Penguin68

there are no rights of access through neighbours property Unless these are already covered by an existing covenant associated with the property. These would normally give access rights to (e.g. a path) which links properties and may pass through them (I don't think there are any properties in this part of London like that - I know of such a covenant in a York terrace) - or maybe to someone who has owned a large plot of land and has broken that up. The properties sold may have an access covenant associated with them. This can happen with council properties, but normally it is the original landowner and not those who he/ she has sold to who might have those rights. If you are the owner of the property such a covenant would have been brought to you attention by your solictor or legal advisor when you bought (and would probably be listed in the Land Registry). Certain authorities (i.e. the Fire Service) can require access through your property to undertake their statutory duties.

I think they have changed their rounds and roundsmen (again!). Certainly as regards those coming from Sylvster Road. It will settle down soon, I hope. The people who staff Sylvester Road I have always found to be very helpful when asking about missing post.

"Dear Straferjack If you are 'Southwark councillor and member of the ruling labour party' as Penguin68 says, you should be ashamed of your council and your party. " In all honesty - I cannot believe I did accuse Strafer of actually being a Southwark councillor - maybe of acting like one perhaps (a touch of hyperbole)- but if I did I apologise if any offence was taken. For the record - I have no issues about policing of dedicated parking spaces for the disabled - or of inconsiderate (route blocking) parking by others - my concern was the (apparent) automatic assumption on this thread and elsewhere that, to subvert Orwell, two wheels, good, four wheels (except on public transport) bad. (And yes, Strafer, you never mentioned bicycles, I just did). What I initially challenged was an assumption that there could be no good reasons for driving to the park and parking there at all, unless one was disabled. And hence that parking restrictions and fines should be welcomed (which they weren't, by the local councillors). BUT why have Southwark Council instituted a consultation on an option (4 hour parking) which our locally elected representatives have rejected. And if their opinions don't count, why should we assume that any expressed by the poor dumb elector in any 'consultation' would be? This looks like the democracy they have in Zimbabwe and mainland China.

The idea that if you live a couple of miles away and have kids you can't take train/bus is laughable and insulting to those people that do No it isn't - those who have the choice and choose train or bus are exercising a freedom to choose, as are those that choose to go by car (because it's more convenient, quicker etc.) When I make any choice I do not intend, nor do I, 'insult' those who (able to make that choice) choose not to. Oh, I've chosen to eat out today - how insulting that is to those who have chosen to cook their own food and eat at home, oh, I've chosen to go to the cinema today - how insulting to those who have chosen to stay in and watch the TV. Or read a book (maybe the TV choosers are insulting them!) It is still legal (and, frankly, no less moral than any other option) to own and use a car in the UK - no doubt some would like to make it illegal, or to start some form of secular religion which branded it immoral - but until it is made illegal, or is commonly accepted as immoral, then I will continue to make a choice to use a car (or not) as it suits me - and I do, frequently, use public transport when that is the best option for me, (not for some critical prodnose in cyber space).

Unless you're disabled why do you need to drive to the park anyway? Because you live a couple of miles away, with children, and you want them to exhaust themselves in the park, not getting there - because you have impedimenta that you want to bring to the park (e.g. bicyles for children) but don't want them cyling through the streets, because you live closer but have a number of small children with buggies - because you may not be disabled but may be older - or are you saying that the park should only be for people who are fit and live close?

Ultimately every 'desirable area' in South London was a dump once. And before that, normally, desirable. Just look at the original housing stock (what's left of it). If you read Conan Doyle, when Sherlock Holmes comes out our way, it is to visit the posh and well-to-do. To get into town needs carriages/ railways from SE London, you can't walk in as you can from Islington. So it is normally for the better off. The railway was actually kept out of Dulwich because it was intended purely for the carriage trade.

The rise in the water levels from 1965 as shown back towards 'original' in part has been caused by the significant reduction in 'classical' industries, particularly brewing, which were substantial water consumers. As less water is taken by industry even the vastly increased population cannot consume the water for domestic purposes (exacerbated by water conservation measures). This may, over time, have a significant impact on domestic architecture stability, particularly where houses have deep basements.

P68,no,it was in response to Jesses post! Sorry - wasn't sure, it fell immediately after mine.

And? That makes it acceptable? That makes the perpertrators unaccountable? And that makes the victims, what? If that is a comment on my post - then I never suggested any of those things - I was suggesting that the current 'crime wave' might reflect only very few perpetrators - and hence trying to counter the posts of gloom and panic which suggested we were living in some sort of war zone. It was about perspective - I said, inter alia 'terrible for the victims' - I assume and hope that the (different) criminals will be arrested, charged, convicted and given a realistic sentence (not some sort of warning and telling off). Of course we shouldn't 'accept' crime, but neither should we over-state the problems nor the dangers we face. One burglar or mugger, if you are the one being burgled or mugged, is too many, but, across a community, one is a very different threat than a hundred. Amended to say:- Additionally I should add that my post was also trying to suggest that the closure of the (day-time) police station was unlikely to be a significant cause or contributer to this current crime outbreak.

Rents/ house prices are high when an area is desirable and when there are insufficient properties there to meet demand. If you want there to be more properties in ED to rent or buy (and hence reduce the 'premium' on local property which is now in short supply), then you need to get local politicians to re-think their local zoning plans to allow more properties to be built and higher density living. If people, for instance, who then want to keep cars close to their properties find that is no longer possible in ED then that in itself will reduce a certain sort of demand for accommodation and reduce the pricing opportubities for landlords and sellers (by making ED less desirable). Of course, ED may well become less desirable as LL becomes blighted with closing shops and higher shop rents, so maybe that will reduce the pressures for people to live here. The irony is that all the things that make ED a good place to live-in (desirable) are making it more desired, which is pricing out (some) of those people who do want to live here. Make it less desirable (e.g. by increasing housing density to meet housing demands) and then fewer people will desire it. At a certain cross-over point that makes building more accommodation no longer economically attractive (as returns fall).

Actually, since the police station completely closed, there have, I think, been no shootings or other murders in ED. There were several whilst the station was open. Go figure. It is arguable that a visible police presence (on foot patrol or in cars) may be a very slight deterrent to street crime - but the presence of a nick (and that only manned during the day) is hardly here nor there. Crime (burglaries or muggings) tends to be opportunistic - often a (very few) people move into an area, predate on it and then move on. So you may have a plethora of crimes in a short time, but not necessarily of criminals. Incidents being described at the moment look like being the same people/ person mugging and (probably separately) aggressively attempting to break-in. Terrible for the victims, of course, but may be only a very few criminals involved. They will be caught or move elsewhere to look for other easy pickings.

The police station at Whately Road was un-manned for years at night before it eventually closed. It was a useful place to be able to report events during the working week - but it is police out on the streets patrolling, not in the canteen or behind the desk, which will act as a crime deterrent. We are much closer to a police station, even now, than most people who live in the country, or in the big suburbs of the towns. Having a bunch of cops sitting behind desks in Whately Road was never a comfort, seeing foot, or even car patrols was. We don't, in fact, need a police station back - we do need intelligent local policing which, if there is any upswing of local crime in Dulwich will place resources here to counter it - moving them on when the job is done. We also need good intelligence, and the reports on this forum (echoed, one would hope, by reports to the police themselves) will help here.

I had a similar request, at much the same time, but from, by the description, an entirely different person - it seemed kosher, he did have the form, but I never give to charity at the door. I support through Gift Aid etc. I also do not sponsor activity except for people I know (friends, children of friends etc.). But probably not a scam. If in doubt, anyway, give in a controlled manner and via direct and certain sources, rather than at the door.

The downside of speed humps... An additional, and very significant downside is the damage caused by large commercial vehicles, which pass over them too fast and crash down, on the buildings (and road surfaces) adjacent. Even speed cushions have caused my front garden walls to become cracked and loose with the impact of bouncing skip carriers. Commercial drivers, particularly of large vehciles which they do not own, are quite cavalier in the way that they treat the vehicles they drive over humps and cushions.

that mary portas may be involved in this new venture Doomed

Creating 'piecemeal' 20mph zones is (broadly) unhelpful. There is an argument for properly planned and consulted broad zones - so the drivers in them can be (reasonably) sure of the relevant limits - and these should be properly marked-up with regular speed limit reminders (I have posted elsewhere on the 'Rapel' system used in e.g. France to remind people of the limits). I think (and I live in it) that Underhill is all 20mph - but it is not always clear - and I am regularly hooted at, when going at or just below 20, by drivers who either don't know, or don't care, and wish me either to speed up or to let them over-take. In many places weight of traffic and of parking mean that 20mph or less is often the only safe speed to go at (sometimes the only possible speed to go at) outwith any formally set limits. I would be happy for the whole of Dulwich and ED south of Goose Green and bounded by the S Circular to be 20mph as a broad zone, properly marked-up, but odd roads and half roads make no sense and will simply confuse. I suspect, based on other posts, that Mr Barber is mixing it with fellow councillors in another ward and is using this 'genuine question' as a political stalking horse. His right, of course, as party political politician, ours, not to play the games with him.

I walked past the site at about 11:30 last (Monday 7th) night - there were gangs (well, a gang) out working then, drilling and some spoil.

THE PARENTS SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE I have a son if he carried on like this I WOULD KILL HIM Surely, if the parents are to be held responsible, and if you had a son that did that, then someone should be killing you? As you are responsible, and he has done that. Or am I missing soemthing here?

Rule of thumb with scams: you can't cheat an honest man This isn't actually entirely true - think of the 'I've lost all my money/ had my purse stolen and I must get home to look after my child' scams - those prey not on cupidity but on charity and goodwill. Even when you suspect them and don't fall for them, you go away with a nagging doubt that you're being a bastard. At best these scammers offer (eventual) restitution of the 'loan', but never any profit. So, you can cheat a generous or charitable man, as well as a dishonest one. Depending on the scam.

I think you will have to be more specific about what vintage stuff - cars, wine, LPs, furniture, jewelry, designer clothes, glass, silver, books - all have different experts for valuation and identification. 'Worth' - valuations depend upon whether you are buying (insurance value, cost of replacement) or selling (i.e. the sort of valuation done for probate). if it is antiques - if you are offered money by a dealer, or if he/ she is 'prepared to take it off your hands' - then it is worth something. Antique dealers operate (frequently) at least a 100% mark-up - so anything they buy for a pound they will expect to sell for 2. Knockers (people seeking out antiques from ordinary punters) expect a 1000% (minimum) mark-up.

If we are not to separate cyclists and pedestrians, maybe we shouldn't separate cylists, pedestrians, cars, buses or anything. Certainly the need for cyclist only bits of the road would seem otiose. This is not just being awkward - there have been significant studies looking at areas where there are no defined areas for any class of road user - instead all road users must share the same space and (clearly) do so very carefully, with full acknowledgement of both the risks they pose and the risks they are under. With no guaranteed place of safety (as many pedestrians, clearly foolishly, consider pavements, with the LadyD tendancy on the increase) all road users must exercise caution - such multi-use zones have proved perfectly useable - although to extend them throughout ED on all roads may be difficult - but making all high 'traffic' areas (such as LL) multi-use might be interesting. Obviously through speeds might be reduced (not such a bad thing) but all the crossings could be abandoned - after all, what purpose would they serve?

It is so encouraging that your first (and so far only) post should be in praise of a local service, and posted so quickly after joining the forum - so many wait a bit to see what the 'form' is before risking a post.

I am not sure whether it was mentioned during the inordinately long debate on the previous thread, but driving through Chelsea last week I noted signage on the pavement saying something like 'Cyclists dismount - fines of ?30 may be imposed for cycling on the footpath'. Maybe signs to discourage this (illegal) habit could be introduced to ED. In Oxford some of the (quite wide) pavements along the two arterial roads (Banbury & Woodstock roads) from the North into town are split into pedestrian and cyclist lanes - although this seems a good idea, pedestrians who are frail (such as the elderly whose paths are not necessarily straight) can stray into the cyclist lanes - being also often hard of hearing this can be quite frightening for everyone concerned. This would also cause problems for us in yummy-mummy ED now that buggies seem to be built as wide as tanks and would occupy the full pedestrian space making overtaking (or even passing) a problem. And our pavements aren't nearly as wide as they are in Oxford.

To Penguin68, still doesn't make it right - you've bought something its your responsibility to sort out disposing of it properly. Jonathan - I absolutely had no intention of suggesting it was right, merely that the remedy suggested by others (why didn't they get Southwark (or their own council) to take the stuff away?) may not have been open to them. Clearly placing your rubbish in someone else's territory, or in the street, isn't ever acceptable.

Freddy & Louisa are both assuming that the fly-tippers are local to Southwark - sadly fly-tippers frequently cross boundaries - so they may have come from a borough without Southwark's social responsibility. We are not that far from Lewisham (or indeed Lambeth). In which case calling to ask the council to dispose may not have been an option for them.