Penguin68

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'.

K & J Libretto and Daughters I believe. K is Kim, and J his son Jake. Kim is an excellent,'old school' butcher - he buys either direct from the farm (i.e. his Christmas Turkeys) or from a small number of 'tried and tested' Smithfield traders - he is always aware of the provenence of his food. He tries (except on Saturdays when he does some pre-cutting) to cut off the carcase only against an order/ request - this means that he has little on display but the meat he has in store is intact as possible (and hence in the best condition). This does lead to a quite leisurely service (as meat is being prepared for each customer) - but that is worth the wait. He will always try to fill orders made in advance (if the meat is available in Smithfield) - he buys on Thursday mornings (at about 5:00am) so you need to give him an order before this. He also makes excellent sausages (herby or plain) in two sizes, and boils his own hams to sell cooked slices. His eggs are delivered from a travelling wholesaler weekly - again from a small number of farms. Although he closes at about 2:00 on Saturdays you will see the lights on and him working way past 7:00 that evening, deep cleaning his shop and implements. He will always give advice on cooking methods and times, if asked, as well as suggesting quantities ('enough for 8, please') if requested. He will also advise on the best cuts for particular types of recipe. His prices (for what he sells) are very fair. His knife grinder (calls fortnightly) will also re-edge customers' knives at a reasonable price. He stocks diamond dusted 'steels' - the best I have ever used for casual knife sharpening. I have been a customer for over 25 years, and dread him retiring! (I have no commercial or family interest in this business - just a satified punter!)

...in the context that the shop, as a former chippy, would not be having any change of use.

how those that don't use the buses for commuting know so much about who is on them If you don't use buses to commute, then probably if you do travel on them it will be out of commuter time (i.e. when you're not at work) - in which case the demographic described is probably fairly acurate - i.e. almost by definition excludes those going to or coming back from work. It's fairly common (and normally unsound) to extrapolate rules or models based just on your own experience - but we all do it (particularly it often seems on this forum!)

As Mr Branson is the most self publicising billionaire possible, the chances of him denying his own identity are so slim as to be invisible even to an electron microscope.

Several points:- 1. The Daily Mail story link was covered by either The Standard or the Sunday Times last week (can?t remember which) ? but included a Db ?contour map? which showed ED conspicuous by its absence from any of the sound contours measured. So it falls outside the critical sound footprints being discussed. 2. All the evidence of this thread suggests that the sound impact of aircraft on us in ED is a very subjective area. (I doubt whether this would be true much closer to e.g. Heathrow.) This may well be evidenced by impressions of some posters that the ?problem? is significantly on the increase not being supported by actual published figures (although the fact that Heathrow is now operating at 98% capacity does support some increase, though this may be on aircraft loadings rather than frequency). 3. Unless the intention is to restrict overall the number of flights into and out of London ? which will not exactly help the economy, creating a 6 hour window of silence would simply increase traffic in the remaining 18 hours and possibly substantially increase safety issues as even more planes occupy a limited air space at one time. 4. In fact it seems possible that many people supporting this simply wish to shift the ?problem? onto someone else. 5. The benefits of living in a modern society come with some costs. I find living relatively close to airports a good thing ? I don?t have to travel for hours to get to an airport. The cost of that is living relatively close to aircraft as well. It?s a cost I?m prepared to pay.

Once you think you are being attacked, philosophical discussion about where 'blame' should sit is irrelevant, you want (presumably) to avoid exacerbating the occasion, so if you can suppress screaming, it's a good idea, if attacked by a dog, to do that. Learning that most approaches by dogs (in ED) don't require a panic 'scream' response would also be sensible. Dogs may not always be fully 'under control' - but the choices are not binary - 'in full control' or 'savagely mad attack dog' - most 'out of control' dogs in ED are still mostly harmless.

It protects everyone from babies to sensitive adults A lot of research shows that babies, once asleep, are very difficult to rouse through external sounds. A baby is quite unlikely to have disturbed sleep through aircraft noise. Adult anxieties can of course effect children's sleep patterns (and general well being).

a lot of very good points about phobias undermined sliiightly by this " by the way, screaming is probably not a good tactic where dogs are concerned, " Sorry - but screaming is likely to excite dogs (who have very good hearing) more - the OP said she had screamed when 'attacked'. Screaming if you are attacked by a person has the effect of calling attention to your situation for passers-by to assist, something a human attacker will recognise, but not a dog. So screaming, even if involuntary (as I assume it was) will not tend to quieten down a dog attack (or even being bounced by an over friendly dog).

As I have said in another thread, sometimes changing yourself, rather than changing the world, is a more effective tactic in dealing with issues that trouble you. I have lived for 25 years in ED (under, as I have also said) the old Concorde flight path. If I concentrate I can be aware of planes passing overhead (I must admit I have not noticed any increase in frequency or noise levels over my time here). But only if I concentrate (my hearing, by the way has been recently tested as being 20-30 years better than my actual age). As a child I lived under the old B52 training flight paths (in Oxford). There the US bombers flew so low that the house shook and ornaments would move. I had recurrent nightmares about these planes crashing for years. In ED I have had nothing like that - athough I am as much disturbed as anyone else by circling police helicopters when they are in 'search' mode. Learning to live with annoyances which you are very unlikely (petition or no) to be able to change is a rational choice - I am not saying that you do not, or should not, find aircraft noise annoying, what I am saying is that there are effective methods to reduce the amount of annoyance you feel.

A fear of unknown dogs is entirely rational Context is key here - unknown dogs in e.g. India or Africa may well be a threat (where rabies is endemic), but the vast majority of dogs in ED are owned responsibly and are people friendly (and not diseased). My experience (I am not a current dog owner, and haven't been for more than 40 years) is that you are more likely to be bitten by a small dog than a large one. So being frightened of big, bouncy, dogs in ED (unless you are easily knocked over and have physical vulnerability) is, in fact, irrational (in the sense that there is a very high probability that you will be safe). A very small amount of self-training (with perhaps a dog trainer) will give you the appropriate mannerisms to communicate to dogs that you are not either a threat or a potential 'victim'. Most people have phobias - it is whether you allow them to rule your life or find coping mechanisms to address then which is key. I, certainly am, and have been, phobic. Some I have addressed, some (those which are rarely encountered) I have learnt to avoid, but if I had a fear of dogs and wanted to visit London parks this is one phobia I would do something about. An ability to be able to 'cope' with dogs will make park visits much more enjoyable for you. Equally, training will allow you to be more clearly aware of dog 'body language' so that you will be able to discriminate between the vast majority (in ED) of harmless mutts and the very few which may be a threat. [That will include 'good' dogs which may protect their owners against perceived threat as well as the very few rogue 'bully' dogs or ones actually trained to be aggressive]. [And, by the way, screaming is probably not a good tactic where dogs are concerned, although perfectly safe with mice or spiders]

If cables have been severed (copper or fibre) it is a very non trivial job to reconnect them. Unlike gas or electricity or water, where we all have the same supply, and do not have bits of water, or gas, or electricty which are uniquely ours, each house is served by its own, unique, pair - which has to be properly connected through flexibility points all the way back to frames and racks on the exchange - for traditional analogue that's two copper wires (a 'pair') which have to form a connection from the right points in your house to the right points in the exchnage. A cut cable has loads of pairs at each cut end - each of which must be correctly re-comnmected to its counterpart in the other cable end. That has to be done by people, jointing and testing each wire. Sometimes it is easier and quicker to pull an entire new length of cable and join each up at street connections than to attempt to mend a cut cable - but if the cutting is done past the last flexibility point at the subcriber's end that probably isn't so. Houses next door to each other (depending on where the cable has been cut) may well be being served by different intermediate cables, hence one house can have no service when the next house has service. If you have a fibre connection (fibre to the cabinet), and your neighbour copper pairs, this will certainly be so.