Penguin68

totally wrong that people should wait I am hoping this comment was ironic - There are in fact 3 bank holidays over the Christmas period - many households are now getting their collections on the same days as normal, most have only a 1 or 2 day slippage at most. And everything 'corrects' by the New Year. In previous years we have had up to 3 weeks of disrupted collection days. The bin men have rights too, including, I would suggest, the right to Christmas day off. They are hardly an emergency (if always a valuable and indeed vital) service. If you are over-flowing there are many deposit points around the borough, especially for recyclables. At least a hold-up in Blue Bin collection (mine is also full, and my collections are unchanged) is neither noxious nor a health hazard.

as it's very clearly not East Dulwich. It may be very clearly not East Dulwich Ward - but this is the East Dulwich Forum (East Dulwich being a somewhat nebulous area, including but not necessarily constrained to SE22) not the East Dulwich electoral ward forum. The issue raised perhaps could have been raised in another thread - but it is an ED issue. However James has been helpful in pointing to ward councillors who may be more relevant than him in this case.

If you are actually throwing out -to trash - (as opposed to recyling for someone else's use) old computers take out the hard drive and actually smash it to bits (with a hammer) after running any wipe programs - it is possible to recontruct smahed Winchester discs, but you need a government strength lab to do it and get useable data from it. Hard drives are wiped by over-writing them - but as all which is actually stored anyway are '0's and '1's there is a chance you will over-write a '0' with another '0' - that's why you are meant to over-write multiple times - I think 7 is the standard.

Once you separate off management from those actually working within a GP practice your are likely to get problems (practice managers don't, despite the name, manage the practice, but the non medical processes, if you are lucky). Most commercial concerns place a local manager (of a shop, of a factory) within the local concern itself, with that manager having (within company policy) the opportunity to hire/ fire staff working on that site and direct them as to their duties. I suspect that 'management' is not being done locally here, and thus no doctor working within the practice has any control as to what is happening within the practice. This is not a standard commercial model for a multi-site business which operates, effectively, as a number of stand-alone mini-businesses. There, each mini-business would operate semi-autonomously - applying a commercial policy but able to make decisions about people management, filling vacancies etc. (of support if not qualified medical staff, in this instance). I would be interested in seeing the business organigramme, (organisation chart), but I suspect that decision making power is held very centrally, with little actual 2 way communciation between the centre and the outposts, and with no local devolved power (except perhaps to a practice manager to employ admin staff - and where that post is unfilled, or filled badly, chaos will ensue). This is not to say that multiple practice ownership is always a bad choice for the NHS, but done badly it certainly is. Funnily enough, those dreaded 'commercial' concerns that everyone is scared of entering the primary health care element of the NHS would probably know how to manage much better.

Just to note that it used to be very common for businesses in the same trade to congregate together - hence Milk and Bread Streets and Poultry Lane in the City. It is a way in which 'perfect market' economies can run - when buyers are fully aware of price/ quality and can make informed market choices.

Just for the record, I also said it was sad when a business couldn't continue in its old location - I am, in that sense, bothered, but I also believe that there are realities, which include both economic and (in this case, apparently) inter-personal which necessarily transcend my personal preferences. I am not party-pris to this family dispute, and as I do not know the details (and don't want to) taking one side apparently against the other, whatever my own wishes for an established ED trader to continue to trade, seems otiose. My point has been, all along, that expressions of sentiment and support to the shop, whilst no doubt morally good, will have little practical application in what is a technical planning issue. Indeed planners absolutely should not be being influenced by sentiment - what if their sentiments were racist or sexist or religiously biased?

Retail economics are based around trading profits (sales revenues less cost of goods sold) per square ft (or metre) of retail space. These have to pay for staff salaries, rental, rates, overheads and cost of capital. To cover these costs, you have to sell a lot of low ticket items (like fruit and vedge) or just some high ticket items (jewellery or houses). Where rates and rentals are high, then shops which require high volumes of sales (normally related to high volumes of foot-fall) to generate profits will be less economic than shops which have a relatively high (in real terms) sales to profit ratio. The profit from selling just one house requires a greengrocer to be selling a ton of spuds (actually rather more). As fixed overheads (rates, rent) on ED retail space increase the pressures on ?ordinary? shops escalates. It is no use a local authority trying to ?zone? retail space without also being able to distort market prices for retail space locally. You cannot encourage ?worthy? shops like basic greengrocers or bakers to operate in an environment where they can?t make money (high-end shops like Franklins which charge premiums for quality or rarity are a different issue). Indeed, over time, local authorities frequently have to balance a change of use with a retail space remaining empty ? the change of use is normally better for the locality than urban decay.

So does that mean that we wouldn't necessarily be losing Pretty's? No, it means that Pretty's will not be replaced by an estate agent without change of use being agreed (unless, as I have said earlier) there is a moratorium on this part of planning. It depends what the lease terms are and when they expire. If Pretty's say they are going, as I believe from the OP that they have, then I assume that they will know. Whether they are being forced to leave, or choosing to leave because circumstances are no longer right for them I do not know - clearly a re-build which would close the shop for some time cannot be very satisfactory and I am assuming that the lease has terminated - unless there are safety reasons most leases would protect the lessee from unforced building works disrupting their tenancy. The fact that they are getting people to sign a petition would suggest that they see no other clear paths to continuing to trade there. The suggestion that this is part-and-parcel of a family dispute also suggests that (in my experience) paths of complete rationality may be obstructed by sentiment.

The planning permission (which, on the face of it, doesn't look to be for something too obtrusive and makes logical sense - separating the shop entrance from the flat entrance - and doesn't change the occupancy levels, it's still a shop and a flat) will be made on planning rules - a 'petition' which does not reflect planning issues will be irrelevant in any planning decision - sentiment is not part of the rule set. It is sad when a business cannot continue in its old location (I think of Callows) but changes do happen. I am not sure why the current owners should be swayed by public opinion, and certainly the planners shouldn't be (outside the planning rules). I am also not sure that there isn't a moritorium currently on planning being able to decide what sort of commercial premises should occupy a space (apart e.g from sex-shops) - so change of use from a greengrocer to an estate agent (if that is true and intended) may also not be 'influenceable' through the expression of public opinion. By all means sign petitions if you want to, it does express a 'solidarity' with the petitioners, but do not expect such a petition to have (to be able to have) any impact.

There are legitimate flavourings which, over used, can taste 'soapy'. This may be an issue of a heavy hand with seasoning rather than anything otherwise untoward.

james90's posting history seems both very recent and relatively partial - blame the NHS (and implictly recent reforms) not the surgery. But the article he quotes is not about a DMC style operation - indeed the DMC healthcare group looks rather more like the feared privatisation of the article, with focus on income not patients. If it was all the NHS we might expect a similar level of complaint and problem across the surgeries used by ED people - in fact there are problems, but not so significantly around staffing levels - DMC does seem exceptional in this area, and this is not a recent problem caused by a sudden loss of staff - it has been a constant nagging theme on these pages for ages. Over time the surgery I have used for the last 25 years has had problems - particularly in getting its appointment booking processes and its opening times right - but these have been intermittent and (mainly) addressed.

I believe there have been experiments where fake queues ... I think this is only in societies/ circumstances where queuing is normal - i.e. where there is rationing or there are regular shortages, or where a queue might be expected, for instance the Boxing Day sales (when sales at Christmas started on Boxing Day).

But it's the only thing that truly works. You just need to make your house super secure. In fact, you only have to make your house (a) more secure than those round you and, if you've really got valuables, set the 'cost' of breaking in at (roughly) slightly more than 10% of the value of the items you fear you will lose - that's the fencing value of goods - i.e. a burglar will get about 10% of the face value of anything stolen. As long as either other houses are less secure than yours, or yours is sufficiently secure to make breaking in unprofitable, then burglars will look elsewhere. But no domestic property can be made truly secure, against a determined thief. After all, genuinely secure places, like bank vaults and bank deposit boxes are breached from timer to time, as are jewelry shops etc. - which have much higher security than domestic premises can afford, or live with and be used still as homes.

Report this - at the very least you appear to be being stalked! - Maybe keep a diary, so you have a record of the events- and of course don't open the door. If you can, photograph the man and his companion (from an upstars window?) If he calls again, and you have reported it, call 999. This isn't 'normal' sales behaviour. It maybe that the man is disturbed in some way, which is an explanation but doesn't make it any better for you.

I cannot say that, in the case quoted, (which I have no confirmation was even a DMC case) that this was definitely true, I was simply suggesting that hospital/ specialist references cost money, that GP pactices (primary care) are the fundholders, and that money not spent on care will be retained by the practice. Hence, if (big IF) the salaried GPs at DMC were being encouraged to be parsiminious with their expenditures, then this might additionally relate to practice management issues rather than being primarily an issue of poor or incompetent diagnosis by the GP in question. So it might (again just theoretically) be a 'running of the practice' issue, as clearly is the understaffing of support people.

Whilst that is awful, surely that is nothing to do with the running of the practice. If this was a DMC GP involved in this sad case, then there may have been pressure on GPs at the practice from the owners not to refer cases to hospital specialists, as this 'uses' primary care budgets - if you are running this strictly as a business you may wish to keep down your costs as much as possible - so avoiding where you can funding hospital examinations. So, whilst this clinical behaviour may reflect inexperience, or simple error, it may be symptomatic of cost-focused practice management.

Oh, the pitfalls of TLAs

Oh, right, hadn't thought of that - yes, that would need planning permission I think.

It was down to the owners I was told The doctors who work there are, I suspect, either all locums or salaried doctors - the nominal partners employ them (and the other staff, or not in the case of receptionists and telephonists) - if I am right in my supposition it is this type of partner 'doctor' (ones who no longer work as doctors), who are those reported as 'earning' ?250,000-?500,000 incomes from the NHS. Salaried doctors are not particularly well-paid (and are often very hard worked and working). GP practices have always been private businesses, since the inception of the NHS, but it is only recently that the 'partners' have stopped being the actual doctors, but instead are just employers.

I think the point is that yummy mummies etc. specifically aren't the Adventure Bar demographic - as they have moved in they have moved-on that demographic - hence their influence on Lordship lane (by not being party animals) has been malign. Bankers and yummies don't have the energy/ presence for late evening LL shennanigans.

Most loft extensions would be done under permitted development - can't see why planning permission per se would be needed (but permitted development still has planning limits - like not raising the roof lines and other building regs restrictions). Maybe the plans didn't meet local building regulations - I know to get permitted development I had to submit plans for approval - but they weren't planning applications per se and didn't have to go forward to the planning committee, just meet local planning rules. It is possible that if there had already been a post-war extension (e.g. kitchen extension) then, under old regulations now I think overtaken, the loft extension might have gone over size - but that again could have been addressed as a proper planning application - it just wouldn't have qualified under permitted development regulations.

Have you a working pair (connection) in your property at the moment? If you have it should be possible to trace where it is terminating and how it is routing. If you have a pair which is not working now, then it will probably have been disconnected on the relevant cabinet and the cable pair used for someone else, in which case it may be impossible to trace where the pair terminates (in which cabinet) - Dawson Heights (unlike a suburban street) is a very high density resdiential area. The fact that they are concerened about which cabinet it locates in makes me think that it isn't a working pair, otherwise they could have switched it over in the exchange. Of course, if you are taking a fibre option, then you will need cabinet work to move your pair from copper to fibre there. (And of course, without knowing which cabinet, it won't be known whether there is fibre capacity).

I am afraid that whilst there may be (there are) a number of cabinets (green boxes about 3ft high and 2 across) around Dawson Heights which will be the likely flex points for BT lines (I don't think Dawson Heights has any overhead distribution, from poles, going to it) - the precise cabinet which serves your property will only be known to BT - service to support different properties was taken from wherever in the network there happened to be capacity - so adjacent properties might be served by different cables (assuming UG distribution, which is likely). The local network terminates on flexibility points (cabinets and pillars) which then route back to the BT exchange, where alternative service providers have been allowed to install equipment racks to serve their customers. I do know that my nearest cabinet is not actually the one which serves my property, for instance. There may well be BT flexibility points actually within Dawson Heights, provided (with their cables) at the time that the flats were originally built. Their original capacity will now be well below what is now required. The local BT network is managed by BT Openreach, which acts as an arms length provider to all service providers (including BT Retail, which is treated as 'just another wholesale customer'). They should be working with Skye to 'unbundle' 'your' bit (the bit that serves you) of the local network (assuming you already have a BT land-line). If you don't now have a land-line, then this will have to be installed before Skye can provide service. Where it will be provided from then depends on where there is capacity.

Sue wrote Of course it's unacceptable, but if as stated above they have had two staff leave at once, presumably at short notice, it's (a bit) understandable? I have worked in many places where sudden and unexpected absence causes problems - but this thread referred to an issue which started (at least) 'last week' Wherever I have worked temps have been brought-in to cover for absence - particularly, where, as stated, staff had actually left (rather than being sick for a possibly inderterminate time). GP practices are well paid by the NHS to provide services to the public - it's about time some of the money clearly being taken out of the practice by the practice owners was actually spent doing the job the NHS (i.e. us)thought we were paying for. There are (many) specialist agencies which provide medical temps - clearly these are not being used by this practice. As I said in an earlier post - this is clearly unacceptable.

This is either a system fault (with more than one incoming line it is possible for one line to terminate on a faulty switch) or it is intentional 'busying out' of traffic - however doing this so that the charges (I am assuming it is not an 0800 number) continue to accrue. So either there is some form of fault, which should be reported to the practice, or it is an intentional act to reduce workloads on staff - and by the way potentially still a 'nice little earner' for the practice. Either which way waiting for an hour in a queue to be answered by a GP's receptionist is wholly unacceptable, particularly if it is on a premium rate (or shared revenue) line. Some practices are moving to the EMIS (Web based Patient Access) system which, for the start, only allows web-based repeat presecriptions, but will, for some practices, lead to web-based appointment making. Roll-on eh? roll-on.