Penguin68

Already reported here http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1366345 and may be similar to the incident reported here http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1364740 Theft of (copper) cable is a real issue when scrap values are so high, and dealers still offer a 'no questions asked' response to those selling scrap to them (despite the fact they are meant to keep records)

Just for the record, water pressure was restored around the promised time (23.00 yesterday) - the pressures had been reduced (hence no water on upper floors in Underhill) because the road had started to bulge omminously above the leak. Credit where it's due - a comparatively quick and effective response from Thames Water on this one, assuming the repair holds.

Are those drivers putting people more at risk than if they were signalling? probably. But is it a real problem or is it just bad manners? Often, particularly on roundabouts, road position (where there are two or more tracks) is a relatively good indication of turning intent, although signalling in addition would generally be good. Turning without signal if you are the only road user (or where no one is close enough to you to need to be aware of your intentions) is also reasonable, although again signalling would be better - if for no better reason than it becomes an automatic driving response (it is not for nothing that 'mirror, signal...' is a driving instructor mantra). I would generally say that signallng where it isn't needed (i.e. there is no one else there, or your intentions are otherwise clear - you are in a lane which requires a mandatory turn - is a matter of manners (or good habits)) - but to fail to signal where it is needed is clearly a real problem. Once you start to think of signalling as an option you will find yourself failing to signal where you are putting other road users (or pedestrians) at risk.

Modern car headlights are now very powerful - much more so than in the past, which means that, yes, visibility may be better for the driver, but, equally, where the lights are in a car heading towards you, the glare may well make other, unlit, road users less visible - anyone who uses roads without taking required (legally required) care about their own visibility is relying entirely on the skill and care of other road users - as cyclists are so proud to tell us, as other road users are all selfish, uncaring, b*st*rds, thoughtlessly rushing through life, they are placing their lives, where they do not use lights/ high viz bands etc. in the hands of people they don't trust and do despise. How stupid is that? If car drivers have a duty of care to other road users (they do) then other road users have, at the very least, a duty of care towards themselves. And the issue that the (also cycling, as I read it) OP had was not that an adult had placed themselves at risk (clearly their choice, saves the plane fare to Switzerland) - but that they had willing placed a child at the same risk, at the very least hardly a good role model. When I was a child and learning to ride a bicyle, I was expected, even in daylight, to have lights fitted to my bike (and was stopped by a beat policemen when I hadn't, and warned), but my parents did not let me out onto even side roads before I could demonstrate that I could signal safely (i.e. ride one handed, left or right). I now see perhaps only one in 10 (or less) cyclists who bother to signal any turns - not that it would make much difference for a dark cyclist on a poorly lit road at night. Why do people who cycle, clearly a risky and vulnerable form of transport, consider that taking no care or precaution for their own safety is an acceptable, let alone sensible, choice? Pillory poor and careless and thoughtless drivers who do not drive so as to share the road safely with other users, of course - but that doesn't mean that the same level of lack of care is excusable in others, just because it is they who will be most damaged in any accident.

If 'everything' is down, and the repair time is long, the chances are that this is a cable breach, either accidently (i.e. JCB went through it in error) or the result of intentional cable theft. Because each cable is made up of multiple twisted pairs, each of which uniquely connects between the subscriber's end and the exchange equipment, restoration requires each pair to be correctly matched; this is much more complex than mending an electricty cable or gas pipe or water pipe - when just joining back the ends is all this is required to restore 'flow'. Similary damage to a flexibility point (i.e. one of the green cabinets in the street) also required meticulous restoration of each pair. Do you know what has caused this outtage?

Turkish Cypriot food is somewhat different from Turkish - there is a greater Greek style of cooking influence, but good Turkish food, Cypriot or not, is very appealing - and much more delicate than exposure to 'taverna' style cooking would imply. Turkish (red) wines can be excellent, as is Turkish beer. 'Turkish' restaurants - together with Greek and Cypriot, can offer quite a wide raange of styles - certainly not as great as the whole Indian sub-continent can muster, but we normally only see a small selection (mainly Bangladeshi) on our high streets, so there is certainly room for more Middle Easter cookery generally, without becoming too repetitive. It is the ambience and service which often makes a restaurant anyway, almost as much as the food.

Back in the 80s, some of the new entrants to Clapham (from across the river) were trying to call it 'Clarm' to gentrify it - I am expecting 'Pe'm' quite soon.

No one will be driving to this school. The catchment for the nearest primary to it is just over 200m. Unless the school is very unpopular everyone who gets in will be walking to it rather than driving. I would agree that with one (or more) children at that school parents or carers are most likely to walk, but once you have children at more than one school logistics of getting them both to school on time frequently require, if you have access to a car, a car journey - particularly if you then need to get to a station yourself to get to work. Been there, done that, got the wrinkes.

I doubt very much whether the developer (presumably ground landlord) of the Iceland site can really be said to have 'financial muscle' in the grand scheme of things. M&S (from other posts) is not part of this consortium, nor, it appears, will it necessarily be the next tenant of the shop site. Its input has been (as I understand it) to outline what its requirements would be of such a site, were it to move in, around which the plans have been structured, and to allow its logo to be used for illustrative purposes in the application. The claims made by some people of the possible parking pressures (40 or more spaces required) are very much of the same credibility as the (obviously erroneous) statement about visits by tube (although I am guessing this may have been in anticipation of the much vaunted, (and now I gather exploded) idea of the tube being extended to ED station. However had they said that visitors would arrive by public transport, including rail to ED I susepct their 15%(?) would not have been far wrong. It's all guesswork anyway, at this stage. I suspect the planners may have taken a 'typo' into account when considering the source of customers. The planners are seeing two proposals (1) - more accommodation in ED - to many a good thing and (2) a slightly larger supermarket where there already is one. Apart from issues of disruptive deliveries (which they have set a check on) there was little, realistically, they could do to block this. Frankly, far more disruptive to locals will be the creation of a school on the old Whateley Road police station site (with the obviously high traffic/ parking-up impact at start and end of the school day, together no doubt with increased parking demands locally by those working at the school - the fuzz could park on site). All change (normally) has positives and negatives - and particularly on those living closest. If the new supermarket isn't wanted by the wider ED population - then there won't need to be that many deliveries. If it is wanted, then a utilitarian approach may be the best (for the most).

I moved here (via Clapham, Battersea and the King's Road) more than a quarter of a century ago, now. It's certainly changed, but not particularly more (or indeed much) in the last 4 years. I've certainly never found myself liking it less over that time - things I have liked have gone, certainly, but other things (often that I've liked as much or more) have replaced them. Same is true for people. As far as 'Clapham moving' - well I did that yonks ago - nothing new about that. One of the great values (to me) of the 'good to live-in' parts of London is that they are always changing. One of the reasons I don't like great swathes of N. London is that it seems static - I have a friend who's lived in Neasden for ever - his street may have different people in it now, but they still seem to be the same people as ever.

The problem here is that the dropped curb necessary to allow a car to access the driveway (nice little earner for the council) takes up as much space as a parked car - so unless you can park 2 cars on your property there is no net gain of parking (just the effect of reserving a space just for you - which is, of course, great for you). It actually achieves what all those who clamour for CPZs really want - their own space next to their house. The point about drainage is a good one - using gravel over membrane, or porous brick (which is laid, unjointed, over sand) is much, much better than concrete, tarmac or paving slabs to achieve hard standing for cars. In practice, with so many wide cars, and parked up streets, off-street parking does make for wider useable roads (without so many parked cars, plus passing spaces where there are dropped curbs) so for those travelling in many of the side streets around ED cars in front gardens do actually improve things (unless you are looking for somewhere to park!).

Does anybody else hear a man shouting very aggressively - telling somebody to fk off and fk you etc etc. at same time can hear a kid screaming. A 'screaming man' (presumbably disturbed) was reported in the vicinity some time back; see Help-ma-Boab's link above. The sequencing here is quite important - if the man is shouting first, and the child screaming after, this may be a child's response to a disturbed person - clearly upsetting, but a different order of threat to a man shouting at a screaming child. Either which way, alerting the police to the incident may allow a helpful intervention based on what is happening, rather than a knee-jerk 'child protection' response. Children living in families with someone who is disturbed may very well not be at risk, indeed with many types of illness it is the person who is ill who is at most risk, possibly from self-harming.

It is worthwhile reporting this. It may (well) be entirely innocent, but there are professionals who can determine that, if they know what to be looking for.

It is possible that you were followed in error (mistaken for someone else) - but the fact that the follower gestured to you, and later spoke, makes it very unlikely that this was any form of undercover work, even in error. I would definitely report this now (to create a time-line and history), and if you see the person again, call the police immediately. It is possible that this person is a stalker, some of whom are able to make up imaginary (to them real) relationships with their victims. Nip this in the bud, quick.

I'm with Louisa on the possible customer split. The M&S will be selling more prepared meals, I'm guessing, hoping to catch the 'rushed home before going out, don't want to bother to cook but want something 'nice' for dinner' brigade. And snacks/ dips etc. Probably not a lot of 'cook from scratch' food. I guess Morrison's will be selling more home cooking components/ ingrediants. If they get the stocking right then will be more complementary, meeting different needs/ demographics, than strictly competitive. Neither will be weekly shop destination stores - although both will offer 'unique to them' elements which might form part of a weekly shop.

Not merely will the new church, if there is one, occupy space which would have been of much greater amenity to locals used otherwise (if it is true that such churches attract users from far afield) but it will place huge usage stress locally (i.e. parking, congestion etc.) but will, as a church, be excused most taxes and rates which would be placed on any normal commercial enterprise, even though numbers of these churches are effectively very nice little earners for their pastors. I am never happier than when I see former religious premises re-used as housing, as offices, as anything other than for their original purpose; I am never sadder than when I see good property alienated to a god squad (of any demomination, creed or faith).

When the Garden Centre site was sold (which, no doubt, was a good deal for the site owner) the plans for the use of the site (library, shop, apartments) would not have left sufficient space for a full garden centre - needing both indoor and outdoor space - at best it would have left sufficient space for a large flower shop which also sold tools, pots & chemicals (i.e. the former 'shop' bit of the Garden Centre.) So Morrison's use of the space wouldn't have been 'instead of' a full garden centre. Having M&S, Sainbury's, Morrisons and Tesco trading 'against' each other should be to the benefit of ED customers - competition generally does benefit customers. Sadly, around ED the relatively small size (and relatively high value) of commercial sites means that a 'good' garden centre footprint will be hard to find/ cost justify any longer. For those who can, travelling slightly further to get to better/ bigger centres will prove OK - but of course, those without transport or ready access to transport will suffer. For bulky items (gravel, compost etc.) some firms will deliver, thus to some extent offsetting this problem.

Alarms are meant to ring for only 20 minutes before going silent (with a flashing light tell-tale if one's fitted). If there is something which continually sets off the alarm (i.e. an animal setting off the infra-red, or even - and I've known this happen - a helium filled balloon moving around through convection currents) the alarm may re-start - but it should not be continuous.

Didn't notice any interruption in my bit of ED - on BT Infinity (fibre to the cabinet)

They must be full at the crem

Although the most vulnerable (children, the old) travel for free, in the past drivers have been unhelpful in allowing passengers who are obviously qualified (clearly children or pensioners) to travel without an oyster, when it has been mislaid/ lost or stolen. Now they won't take cash, I hope they are being trained to be more sensitive about allowing those to travel who would be expected not to be paying anyway. (Obviously, there are people who look possibly too old (children) or too young (pensioners) for the driver to be certain, but in many cases it just seems to be bloody-minded/ jobsworth-ness to put them off the bus). In the old days kind travellers would pay sometimes for the stranded, but this is more complex where you have to use your own cards to do this, and can't just find a coin.

i never read her column or tim dowling's, they're so far up there own arses it's untrue. If you never read them, on what evidence? Hearsay?

Even where work falls under 'permitted development' you will need a lawfullness certificate if you want to sell, which needs to be applied for before work starts - additionally of course any work you do must meet local building regulations - which means that work may be checked during the build to make sure it is meeting them (i.e. types of insulation etc.)

Try this for starters - I think it is covered by Class A work http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.planningportal.gov.uk%2Fuploads%2F100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf&ei=DjmtU7vtIMHeOty5gOgH&usg=AFQjCNHP0UWknZ25YJks0dS9Sv12O5vq0w&bvm=bv.69837884,d.ZWU&cad=rja http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf Amended to add this link A Guide to Permitted Development Rules | Homebuilding & Renovating http://www.homebuilding.co.uk/advice/project-tips/planning-permission/permitted-development-rules

It would be possible to make, as a requirement for giving planning permission, a restriction on the provision of parking spaces on-site, which might have the effect of discouraging those with cars to live there, and it is possible to place a restrictive covenant on a property which would preclude future parking on site (though that would be as part of any sale requirement) - but I see no way in which any such restriction on future residents owning a car and parking anywhere not linked to the site itself could be enforced. In theory the council could get constant access to the DVL database to ensure no car was registered at the property, I suppose, but I do not believe that a flag could be placed on the database to alert the council. Further I believe that such a general restriction would probably in itself not be legal, possibly as an infringement of human rights legislation.