Penguin68

In general I have found the teams that service my bit of SE22 to be very effective - but they work by one team member going on ahead and pulling out bins into the roads, sometimes 'pooling bins' so that bins to be emptied are as full as possible - it may be that some bins actually with rubbish still in them are missed by the workers travelling with the lorry, who assume that they have already been emptied into other bins - probably based on their relative position in the road/ on the pavement. This practice is generally very efficient, maximising throughput (and actually reducing the time the lorry is blocking any particular road) but it may lead, as I have said, to bins being missed because the follow-up team are making assumptions about the bins' positions to determine whether they need to be emptied (some already being emptied into other bins by the operative going ahead). This has happened (once) to me - my bin was cleared within 48 hours, but that was before the computer based backlog came about.

In which case it is very surprising that there isn't another GP interested in buying into this practice - business loans can be made available to expedite this where the putative GP doesn't have sufficient capital. There are many salaried GPs who would very much like the assurance (and profits) from a GP partnership. Many GPs would use sale of their practice as part of their pension pot - although some continue to own the practice and employ a salaried GP to undertake the work (the case in some other practices much commented on in the forum).

If Dr Marks is a formal practice partner with Dr Sarma that would be right, but if two doctors (independently of each other) are using the same surgery premises each would be a singleton practice (but co-located). I knew of one large premises (in Kent) where 3 multi-partner practices were co-located - but each practice was run separately (apart from management meetings about premise related issues) and there was no cross-over of patients between practices. Do patients of Dr Sarma see Dr Marks if Dr Sarma is unavailable? If not these may be 2 co-located singleton practices?

Unless Dr Sarma is an employed GP it seems very strange that he would not wish to sell his practice on; GP practices are generally treated as an asset. Obviously he rents his premises, but the practice itself will have value. However, if this is a single GP practice there may be issues - since Dr Shipman these have not been encouraged by the NHS. It may be that his continued practice as a singleton was allowed, but that the NHS would not contract again with a single practitioner. In that case he would find it difficult to sell-on (or continue in other's hands) the practice as it stands. Indeed, it may be that a singleton practice is not allowed to continue as part of the NHS once its GP does retire. In which case upsetting, as this is to current patients, there may be nothing which can be done about it.

For those who do not understand risk, or wish things to be 'absolutely' safe, there will never be enough knowledge. As I have said before, care about how it is used (not near water courses or springs, not in high winds, not near children's play areas (or if necessarily near, then these areas cordoned off until after rain or a given period)) may be necessary on the precautionary principle), but calls for blanket bans on a legal chemical are unhelpful. Many authorities now greatly regret the 1950's bans on global use of DDT - which almost certainly have led to very many infant and adult deaths from malaria. There are numbers of weeds which are not just (or even) unsightly but are either poisonous (to people or livestock) or invasive and damaging to native species. Their removal is not a matter for aesthetics. And much of the pleasures we get from public spaces rely on their effective management.

Until we know that it is absolutely safe It isn't. Nothing is. Relative safety is the real issue here. People can die of drinking too much water. Should we complain if that is being provided to every house? How the glysophosates are being delivered (e.g. are there rules in Southwark about there use in windy conditions) in what concentrations and where (close to or well away from play areas etc.) are important. But to require their non-use until they can be proven to be harmless under all circumstances (which cannnot happen) is senseless whilst they are still legal for use in this country.

Is West Dulwich really closer to Brixton than East Dulwich? Maybe marginally, but it's still got to be a couple of miles at least. I think it is by public transport, or at least more directly convenient - from WD station it's two stops, and the 3 goes from outside WD station to Brixton quite directly.

No

Possibly because the content is already covered in another thread, where it (and actions relating to it) have been/ are being discussed. Apat from a general view about failures of normal 'due process' (but, technically, this apparently didn't require consultation) only those actually impacted (by virtue of location) will be most engaged in this.

The money made on profits comes (in general from revenues) - the money from revenues (from this cinema) will come from you, ED residents. They money they have to pay staff also comes from revenues, that is to say, from you. So, if you want them to pay higher wages, ask them to increase their seat charges (and what they charge for food and drinks) and pass this money on. And no special deals for concessions. Because, with a ROCE of just over 5% that's what they will have to do. Or become more efficient by employing fewer people, so your choice is (probably) to pay more and/ or see fewer people employed. As you will all want the best for the staff (and as many of them as possible, presumably, to address the employment problems locally) then raise the prices and then raise the prices again. What they have to pay staff has to come from somewhere. Their retained profits make running a business worthwhile at all - if they have less profit then they may as well sell up and put it the bank. So, pay more, don't have a cinema here at all, or perhaps grasp economic realities of doing business.

Otta Thanks for that clarification - and I would guess that many paid on these low scales would not, in fact, be full-time employees - these look like unskilled wages, which are often part-time or short-hours jobs (such as cleaning). Of course, depending upon the terms of the contract, if part-time the staff member might also do another job as well, but probably at a similar low wage.

Otta In the pay scales you attached, is there any element of London Weighting (often paid by public bodies) and if not, what would LW do to change these scales? When I worked for public bodies London Weighting and the basic pay scale were separate, as they were not increased in step with each other. Often LW was a lump sum increment, paid regardless of grade (and so of more relative value to the low paid).

Plants at the fronts of houses (pace the thread about overhanging bushes) are often a delight to the passer-by; my walks are enhanced by what my neighbours have done. It is better if they can be planted directly in the ground, if there is room to do so; the toe-rags who steal plants are less likely to want to go to the bother of digging them up. Plants with thorns or prickles are also a discouragement (roses, mahonia, holly,etc.) It would be lovely to be able to rotate potted plants to enjoy the season/ aspect in the front garden, but sadly you have identified the problem in doing this. If you have room, a raised bed (there are a series of concrete raised beds close to me, painted white) will allow plants to benefit from their height and appear commanding, even when relatively diminutive. But often the space in front of houses is limited and the planting conditions (directly into soil, if there is any) poor, so plants in pots are the only option - or not when there are thieves about. Sorry for your loss.

If you were to propose a boycot of all those retail and restaurant etc. establishments in Lordship Lane and surrounds who were not paying ALL their staff at least the London Living Wage, indeed if you placed a requirement on all such establishments to pay the LLW or close, then we would have an awfully quiet high street, I would guess. It is certainly entirely legitimate to suggest that the Picture House is not quite so cosy an employer as it may appear (although its statement about its staff situation was not the most combatative I have read) - but to use that as a reason for it not to open, as appears to be the background to this suggestion, is unhelpful. Better to get employment and facilities into ED and then work on the employers to up their emolument game than to ride your high horse into a local desert of opportunity and facility, I would think.

I think you can apply 6 months before expiry - they date it based on the actual expiry date, so you don't lose any bought time. It's worth aiming to renew well outside normal holiday times if you can.

We shouldn't be designing our urban streets with car drivers in mind. I'm sorry, but that must be one of the silliest things written here (and I've written a few) assuming it isn't meant to be ironic (in which case, apologies) - you cannot imagine or wish away the reality that the roads are full of vehicles, cars, vans, buses, lorries... You design for what is there, not what you'd like to be there. By designing roads to be difficult and dangerous for road vehicles you aren't making them go away (other than actually blocking the road completely) - rather you are making life more difficult for (let's not forget, today of all days) constituents and voters. By all means cater for those who don't (or don't on occasion) use motorised road vehicles, but to do so at the cost of those who do simply makes no sense. Poor road and junction design (just like speed and inconsiderate driving) can lead to accidents. The very fact that there have been god knows how many (low speed, not injury causing) accidents here - with the 'planners' (I use that word advisedly) simply exacerbating the problem, frankly, beggars belief. (And no, I haven't, so far, had an accident here).

the best was the one where the owners had put in a set of stairs above and parallel to the existing ones then built backwards over the back bathroom and bedroom You can do this only when there is sufficient height clearance to allow a 'legal' set of stairs - which must have sufficient headroom - we managed this by only centimetres. But it is possible to 'match' the new stairs with the old, most of the bannisters/ spindles used in 19th century and early 20thC builds are still available, which means that travelling up inside the house you cannot readily tell there is a loft extension at all. Using a builder who is experienced in houses locally means that they will know immediately what is possible (an architect we had originally consulted thought our only option was a staircase which would have lost us a room, effectively, in the process). Building a loft to the back of the house (over what is often known as 'the extension') is often easier planning wise (no issues about changing the frontage of the house by adding front-facing dormers) - even with 'permitted development' your plans must meet local planning rules. But much of this depends upon your roof height at the back - as raising roof ridge heights is normally not allowed. If they are high enough (ours were) perfectly decent rooms without sloping roofs can be built. Edited to add - my house is not a mid-terrace, so probably not directly comparable regarding loft extension opportunities.

10 May was a Saturday, so the bloke had probably been on the beer for the day. Therefore probably not in a position to make as rational a judgement as some people by the time 830 pm Curiously, in the days when I used to drink excessive amounts of liquid (beer or not) it was in pubs, well supplied with WCs. But I have been out all day at the weekend (not on a drinking spree), away from home and office and the facilities therein, and had the need to relieve myself. If I hadn't the time or the inclination to go into a pub for a 'drink' it could be a close run thing before I got home - if I had any distance to travel then a damn close run thing. Unless the culprit is a reckless and intentional open-air 'micturoligist' (doubt that word exists) then I would think it is less likely rather than more that he had been on the beer. Such open air frivolity in my experience tended to occur after kicking-out time- when pub loos were no longer available.

If the act was simply that of urination in a 'caught-short' situation, I am all for live-and-let-live. Many of us, over time, have had to 'go' when public conveniences weren't to hand (and when are they in modern London?). If the act was intended to offend - i.e. it was an initially aggressive act, then that is different. It appears that this may have been an 'innocent' situation segueing into an intended insult - which may have been triggered by the reaction of the OP to it in the first instance. My own feeling would be that this is a difficult one to call. Insulting behavior, whatever the apparent trigger, cannot be readily acceptable, but equally people are too easy to take offence when none may have (originally) been intended. Micturation is entirely natural and the sight (if there was one) of a male member innocently displayed in the process shouldn't really scare the horses. A male member displayed intentionally offensively is a different matter. However this all seems to be in a very different camp from the male displaying (exposing) intentionally as part of some sexual fixation - where immediate action by police may well be called for. We should perhaps be more relaxed about bodies and natural bodily functions, save when their locations (i.e. children's playgrounds, your own front door) suggest differently.

the property is deemed to be worth more than ?300K is to be sold rather ... Based on current property prices in ED (and assuming we are talking about market price, not about 'price to sitting tenant' that must mean virtually all empty properties in ED would be put up for sale!

Possibly because the thread was merely speculation - other than surmise there is no evidence of any crime or even fatality (criminal or otherwise). Police tapes go up for a myriad of different reasons. Until such time as there is anything actually to say, saying nothing may be understood as the best policy. At the worst it arouses fears or suspicions which may be entirely unjustified, with no obvious remedy normally of scotching them, once the speculative thread is out of the bag.

Following a ?near miss? when a cyclist suddenly turned across my path (I was in a car) without signalling I have been noting cyclist behaviour in and around ED over the last fortnight. During that time 1 (one) cyclist only (middle aged man, for the record) signalled a turn (in fact two, I was following him as he turned left and then almost immediately right). All the others who did manoeuvre whilst I was driving (and walking) turned either off or into the road I was on without any sort of signal. As a driver I signal not because I am required to, but because it is the best way I can make my intentions clear to other road users (drivers, cyclists, pedestrians). This is for my own (and their) safety. When I started to ride a bicycle (as an older child) I was not allowed by my parents to use even the little local streets (in the late ?50s almost traffic free) until I was a sufficiently competent cyclist to steer one handed (left or right) whilst signalling. I remember that it wasn?t easy, but I did master it. Whilst I am well aware that cycling in London is a hazardous occupation, and cyclists are disproportionately likely to suffer serious injury in accidents (and that many of these are caused by errors and unthinking stupidity of other road users) I find it difficult to understand why, in that case, cyclists shouldn?t take the best precautions they can (e.g. by signalling their manoeuvres) to alert other road users (most of whom will crush them and walk away injury free in an accident) about their intentions. Surely it cannot be that they can?t steer one handed ? a skill I mastered (and I am Mr Clumsy) at six? Nor can I understand why cyclists locally still insist on riding at dusk or at night without lights, or whilst wearing dark clothes without reflectors (I can recall being stopped, not in London, and in the late 1950s, by a local bobby when I was riding my bike without a light attached ? and that was at mid-day when I wouldn?t anyway have it lit!) As a driver, I watch out for cyclists ? I wish (most) of them, particularly locally in ED and SE London where I drive most, would also watch out for themselves.

You can distinguish your writing from the lines you are quoting by putting these (the quotes) in italics - you write (then the text quoted) (leaving out the spaces inside the ) - putting something in bold - substitute 'b' for 'i'. That way you don't need to put lines between the quote and your response. It also allows you more easily to write: Quote; Commentary; Second quote; Second commentary and so on. Edited to format as I suggested

A (blueish) flash and a loud bang I remember accompanying an accident when a road repairer put a drill through a mains cable - took out half my building in the City (we had dual routed supply for security reasons, so only half). The guy with the road drill was thrown about 10 feet in the air, but survived, luckily, with relatively minor burns and bruises, if I recall.

If you do want to opt out, a suitable form (which allows you also to attach details for family dependents if minors) can be found here:- https://medconfidential.org/how-to-opt-out/ There is also some more information on this site. I believe the problem is not the intent (which is to present aggregated data to allow research to be undertaken not just on hospital admissions - which is already up and running - but on GP issues as well) - but on the fact that despite assurances it would be possible, with only a litte data mining, to identify patients even where apparently anonymised information has been presented - and the government's (by which I mean any government's, I am not making a party political point here) inability to run things as expected and promised. There have been too many inadvertent and incompetant data breaches made by civil and other public servants - let alone those data breaches which were intentional and corrupt. The value of individual health information if you are an insurance company, wanting to write risk against known events, not probability, will become too attractive to avoid corrupt offers of access, particualrly if you fear your rivals have already got such access. Whether NHS officials will take any account of expressed patient desire for opt-out is of course another moot point.