Penguin68

If you become a Friend of the Picture Gallery you get free entry to the Gallery and any exhibitions - a members' preview to exhibitions which includes (normally) an excellent introduction by the Museum Director, and a glass of wine! That's a deal well worth checking out, as you also can 'bring a friend' on your membership ticket. And the current Hockney Print exhibition is very good.

That is good, as they have significantly reduced accidents in that stretch of road - there were a number when I first moved in (25 or so years ago) - including a child being struck, as well as crashes into parked cars, but I think there have been no such accidents since the bumps were introduced.

I'd also like to know why the white lines, preventing parking across a driveway with a dropped kerb, have been extended to the point that it is now impossible to park between the driveways. I can confirm that the white lines about my dropped kerb, and those of the houses around me, have not been extended. You will still see the initial 'chalk' marks put in before the work commenced to mark the lines. I checked (I was nosy) and they exactly matched the positions of the existing lines. The new lines are in line with these (in my case actually slightly 'in' from the chalk mark meaning the white line is a fraction shorter than it was (by millimetres). I suspect the extreme whiteness of the lines (they were quite worn out before) has made them look more obtrusive, but I do not believe they actually are any longer, certainly mine isn't. There is one part that has a 'parking' section smaller than a vehicle, but that was always so, the owner of the house parks across it and his own white line over his dropped kerb.

As I feared, the brown bin collection was not completed as (I assume) there was a clash of vehicles between Conway and Veola.

James I know this falls (just) outside your bailiwick, but the resurfacing of Underhill Road which was undertaken today appears to have removed the road-humps from the section re-surfaced (and introduced, as far as I can see, a slightly steeper camber). Do you know whether all the road humps in Underhill are planned to be removed (I assume it would not just be the Belvoir to Langton section alone so treated)? There is no notification of any future works to re-install the humps (although we hardly had any notification of the re-surfacing work either, and that only on an occasional lamp post)

Libretto not that good according to scores on the doors food hygiene ratings [www.scoresonthedoors.org.uk] This link is entirely wrong (the information in it). Libretto's has a score of 4 (the certificate, awarded very recently) is in his shop for anyone to see - he was not awarded the full 5 because he would not clear the shop of his pictures and curios (kept on shelving entirely separate from his preparation and serving areas). Anyone who knows Kim knows how carefully he cleans his shop - every night after closing for about an hour and a deep clean weekly (takes about 4-5 hours) on Saturdays. He also is fully aware of food hygiene rules (e.g. about the separation of cooked and uncooked meats, fully cleaning slicing machines betwen cutting bacon and ham etc. etc.) The incorrect information in the links leave me doubting the utility of other reports - (and the fact that it wrongly describes Kim's business hardly re-assures).

Actually, it is slightly better than that, as visitors to the house with a droppped kerb (friends, deliveries, trades-people) can legitimately park over the dropped kerb, which will remove some parking pressures on the street, so it's better than just a one-for-one swap. And I note (I have a dropped kerb) that delivery vans in general will stop (for a brief time) over my kerb, even when not delivering to me, thus not blocking the street through double parking. It is possible to argue, thus, that dropped kerbs can actually increase the number of vehicles that can park, or stop safely for deliveries, in any given street. But of course, someone with a dropped kerb does get a level of exclusive use (for a price) not available to those without.

Just for the record, I was advocating pharmaceutical intervention only for someone with a clinical hypersensitivity to external stimulus. This is most commonly found during migraine attacks - as a (thank goodness almost former) migraineur I was peculiarly sensitive to light and to scent (not, thank goodness, to sound) and when I had a migraine I would find these stimuli almost intolerable. I know that others have a sound sensitivity when they have migraines. I have heard of people with continuing touch hypersensitivity. Regarding particular stimuli problematical (specific sounds, rather than sound in general) does not suggest clinical hypersensitivity ? when these sounds are causing people high levels of anxiety or disquiet (but these levels are not mirrored in all exposed to these stimuli) then there may be a psychological element to the level of disquiet. There are perfectly good methods of addressing this psychological element. I am not trying to suggest that this is not ?real? to the sufferer ? it clearly is; I am suggesting that there may be methods of addressing this which do not require an extended (and very possibly fruitless) political campaign. Those part of this campaign are trying to control events through external politicking ? but at the moment these events are actually controlling them, and will continue to do so until and if they get that political change. They have an option to control events internally ? if they choose not to take that option, but rely on campaigning, that is their choice.

It's basically the local topography. Microwave signals are low powered (so cells don't interfer with each other) and 'line-of-sight'. If you are under the brow of a hill (Horniman Hill and Sydenham Hill are both steep and close together) then you may not be 'line in sight' of any of the towers. You will pick up some signal, sometimes, but your signal will never be strong. Additionally connectivity is prioritised to support active calls, so if enough people are actively calling on your cell (or are entering your cell on a call) than they will have priority over your phone if it is simply in stand-by mode (not connected). If you have a BT landline (and wifi) you can use the BT Smart Talk app to make outgoing calls on your cell via wifi at your BT call tariff. There are other ways of connecting your mobile through wifi - but none of these help with incoming calls. There are also aps which will allow you to locate all the cells which may support your network. Additionally dropping down to GSM (from 3G) may get you a better signal - (or from 4G if you are using that on EE)

None of these links state that CBT is effective in eliminating sensitivity to noise. If you believe that you have a clinical intolerance to noise then there are drug therapies which may help you by reducing sensitivity - perhaps amitryptoline (which is also a mild specific against anxiety) - but then all noise and not just that of aircraft should trigger this. If your intolernace to noise is a psychological response to a specific source of noise then it may form part of an anxiety spectrum, in which case CBT can certainly be effective. It may also possibly belong to an OCD spectrum (you are unable to 'tidy' the noise away) - again CBT can address some of these issues. It may also be a focus for a depressive illness - again CBT can help here. So - if you are intolerant (compared with others) to all noise sources over a particular Db then I weould suggest looking towards drug therapy - if a specific set of noises (which do not impact all others exposed to the same stimuulus) is your problem it does suggest that a psychological remedy may be more useful for you.

am not a CBT practitioner but:- " Then I'd argue you're not qualified. If you can point me towards evidence supporting your theories, happy to read. http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Cognitive-behavioural-therapy/Pages/Introduction.aspx https://www.myptsd.com/c/articles/cognitive-behavioral-therapy.19/ http://www.healthcentral.com/anxiety/c/1950/17898/10-reasons-cbt/ http://www.iapt.nhs.uk/services/ http://www.iapt.nhs.uk/ http://www.nhs.uk/Service-Search/Counselling-NHS-(IAPT)-services/LocationSearch/396 http://cognitivetherapyonline.com/cbt4panic/evidence-for-cbt http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/counsellor-articles/social-anxiety-disorder-and-the-effectiveness-of-cbt http://www.dailystrength.org/treatments/Cognitive_Behavioral_Therapy Do please let me know how you would like my posts referenced in future, personally I prefer 'Harvard' but I will consider other reference styles. Oh, and I'm not a practitioner, but a close family member (and a number of friends) are, and we do talk about issues arising.

Well if you can tell me how (a) CBT will help these people (b) you would illuminate the many people who have joined HACAN and other organsations © they are going to afford it; ?60 a session? How many sessions? And if it doesn't work? I am not a CBT practitioner but:- (a) - CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) gives those who have anxieties or phobias (or depression, some types of OCD etc. etc.) a toolkit which allows them to 'think' through their particular problems and learn how to address/ suppress them. It is not the only therapy which could help here - as I have said Mindfulness or possibly some of the relaxtion therapies like yoga might also help. (b) - I am not sure I understand here what you mean about 'illuminate' - those who have joined anti-noise action groups may well (e.g. those much living closer to Heathrow etc.) have a much clearer and less contested set of issues - i.e. a much greater percentage of those living im these areas are being more directly effected by aircraft noise - the points that I and others have been trying to put here is that quite a few living in ED are not so extremely effected as others - suggesting the problem may be one of perception and focus as much as of absolute noise levels. © CBT (there are other therapies which might be of use) can be availble through the National Health Service as part of the government's IAPT programme (Increasing Access to Psychological Therapies). In which case, if your response is acute enough, there would be no charge. However many people are quite happy to pay e.g. physiotherapists (and othery types of therapist) to address their own problems. The CBT success rate (for those who attend all sessions and complete the 'homework') can run at 50-60% - which is a good score for psychological therapy - the close measurement of success and failure forms part of the IAPT protocols) - the IAPT programme envisages 3 face-to-face sessions and 3 telephone consultations for low intensity therapy (which is what this would be). If it doesn't work (and it might not be your first choice anyway) there are other therapies.

Aircraft noise is real and affects people. Advising them to take CBT is not realistic... Claustraphobia is also real, many people are really frightened about rats, and mice, and spiders and open spaces and closed spaces and.... the point about CBT and other non-pharmaceutical interventions (like, for instance, yoga) is that they help people operate in real world situations to address issues which are causing them anxiety. It is clear from some of these postings that the noise sufferers are in states of anxiety, not just about themselves but about others (the children, oh the children!..) Some annoyances (such as noisy parties and annoying neighbours) are within your personal remit to address - an entire industry tends not to be, particularly when your levels of annoyance and anxiety are not generally mirrored in others. I am perfectly sensitive to sound (my hearing has been tested as being 'much younger' than my calendar age) and many sounds do annoy me. I have chosen (and I think that's right, it has been my choice) not to be annoyed or made anxious by aircraft noise as evidenced in ED. There are perfectly good remedies which others could use to achieve my equilibrium about aircraft noise here. By all means sign as many petitions as you want to - I am merely suggesting a route which has worked for others and may for you. I would suggest that it will be a lot quicker (to achieve relief) than following the lobbying route (and, as has been noted before on this thread, aircraft are anyway being made to be less noisy now than they were in the past - so the problem is (simply in terms of sound measurements) possibly now decreasing and will decrease). But for those with aircraft noise anxiety problems this decrease may not be 'heard' or benefited from.

I think the point that a number of us have been trying to make is that the aircraft noise is ED is not as uniformly annoying as it is, I would think, for those living much closer to Heathrow. The planes are much higher, and thus less intrusive. The ?facts? (that recorded flights have not got very much more frequent) suggest that the perception that some have that they have done so, suggests that it is as much ?in the eye of the beholder? as a matter of observable evidence. I (and I suspect many of those taking the same position as I do) do not believe that those ?suffering? are either inventing or exaggerating their levels of anxiety about the noise. For you the problem is entirely real. What we are saying, however, is that it may be more effective to adjust your own perceptions than to think you will be able to get all night flights banned from Heathrow or Gatwick (which would be your only reasonable end-game ? to get them diverted to fly elsewhere than over ED is to selfishly try to shift your problem to someone else?s shoulders). I think that if night flights were banned you would then start to find day-time flights intolerable also. You live in a major economic global hub city ? with all the benefits that brings as regards job prospects, quality of cultural life etc. etc. It requires travellers (business and pleasure) to operate successfully. With that benefit may come penalties. There are numbers of effective strategies (CBT, Mindfulness etc.) which would help you in adjusting ? as those of us without your problems have - to the annoyance of the noise. Sometimes it is possible to change the world, sometimes it may be more realistic to change yourself.

Clearly working to subtle timing here - as Tuesday (when the work is down to be done) is refuse collection day in this part of Underhill (so that's going to make everyone's life easy). And the stretch to be resurfaced is one of the few parts of either Underhill or the roads generally around here to be pot-hole free and in relatively good nick. Nothing like prioritising around need (and yes, this is nothing like prioritising around need).

I see that Underhill Road is currently being marked up around the existing speed bumps. Are we getting new bumps or resurfacing? Road signage went up only this morning (I think) to say that resurfacing works would happen on 11th March. This is the first (and only!) notification I have received (I live close by one of the signs) - only 2 working days from the start of the work. I am glad I don't at the moment have to park on the street, otherwise, had I been away on a long weekend (I was, Friday - Tuesday a couple of weeks ago) I might not have been able to take the ncessary precautions to move my car. I am in College Ward (boundaries of) but it wouldn't surprise me to know that this work extended back into ED ward. Thanks a bundle, Southwark, for your policy of timely notification to residents of road works due. Not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation may help.

The point I was making is that investors value assets by looking at the income they produce, e.g. with shares you might look at price to earnings ratio or dividends That is simply not true - many shares (e.g. Microsoft) do not pay dividends ever, or for very long periods of time - day-traders are wholly uninterested in dividend earnings, as are many of those who 'play' the stock exchange - and certainly many of those who operate hedge funds - certainly some share owning strategies (LTBH - long time buy and hold) are interested in dividend as well as capital returns - and some types of fund (i.e. pension funds) are looking for dividend earnings, but for many who buy stock and shares it is the share price movement (up or down - taking account taking short positions) which are of interest. Investers absolutely do not value assets by analysing incomes in many cases - hence dot com bubbles etc. You will see asset values identified by income streams on programmes such as Dragon's Den - but this type of funding (when funders take significant stakes in businesses) is unusual. I am not saying that 'most' inverstors are right - there are many who will properly attack 'casino' banking for instance - but punters do (very often) look for price changes, not dividend flows. Investor sentiment rarely appears rational - so those investing in domestic property are no more irrational than (most) other investors. Share and other price crashes are no more a symptom of 'reality' as share or other price bubbles. Markets 'correct' themselves by smoothing peaks and troughs - but the real (I make something or do something and get paid for it) economy has long been completely divorced from financial and other markets. 'Bank Rate' used to mean something - but very few people have been able to borrow at 0.5% or anything near that for a very long time (including banks themselves - hence the issues about LIBOR). Speculation on house prices is as sensible, or mad, as any other speculation. If you believe the market is close to a peak, then buying isn't a good idea as a peak implies an ensuing trough, but if the slope is still rising (and demand from outside the UK on the London housing market still looks strong, particularly as people fly other risk areas) then buying on the up is still a good idea (and then selling on the 'peak' if you aren't buying a home but an investment.

An investor might as well bet all their money on bitcoin or gold - equally crazy. Well, that puts paid to the stock market, to any form of currency speculation, to investing in any form of asset or raw material - so goodbye to all City activity. Even the insurance business is one based on risk - ask any Lloyds Name of the 1980s or before. And, by the way, if there is a downturn in house price assets then you may also expect any revenues from rentals to fall as well - as people are able to afford to move out of the rental to the purchase market with falling house prices. ALL investments carry risk - and hoping to live off rentals alone destroyed many 19th century familes, who had previously lived well as rentiers.

It's also obvious if you look at rental yields, which are so low at these house price levels that buy-to-let looks suicidal You have to remember that at a time of high house-price inflation- particularly where general inflation is not high, then the capital gain of the buy-to-let investment may be the reason for being in this business. With interest payments being allowable against rental income for tax purposes, as long as the rental is 'washing its face' as regards current account, then it is the capital increase which makes this type of investment attractive. In fact, when you consider, even for buy to let, how little business capital is involved (with lender's capital making up a majority of the funding) returns can be positive. Just as the borrower takes the hit when prices crash (leading to negative equity) so the borrower takes all the benefit from capital increases in a bull market. Edited to say - 'cross posted with post above, which says much the same but more succinctly'

Oh, do stop complaining - it was only a couple of years ago that the Lib Dems were identifying houses at ?1m as 'mansions' (now, granted, they have revised up to ?2m). So why do you whinge when you can't afford a mansion (of which, even under the new definition, there are a shed-load in ED) or near mansion? Most of us had to do just with houses when we bought in ED. We never aspired after mansions. Or have the Lib Dem (and Labour) views about mansion tax a bit of an anti-London bias?

To be fair, unless a clear instruction to suppress from elected representatives can be found, it reflects poorly on the officials (planning office) rather than the elected representatives (which is what we normally think of when we say 'The Council'). Councillors (and even those on the planning committee) do not have direct oversight of day-to-day official processes. It is only if a failure to notify can be shown to be a systemic problem that we might expect councillors to be there to take the rap for this - for failure to take this up with officials. (Or if councillors specifially instructed officials to leave people out of the notification process or to truncate the consulation time.)

Spring is sprung, the grass is riz, I wonder where the birdies is?

I am not at DMC (thank goodness) - but it strikes me that there are good and competent (salaried I think) GPs working there, entirely hampered by a wholly dysfunctional administration system (and at the very least a poor or missing practice manager). Failures to give effective and timely feedback on test results (and to match results with patients) is an issue of results distribution and performance targeting. The appalling appointments non-system is clearly an office management issue. People do not cancel appointments I would guess because they have little incentive to phone for hours, and none to actually visit the surgery just to cancel an appointment. Numbers of surgeries are moving now to computer mediated systems, allowing appointments to be booked (and cancelled) on line ? as well as repeat prescriptions to be ordered and so on. This allows staff to concentrate on those who do not have access to computers (or who are unable to use them through infirmity or lack of instruction). But of course such systems require (a) investment and (b) proper training ? something the DMC owner(s) are clearly very unwilling to put into the practice. It is now possible to set up automated calls (or texts) to remind patients of appointments, again to avoid no-shows. Finally a system of triage to get any appointment, and then only on-the-day, places anyone with a chronic condition which needs monitoring (or with work or care commitments) at a severe disadvantage. This should be seen as entirely unacceptable (except perhaps for a very short period reflecting either a local epidemic or practitioner illness) ? indeed offering booked appointments for non-critical illness issues should be a formal requirement placed on any practice which wishes to contract with the NHS to offer primary care.

I'd prefer to see what's in the window rather than relying on him bringing things from the back. Really? - pre-cut so that it dries out and blackens, in the sun/ light so that it oxydises more quickly (and so that dust etc. can get to it more readily)? Having to take 'what's there' rather than specifying the weight and cut (I buy shin/ leg of beef in the piece and cut it up for stews myself when I want to cook it). If you can be sure of the quality (you can with Kim) then 'bringing things out of the back' (actually, taking thing out of a temperature controlled cold store) is by far the best option. Kim hangs his own meat - and that is hanging on the bone and in the piece - keeping that in cold store and bringing it out only when needed is what makes his meat so good. You do, of course, know what to ask for (or, as I have said, explain what you want to cook and leave it up to him to recommend the best cuts) - but that's how butchers used to work. If you want pre-cut, shrink wrapped cuts of meat, then a supermarket, not a butchers, is what you need. One of the things that horrifies me about e.g. William Rose is the amount of cuts of meat which hang around all day in the shop, sweating away in the window. Good butchers will hang game up in windows, in fur or feather, but you don't often find them nowadays, as people get upset by seeing bunnies or birds so obviously 'animals'.