Penguin68

As one might expect, the questions asked are simplistic - I found it easier to support NONE of the proposals - either the increase of time from 30 - 60 minutes nor the decrease of time from unlimited to 60 minutes (put as a single option) - but intead to input what I did want to see - which was an increase where there was a limit, but no limitation where previously parking was unlimited. Practically, to go to LL, shop and then perhaps have a bite to eat or sit in a cafe is a hard call in just 60 minutes. This is much more likeley to address their prima facie reason (increase local usage of local shops) without giving hostages to fortune in allowing this to be a CPZ wedge.

James Barber wrote It would make a great site for a new primary school. Actually, whilst I think that, everything else being equal, its location in the borough (and footprint) would be good, it's actual location, between the South Circular and Lordship Lane would mean that, apart from those who could access it from the right side of the road - granted that does include the two big estates - would pose significant road safety issues - it wouldn't be ideal for the primary starved Underhill Road-ers for instance. I doubt whether TFL would be happy to see lollipop ladies holding up rush hour traffic on the South Circular either. It was a successful pub back in the 70's and 80's (its gardens were great in the summer) - it even did quite well in its initial Harvester guise. But a number of wrong decisions - and a failure to build a convincing narrative for it - resulted in it losing its old customers without gaining new ones. With its parking, and its location close to a number of areas of interest it could have made a good pub/ restaurant with rooms, for instance. Clearly that would need investment, and it wouldn't have generated the geld that the Estate thinks it can get in this way (b*stards) but it would have added to local amenity, rather than adding to the demands to be made on local education, health, water and drainage provision.

Whilst the wilderness in the overgrown parts of the graveyard has some merit, this part of SE London is actually well served (and much better than many other areas) for woodland and park - I am more concerned that the clearance will also clear the old Victorian (and actually somewhat later) burials - many of whose memorials stones are tumbled and deemed 'unsafe' but are also fine examples of late 19th century demotic funeral art. The trees have grown up very quickly (and would do so again, given the chance) but the memorials, once cleared and destroyed are gone forever, and will never 're-seed'. I would be happy for the over-grown elements to be cleared back to reveal the monuments, these be stabilised where necessary and any additional space used for new burials. Ideally the graveyard might retain its screening of established trees around the perimeters. I find more 'amenity pleasure' in the areas of the Old Cemetery where I can view and contemplate the memorials than where I am walking through scrubby woodland with the memorials at best half glimpsed. I fear that the clearances, when they come, will be savage and unthought through, but more damaging to monuments than nature. I particularly dislike those graveyards where memorial stones are uprooted and, for instance, line a periphery rather then remaining, however decayed, in-situ.

Just to put a stop to the italics

The removal of all evening rush trains to Croydon halves the number of trains going to the south (Honor Oak Park) of ED, a convenient stop for those of us not crowding around in the north around ED station itself. Scandalous.

Why not have the display in Hyde Park ? Plenty of space for people to gather and surrounded by dozens of Bus Routes and Tube Stations. I believe that the logic (if I understood a 'spokesman' correctly) was that the display was optimised around being broadcast on TV (thus the backdrop of the Thames and the iconic buildings around that part of it) - certainly the TV broadcast was seen by many millions (more) than could even get into even Hyde Park - those people crowding in to see the spectacle live and unmediated by technology were not the intended audience, and the numbers had become so large that they posed real dangers to themselves (and I suppose a potential target to those less well disposed to the UK and all it does). So the sealing-off of the area (and the rationing by ticket) was quite intentional in increasing security and crowd safety (note what happened elsewhere, in China, this year) by reducing numbers.

Dawson Heights gives a good vantage, and in the past the crowd there has been benevolent, but if the going gets 'soft' (as it is forecast tonight, despite this morning's frost) then the slope can become very slippy, particularly close to the access path; it is worthwhile wearning shoes/ boots with some grip (and which you don't mind getting muddy).

Just to warn that there is a tricky patch of black ice if you are turning from Lordship Lane into Overhill, where there has been a leak. Cyclists in particular may wish to take care, and anyone crossing Overhill there.

No, just a near miss on a bike

I think you need to look in the Southern sky

Apologies, I thought they closed at 6:00. I know they did have a problem of staff sickness, but I had thought that was sorted.

I don't think they open in the evening (ever) - Wednesday is when they open in the afternoon as well as the morning (and hence 'late' for them) - they were certainly open at about 4:30 this evening.

Well, I'm using BT, without apparent problem Amended to say 'my own BT Broadband' - not their roaming Wifi or BT Fon - that may be a difference

I had a flash message on a tablet that my IP had been blocked, but then it seemed to work. I am posting this via the same wifi connection, but a different machine, to see if there's any problem now. Edited to say, 'and there wasn't'.

Maybe if JB could pursuade the secondary school of choice to build up to 6 stories he could get another Harris primary in as well, hell a 10 story secondary and Harris could have their Nunhead, Clapham and Crystal Palace primaries nicely installed on the (Dulwich!) hospital site. Remember (caps intentional) WHAT HARRIS WANTS, HARRIS WILL GET.

Environmentalist Blanche Cameron wrote "These cemeteries are havens for wildlife with ancient woodland Actually, they're not. Ancient Woodland is (legally) woodland which is known to have existed continuously since pre 1600, and therefore may be assumed to have been 'natural'. The woods (delightful as they are and a haven to wildlife as they are) have all grown up through existing graves within a planned cemetery - in the case of Camberwell Old Cemetery purchasd in 1855 and originally meadowland (not woodland). It would anyway have been cleared so that the graveyard could be instituted. Although I am wholly in favour of working to preserve the benefits of having a woodland which has (probably) grown up over the last 60-80 years (I am not sure what date the most recent burial is in the now wild part) it would be wrong to attribute to it the status of 'ancient woodland' which has a clear legal definition, and for which councils have clear legal obligations. It would also be unfortunate if arguments in favour of keeping it were lost on a technicality - which is that this isn't, in any way, ancient woodland.

That's strange, I picked up something (which was 'attempted delivery' on Friday 12th at 12:30) today (Saturday 13th) at 08:55 this morning. The queue was quite long then! Edited to say - I must have been lucky

Can I just point out that the vast majority of people who walk behind other people are not incipient attackers and rapists, they are you and me. If you are walking behind someone walking slower than you, you will tend to start catching them up. If you quicken your pace, to pass them quickly and not appear to be dogging their steps, they can also quicken their pace, in (in this case misplaced) fear of you - if you alter your pace then you are likely to make them more worried, if your cross over to the other side of the road and overtake them, ditto. Of course report people who make you frightened, but understand that in many cases that fear is being exacerbated by threads such as this and comments such as ' if weirdos get away with minor things they go on to do worse so stuff should be reported'. Someone walking behind you at a different pace than yours, or overtaking you, is not, automatically, a weirdo. Even people who pass comments to you on the street may not be weirdos, they may be saying 'good evening', or 'excuse me' as they pass - they may even have mental health problems - but those with mental health problems are far more likely to harm themselves than others (statistically). Of course be wary, of course be alert, but try not to live in fear.

It is always sensible to report something you think is suspicious or which worries you, and to act sensibly, as you did, calling at a lit house, but, thankfully, (perfectly real) suspicions and worries are much more frequent than actual attacks. Continue to be vigilant and sensible, but don't let this incident build up fear or anxiety. In general you are still safe walking around London. Of course there are dangers, and dangerous situations, but for every bad incident you hear or read about there are a vast number of occasions when nothing bad has happened in what might be considered an identical context.

As I have noted in another thread, the binmen in my street (and I suspect many others) work by a forward man pulling bins into the road, consolidating bins (turning two half-empty bins into one full one) and so on - up to 5 minutes later the lorry pulls through, the bins are emptied and returned, broadly but often not exactly to where they were taken from - the lorry men not seeing this part of the collection to exactly where they originated. If your bins have the street number painted on, then you get your own bins back, if not, then it's possible you might get another bin, particularly where houses are very close together, and there may not be a lot of road space for the pulled-out bins. When a bin is emptied during consolidation it will normally be replaced pretty close to where it was left. That's particularly true of the brown bin collection - the green/ blue bins (in my road) have forward men much closer to the lorry. When the men have time (i.e. the lorry is stalled in traffic) they can be much neater, but they have a lot of work to get through. If there are 'obvious' places for bins then they are more likely to be returned there (i.e. special enclosures). Some houses will pull bins from the back of the house to the front, for collection, so returning bins into the front garden or area may be the best the binmen can do anyway. They (normally) try not to leave them out on the pavement, unless there's nowhere else to go with them.

Since the proposed new school is to address schooling needs in Nunhead (not Dulwich) I am not sure why everyone is being so precious about ED people having a priority say here - (I am an ED person, by the way). I would quite like to hear from those parents in Nunhead who anticipate having to schlepp across to the Dulwich Hospital to take their (really quite young) kids to school. Do they think this is a good option - or do they feel they are being leveraged into being part of Harris' empire building? Is this about parents or is it about Harris? Harris would prefer to build a primary school on their Girls Academy site on Homestall Road. The hopsital site isn't a first choice for them - hence why I think Southwark Council holds the chips in this. - What do the Nunhead parents (who are the 'customers' theoretically, for all this, think? Do they matter at all in Harris' grand scheme of things (and the schemes of those who are cheerleaders for Harris)?

It is also worth noting that, based on recently previous posts, this is all about (particularly) the morning rush hour - when work and school traffic (including parked-up coaches) coincides - so say an hour, 5 times a week for about two thirds of the year. The afternoon coach parking tends not to impact the later back-to-home work traffic, though clearly does impact the retruning school traffic. This is quite a draconian set of measures to address 2% (or 4% if you include the afternoon 'rush') of the year (though granted much of the remaining 98% is at night etc.). It does strike me that directly addressing the apparent proximate cause of the problem (traffic, particularly coaches, delivering to two schools) would be more sensible than making permanent changes to road layout etc. which, for - say, being generous, 95% of the time - aren't necessary. Edited to add:- If you are on the Embankment travelling east, if memory services, right turns onto Albert and Battersea bridges are not allowed at certain times of day, could not a forbiden right (if we can't avoid this) be time-limited - to say 8:00-10:00 am; 3:00-5:00 pm to 'save' the school time traffic from peril? - but not at weekends/ holiday time?

Inevitably cyclists will take a right here, even if it's banned. It a natural way to go. Nuff said...

No, my point wasn't that this shouldn't be pursued because cyclists (some, by no means the majority) don't feel bound by the same rules as motorists, but rather that, in banning right turns for motorists it will become the presumption that vehicles won't be turning right meaning that a cyclist that does will be at greater risk. Since this whole exercise appears to be about de-risking life for cyclists, this would seem counter-productive.

I do hope that if the right turn is banned for motorists (which I hope it won't be) this ban extends (and is also policed) to cyclists, otherwise we will be having unexpected right turns across traffic by the most vulnerable. In my experience many cyclists do not see themselves bound by the same restrictions as powered drivers.