplace - they may also have school-age children (or elderly parents) who they wish to see/ care for - teachers not infrequently teach in order to be able to have a work-life balance.

The 'parking problem' would seem to be associated with teaching and other staff needing to access the site to work - presumably in general needing to park between, say, 7:30 and 16:30 - give or take - and the popularity of the school is irrelevant to that. The number of parking spaces taken up by the garage (4-5 normally) will at least in part be now taken by the new householders, whenever that comes about. That end of LL is increasingly popular for shopping, eating out (cinema eventually) - the school will simply bring additional pressure to parking around there during the day in term-time - thus impacting the revenues etc. of local businesses - many of which there sell relatively heavy or bulky items for which public transport or bikes are not an ideal solution. Clearly there are plusses about more primary provision locally, but there are also - for those without primary age children, and particularly living very locally - very many minuses.

Forest Hill Road are changing their booking procedures - yet to see how they will work, but it is useful to be able to forward book appointments via the internet. It looks for 'emergency' bookings the duty doctor will triage if called in the morning. I have had to wait 2-3 weeks to see a specific doctor for non-emergency work, but have always got to see or speak to someone 'in extremis' on the day. If you are on the EMIS system (internet) your appointments are logged there, which is helpful (as are your repeat medications, making it a lot easier to re-order prescriptions). It is not unreasonable to run primary care on a two-tier basis - with routine or regular appointments having to be made some time in advance, but emergency work handled differently. Often telephone consultations are very helpful - saves travelling, can be done from the desk. I have found the desk staff generally helpful - of course one may be having a grumpy day (don't we all) but all can manage a smile, at times.

My dropped kerb is at least 26 years old (there when we bought the house) and is white lined - last time it was white lined by the council was when my road was re-surfaced 2 years ago - all dropped kerbs were then so treated. I have no documentation but can certainly photograph it. White lines are only ever 'advisory' - are really there to give guidelines as to how close a car could park without blocking the exit (and risk being knocked by an exiting vehicle). The ones painted in extend no more than 2 feet past the exit - pretty well matching the 'sloping' small kerb-stone as it rises to the normal pavement height. There are some house which are visited by (regular) ambuslances, for either elderly or child disabled/ invalids - I can imagine that they might want to preserve space if necessary using yellow lines - otherwise since white lines carry no legal rights (and could be painted in/ restored by ordinary citizens if they want...)

I was solely suggesting that where the culture was not shared (and SE London Youth Culture may very well not be the same as Youth Culture from somewhere else, particularly non-Western European) then there might be an issue - and was making the point that second generation incomers (from wherever) are more likely to share a culture with other young people than those who had been born and (at last partly) brought-up elsewhere. Refugees from conflict zones may well have a different world view (and different experiences) from those born in SE London. First generation immigrants are those born outside the UK - it is the second generation who will likely be 'London' and 'British'.

If there were to be an issue, it may be one not 'colour' but of culture - being with a group of people all of whom have been born and brought-up in an around SE London is very different from being with a group of people who are first generation immigrants, for whom English is not a first language, and who have few shared cultural experiences or norms. As far as I know, ED and schools around it take in mainly children who are at least second, if not third, 4th or nth generation British - with a lot of shared culture and experience. There are parts of London (and elsewhere in the UK) were being a small minority amongst others who have a shared (and different) culture may cause problems - but (happy to stand corrected) I do not see that being an ED issue.

Investors generally think yields should be a minimum of 5-7% to make a suitable ROI. So the rent market and the sales market are out of alignment in London at the moment. That will almost certainly correct in the longer term. With a rising property market many investors are happy if their rental income 'washes its face' (covers costs, including debt) - as the capital value of their investment increases (an increase they alone take the benefit from - their lenders simply having debt equity in the investment. [Like many home owners around here, my house 'earned' more than I did in the last 18 months, which I could have leveraged into additional debt to make further acquisition, but didn't!]. Rentiers can use increased valuations to leverage more debt and acquire more properties. Combine that with high(er) inflation (in the past) and that's a good business model - as debt becomes increasingly worth less. At the moment falling, or at least stagnating house prices and very low inflation make being a rentier less appealing. There may well be a correction in the market, but that might actually drive up rental charges, as other offsetting benefits from being a rentier atrophy, and there is a need to get your money do more than just wash it's face within the current account, as the capital values stagnate or reduce. Alternatively, buy-to-let may look increasingly unattractive - if the market cannot sustain increased rental charges, in which case more properties may appear in the buy-to-live market - which will have a tendancy to reduce futher house prices and force the necessary corrections into the market. Edited to add - If you think of property as an investment, then like any investor you can invest for income (dividends; in the case of property net rental) or capital appreciation - the capital appreciation route looks now less certain for domestic property - and the 'dividends' are not so compelling - so (maybe) investment in domestic property as a business will tail off - which should benefit those planning to buy to live - i.e. (still) the majority of those in the domestic property market.