Penguin68

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.

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}.