Penguin68

Think of those stickers as being a bit of free consulting from an expert. Do something about it. I believe that the police still offer a service where they not only tell you that you are vulnerable, but suggest also exactly where, and what you might do about it. They might be your first port of call on finding such a sticker. I can't quite work out the 'modus operandi' which works here - surely there can't be free lance 'pro bono' burglary target searchers doing this out of the goodness (well badness) of their hearts? And if it is a burglar casing the joint, what sort of sieve like memory does he/ she have that he/ she needs to sticker a gaff to remember it? Unless - they sticker places to see if people bother to do anything about it - stickers left untouched suggest a poor security sense, and hence an opportunity? This seems of a party with the old 'tramps chalk signs' we used to hear about - which may have existed but not to the extent believed by many.

Talk about cramming properties on every single piece of land in Dulwich. The altermatives are (a) hit another borough, in the same way, but to the detriment of someone else; (b) build a new town on green belt, where there are curently NO schools, hospitals, doctors or jobs; © have a bit more rough sleeping or families in sub-standard and cramped accommodation (presumably as long as that's not in ED) There is a shortage of housing in London - that drives up prices - and leaves many people in substandard accommodation, or having to pay more than they can afford. More people coming in will, inter alia, benefit local shop-keepers and those providing services locally, if they have cars, local garages. Better to live where others want to live than in places where nobody wants to be (much of post industrial Wales and the North, according to many accounts).

The (vast) majority of the very sad recent cyclist deaths have involved HGV (and bus/ coach) drivers - although some of these are no doubt ED Forum participants I guess that most of us are not in fact HGV and bus drivers here. Which is not to say that we who are car drivers shouldn't be wary of, and look out for, cyclists (and vice versa - cyclists also need to look out for other road users, most of whom can do them a lot more harm than they can themselves meet out). But car drivers on the forum should not beat themselves up (or be beaten up by the cycling fraternity) because of these, as I have said, very sad deaths. And much of the illegality (I believe) discovered for HGV drivers was about driving hours - which of course means that they may be tired and lack attention, but is not, in itself, being dangerous at the time, just (!) potentially dangerous. Commuting cyclists are now, as winter draws on, cycling in increasingly diffficult conditions, in terms of visability and grip - other drivers need to be more aware, clearly, but cyclists need to be additionally careful to make themselves fully visible, particularly at dusk/ dawn when lighting conditions are at their most difficult. I am still coming across cyclists in suburban roads without Hi Vis cycling gear and with poor, or no, lights. If we must look out for cyclists (which we must) - they need to make our job as easy as possible by working to be visible, and by cycling predictably. I was in traffic 2 days ago and watched 2 cyclists 'jinking' through the stationary traffic passing vehicles on the left, then the right, then the left as they sought passing space. I had no idea where they would go next. As the two lanes of traffic moved off cars adjusted their positioning - but no car driver could have known where the cyclists might be next - they did not of course make any signals to indicate their turns, unlike cars in traffic which do try to be predictable. So, perhaps this thread should be 'look out for cyclists, cyclists look out, and cyclists make looking out for you easier'

Just for the record - when I suggested that the event may have been accidental, this was not to excuse it or to consider that it's OK to do unsocial things if you are drunk or whatever, it was simply to suggest that there is a difference between doing something intentionally to offend, and doing something accidently which does offend. In both cases the 'general public' would be, and was, offended by the act, but we do consider, in law, the issue of intent. The fact is incontravertible - someone soiled the floor - the actual culprit is not clear (one group suggesting that the the stag was 'most likely' to be the culprit, the stag's friends insisting that this interpretation is not correct) - nor is the motivation clear, if there was any. And, if it was an accident, then, to be honest, the fact that no one 'owned-up', apologised, offered to clean it themselves or pay for it be be cleaned may by unfortunate, but is hardly surprising, human nature (and embarrasment) being what it is. This has been compared, in another thread, to a teenager keying cars locally - I think the intent here is far less clear cut - as indeed, as it turns out, is the culprit.

We are all assuming that the incident was intentional - even if the intention was 'warped' by the intake of alchohol. However I have known those who are 'very, very, drunk' to have quite genune accidents where their ability to get to and use an appropriate receptacle is overtaken by events (or even where they are unsure that they have reached an appropriate place). I suspect that most of the near, and not so near, misses in pub lavatories are associated with this, rather than with an intent to shock and dismay. The 'friends' of the stag in question all appear to be arguing that this was not an intentional action on anyone's part, and that at least, as far as my own expertience of alchohol fuelled festivity, is not implausible.

I worked with former merchant navy men (wartime service) who used to tell each other jokes by 'keying' them on their desks in Morse code - using unix programming shorthand is the modern (well, not that modern, it is unix) equivalent. Think 'specialist knowledge' rather than just geek. Though it can come across as a bit geeky.

It was not the first, and I am sure won't be the last time that London buses do not run to timetable. I have smart phones and the internet (but, for once, my smartphone was out of battery). I quoted this as a rebuttal of 'you don't have to wait long' - as if it was a univeral truth. There are many people who are not so tech enfranchised as you, and me. I did not suggest investing in countdowns for 'every stop' indeed I specifically suggested careful targeting using demographic information. Do not invest me with hyperbole I didn't use - I am quite capable of hyperbole - but in this case I was careful to suggest a far more limited roll-out than you imply.

firstly I didn't say " old and poor and disabled" - you said that But I had, in a previous post, pertinent to my initial request for a demographic analysis, referred to people, and I quote particularly more elderly, who have difficulties using smart phones (sight/ dexterity) and may not be internet savvy - ... have sufficient disposable income to own a computer or pay for interent connections. - which I think covers 'old, poor and disabled' as a group. Your response to my request for a demographic study thus implicity covers the same cohort.

And lets be honest, you never have to wait THAT long, even if you miss a bus. When the buses are running to timetable, that's correct. However, I have waited well over 40 minutes for a 176 in town (and then given up and sought an alternative route (tube, train, bus). An accurate notification of the hold-up would have allowed me to make that decision far earlier. It is when things aren't running to plan that you need to know about it. As regards demographics - it is reasonable to assume that most people will chose a bus stop within (say) a 10 minute walk of where they live - demographics on such catchment areas are readily available from census information - which will include information about age and occupation - looking for clusters of elderly poor (for instance) is relatively simple, and cheap. Any transport company which isn't keeping track of its customers and usage deserves to (and will) go bust quite readily. And as for the suggestion that the old and poor and disabled are used to being treated like sh*t (-anyone in that demographic is far more used to NOT having a countdown - that doesn't mean they don't count but it still doesn't warrant spending cash on installing and maintaining these boards) so shouldn't be catered for - well!...

For those that cant afford a smart phone, there are other ways to manage travel. You can check on the internet before you leave home for instance To re-state a point (sorry) but there are many, particularly more elderly, who have difficulties using smart phones (sight/ dexterity) and may not be internet savvy - of have sufficient disposable income to own a computer or pay for interent connections. These are also people most likely to be dependent on public transport and not be comfortable on e.g. bikes. Live bus times at stops can be a godsend to some people - maybe Tfl should be researching the demographics of particular stops and siting their displays where there may be most need? Is there any evidence that they are already doing this?

The key will be whether sufficient people think the Patch, when it is properly up and running, offers value. This will be some composite of food quality (of sourcing, of cooking and of range, and frequency the menu changes) together with dining ambience (tables large enough and not too crowded, chairs comfortable, lighting good, decoration, temperature etc.) and service quality - how orders are taken and delivered, level of menu 'customisation' offered, staff attentiveness (enough but not too much), speed at which e.g. bills are brought and so on. At the moment the jury is clearly out on all of these, and will be for some time until things settle, but discussing prices (as a factor of value) is surely otiose until the full delivery can be assessed. If it delivers like the Fat Duck it will be cheap, if it delivers like the Harvester it won't be. [And by the way, for those of us living locally - its location will be a plus point - not having to travel into town for a good meal is worth something in the value equation to me - although luckily existing outlets in ED already do offer that as well}.

On a more general point linked to the thread's title - one problem causing some of the differences are that individual expectations of service may well be different - an attentive salesperson (can I help you? do you want to see this is different colours/ sizes?) for some may be an intrusive salesperson to others - a cheery greeting for some 'What can I get you, luv?" may be an offensive remark to others (last week Newsnight hosted a debate with women who found the use of 'luv' or similar hostile or patronising if said by men). Some take a business-like attitude as cold. Sometimes humerous or jocular remarks intended become aggressive or rude remarks when heard. Whilst clearly there are some marks of poor service which are poor for everyone (Ryanair springs to mind here) much else is subjective. I have found some service in LL at times off-hand - or simply badly managed, but mostly it is as one might expect for the type of outlet concerned. And normally a polite request gets a polite response. In 25 years I have had cause to cut only two outlets from my shopping/ eating (actually eating) lists, across the whole of Dulwich, East and West Dulwich for poor or badly managed service. And supplier incompetence, rather than malice, lay behind both decisions. [i have to say I have given second chances to rather more, but these are back on my lists of possible places to go/ use]. There are places which sell things I don't want, of course, but my not using them reflects their product ranges, not their service quality.

Actually, the Club premises in Pall Mall were the Club premises of the Royal Automobile Club (i.e. group of members) - but now you can be an RAC member (I think) without being a member of the Pall Mall Club. So the RAC Club is the club premises (of old) of the Royal Automobile Club - indeed you may need to say RAC Club to differentiate it from the motorists assist organisation only. This is the problem with the word Club here doing two jobs. A Club being both a specific posh place to go open only to members, as well as a membership group (with no implied location or posh premises).

If (a) the 'pavement' space immediately outside the Coop is actually theirs (as it is e.g for Si Mangia) and if (b) they need to keep unsightly refuse outside the shop because of space issues then maybe © in the re-furb they could errect some sort of screened enclosure (possibly with evergreen shrub in containers to act as a screen - that would be better) in which to store their rubbish. At the moment they are blighting the shop space overall, and their frontage in particular. A better 'frontage' might even encourage more shoppers.

A couple of points (1) - Bus users include those who do not have, do not wish to use, may find it difficult to use (sight, dexterity - i.e. the old) smart phones. (2) - Encouraging those who have smart phones to take them out in the street is also an encouragement to those who wish to steal them - and even gives thieves a good predictable spot to predate on users. Leading me to think that removing the signage at bus stops thus making people rely on smart phones or have no knowledge is a step backwards. Tech-savvy ED forum-ites are not the only fruit.

Not sure why this is a sensible question to ask a local councillor. See below The councillor was suggesting that criminals should 'know' the sentencing risks they were taking - I was making the point that it is difficult for anyone to be clear - as you somewhat evidence in the link you posted - where the type of charge (i.e.aggrevated or not) will be a matter for decision by the prosecuting authorities and not the criminal who undertakes the offence. Of course I did not expect an answer, I was posing that question in order to suggest that it was broadly un-answerable - and thus that the suggestion that a criminal might be expected to be able to answer it was not a helpful one. The 'answer' I was expecting was - 'No, I do not care to speculate...' The point I was trying to make is that forecasting a sentence is not easy to do, as there as so many variables, and that many criminals assume, quite rightly, that the likelihood of being sentenced (that is to say of being caught and convicted) is itself quite unpredictable - but of quite a low order of probablity. Hence the 'threat' of sentencing may be relatively limited in its effect of influencing criminal behaviour.

almost all criminals don't even know the likely punishment if they get caught. Considering the wide range of possible punishments for many offences, including a police caution, and the relative unlikleyhood of being caught for most offences (clear-up rates having traditionally been distorted by getting the few caught to cough to other offences (taking into account) on the books to improve the figures) I suspect that criminals not knowing, or indeed caring, what punishments they might face is hardly surprising. Would you care to speculate what punishment the couple arrested for burglary recently locally, assuming that they go to trial and are convicted, might get? And, on the assumption (purely for argument's sake) that they are convicted, how much time they will have spent on remand before the trial and hence how much, assuming a custodial sentance, they might then actually serve post conviction (This speculation is entirely without prejudice to whatever the eventual outcome of the case might be, and makes no assumptions of the truth or not of any allegations made against these people, who, if charged, are of course innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law - if they don't, if charged, decide to accept a police caution, if offered).

I should perhaps add that this is not the best time of year to buy wooden garden furniture unless you have somewhere undercover to store it, as it will have had a season's weathering otherwise before you really get a chance to enjoy it. This is outwith any issues of materials, source or cost.

If you live in East Dulwich ward - boundaries are Melbourne Grove, Railway Rise, Grove Vale, East Dulwich Road (south side), Crystal Palace Road, Upland Road, Friern Road, Underhill Road, Dunstans Road, Upland Rad, Lordship Lane, Melbourne Grove - you can get a kit for free. Not all of Underhill - the southern-most bit is in College Ward (below either Dunstan or Langton Rise, I'm not sure which)

The furniture sold (if it's the same as some I got from an almost identical door-to-door source 2 years ago - which it almost certainly is) is marked up as sustainably sourced and has a contact system for checking. The prices (again if it's the same) are comparable to internet prices - with the benefit that it's delivered to you and carried in for free. The quality of the furniture is perfectly fine (I've had some which has lasted a couple of seasons outside and still looks in good nick). You are being conned as regards the actual source and history and the apparent discount against brochure prices, but you are buying (broadly) as cheap as you could retail on the internet, and it's OK stuff, I believe (not using illegally harvested wood). So not a marvellous bargain, but not paying over the odds for the stuff (and you certainly can buy the same stuff a lot more expensively from some retail outlets). They do use sales trickery, but they aren't thieves.

...And your point is...?

I'd expect things to improve through the day, as obstructions (if any) are cleared and precautionary measures are withdrawn. Getting home in the evening should be generally a lot easier than getting to work in the morning That was certainly true back in 1987 - although I was closer in (Clapham) then.

I stand corrected as regards building on boundaries where there is no previous structure - but does that also apply to erection e.g. of brick walls as boundaries, or of concrete footings to other fencing? This work has gone on around my property (with my happy agreement) but with no suggestion of Party Wall Act notification.

There is a rule that you cannot claim improvements against tax, only repairs/maintenance I believe that capital expenditure undertaken for improvement (including refurbishment costs) is taken into account when the property is sold and can be offset against any capital gains. It is important therefore to keep a record of any such payments. You may also claim e.g. for furnished or partly furnished properties a 10% per annum allowance for wear-and-tear (i.e. depreciation of installations, including carpets and curtains).

The OP started the post Just had a knock from my neighbours to tell me that they are building a conservatory in their garden and that this would involve a wall being built on the boundary for which they would require access to my property. I am not sure that the work as described (building a wall on the boundary) is actually covered by the Party Wall Act - which is about existing shared infrastructure - i.e. the shared walls of a semi-detached hourse or terrace. If I want to build a wall, or a fence, on my land I may request access to my neighbour's property for ease of construction, but I don't believe I can require it, nor pray-in-aid the Party Wall act, since I am not working on a party wall - but creating a boundary wall. What I certainly can't do, for instance, is to require access to my neighbours land in order, e.g. to bring through construction materials or equipment, nor to install e.g. scaffolding in my neighbours land for construction purposes, without their express permission. Nor, if there is no Party Wall issue can I in fact require access at all (although I can certainly ask nicely for it) I think the Party Wall thing here may be a red herring where there is no existing shared infrastructure being altered. A conservatory (unless it is huge) is very likely to be covered by permitted development - although it still would be coverd by building regulations.