Penguin68

It is ridiculous that a property which has been repaired (and the cause of the subsidence identified and sorted) has its premiums raised. Punishing drivers who have accidents by raising their premiums has some actuarial sense (not much) on the basis that he/ she might be a bad driver if they've had an accident, but a property which has had its problems fixed is a better risk now than before. And, it is worth noting, in general most properties are still built to flex, somewhat, over time. Of course there are some subsidence issues which do require real work, but in many cases once superficial cracking is repaired the house is quite sound. Often that cracking is caused (even in 'subsidence areas - i.e. with clay sub-soils) by the existence (or removal) of trees - something which post-code risk allocation cannot forecast. My house had an 'oh dear, this might be subsidence' crack in it 25 years ago, when we bought it. Over time that crack has tended to narrow - and this during both drought and flood - it certainly is no worse now than it has ever been. Worries about subsidence started in the 70s (if I remember) - insurance companies like a reason to raise premiums but many structural engineers are now less concerned about it, except in some very clear cases where there is substantial sub-soil movement. In London (and around here) some 'subsidence' evidence is actually cracking caused by bomb-damage - a friend found an entire wall had moved in his house which was traced to bomb pressure and was nothing to do with subsidence. His house still stands happily - as will any other with bomb-damage which has lasted through till now.

I didn't suggest they be arrested, I was merely pointing out the legal position. I do not believe that you are correct here. The lock does not adhere or interfere with the physcial structure (as a sticker or soluable wall paint would) - it is much more analogous to e.g. branches from a neighbour's tree which overhang your property - and can be argued as such. Here you have a right to cut-off the branches (although you should return these off-cuts to your neighbour) - as much effort as cutting-off the locks - but there is absolutely no issue of criminality or criminal damage here, so no opportuinity for arrest. The leisure centre has the right to cut-off the locks (cannot themselves be sued for damage) as these locks are left on their property - as you could throw away something dumped in your front-garden by a passer-by - but these are possible civil, not criminal offences - effectively trespass. Interestingly, such an action on 'public' property (the leisure centre isn't) might be the criminal offence of littering. You cannot argue damage where the physical structure or integrity of the item being 'damaged' is not altered. The case quoted is, as quoted, frankly, poor law. Local authorities have to clean things in the streets as a matter of course (go to an effort to clean) - it would be ridiculous to suggest that someone who litters (which is also an offence) is additionally guilty of criminal damage, because the authority has had to go to the effort of cleaning up the litter.

That sounds like most of the Members of the EDF! Hence the angst shown on this and many threads about local crime.

But the Stats of One Insurance Company indicate that East Dulwich is in the top 20 for burglary The basis for the validity of these statistics has already been widely discussed here - they are self-reported and are reported by those who are (1) insuring their property (not everyone does this - it tends to reflect relative wealth) and (2) had in the past insured their property (ditto), and (3) considered it worth-while to claim on that insurance, and (4) are sufficiently honest to report this to their insurance company. For all the districts where the 4 conditions above are true, as regards one insurance company, ED is in the top 20 of districts. This is not quite the same as saying that it is 'in the top 20' without these conditions. Most burglary (it is said) occurs in areas quite close to where the burglars themselves live - but these are areas where insuring property (and claiming on that insurance) is anecdotally less frequent. It is also said to be true that burglaries tend to cluster - so 'hot' areas for burglary in one time period may be cooler in another. However, relatively wealthy inner-city areas with a high population density are going to attract crime - on the basis that the chances of there being undefended or poorly defended properties readily available are higher than in many other areas.

We now hide his papers in a secret space where they'll never think to look. Can I advise the purchase of a fire-proof safe for vital paperwork etc. Not only will that discourage casual thieves (for most of whom a safe which is properly fixed into a wall/ floor etc. is an obstacle not worth attempting) but also, in the case of accidental fire, vital documents etc. can be preserved. 'Documents' for which the content, not the original is the issue can be scanned and data stored off-site (i.e. in 'clouds') - again this is useful for such things as insurance documents, and even for documents, such as passports, where the original is needed but can be replaced. Actually, cloud storage of passport information is also useful if you are travelling, to avoid loss of documents in transit.

Find another insurance company Edited to say - not that having a proper alarm isn't a good idea. but having an over-restrictive and proscriptive insurance company is less good - offering discounts if you have a professionally installed alarm is an acceptable carrot, this is a brutal stick.

A Nation that is Divided is Weak and can easily be Defeated. That's what the Argentines thought when they invaded the Falkland Isles. At that time Mrs T was close to a nadir and could quite easily have been defeated at the ballot box by her own electors. Though, in fact, following her election to be Tory leader she never (as she was quite keen on stressing) ever lost another election. She even won the leadership contest round that saw her resign. She just didn't win by a big enough margin. She was personally never defeated. And neither was her divided nation. I have little truck for much of what she did and said, and I believe that parts of her world view were fatally flawed. But in this case, actual history trumps slogans.

I can fully understand why many people in the UK will not be mourning Lady T?s passing; in her time she was an intentionally divisive politician with polarising views and an abrasive manner who was quite happy to create enemies where she felt (very often wrongly) that she was in the right. I disliked much of her ?rule? and was happy when she was over-thrown. I worked in one of the industries she privatised, and fought against her actions (although it must be said that the experience of that industry?s customers radically improved post-privatisation, even if that of the workers didn?t). But I do find it difficult to actively rejoice at the death of an elderly, infirm, confused old woman, deep in the grasp of Alzheimer?s and 10 years at least away from having any actual influence on politics (other than as a brand or icon waved by others). Not mourn, not watch her funeral, yes, but dance in the street? Seems excessive and a pointless waste of political energy. Better to focus on current leaders, not a foxed page of history. And I do find excessive zeal in celebrating her death grates when it comes from those who weren?t even politically active (in some cases from some interviews, even born) when she was in power.

From previous research, 203-215 are all listed in the 1911 census, along with 203a-215a. As each plot (containing 2 half houses) is listed as a single number (plus an 'a') this suggests that the plots were sold as single plots, each plot numbered, and then the developer split them into two residences. Further south the semi-detached houses in Underhill (the ones, roughly, 94-106 and 89-107) are each individually numbered (no 'a's), suggesting that, when developed, the 2 plots (for each semi) were always seen as being 2 plots and not one split. Hence trhe description 'maisonette' rather than semi. [The 92 numbering - 92, 92a and 92b follows post war rebuilding of a single large 92 house]. It is possible that on occasion both maisonettes were bought by one family, either to live in one and rent the other to lodgers, or for an extended family to live together in both (parents in one, a married child in the other). This may have encouraged the owner not to have 2 postal addresses. There may have been a rates advantage to this, there being only one rateable address and not two. With the gap in numbering (185-199) it is clear that the road numbers for plots had already been allocated (presumably by the Post Office or local authority) - so the 201a numbers etc. were later changes made by the developer to take account of placing two abodes on one numbered plot.

To clarify - some cars (not every car) will judder or struggle if you maintain 20mph in 4th gear - it is too low a speed for that gear for that car. However, 4th gear is the most economic (and offers lowest emissions) to use for 'cruising' (cars with higher gears - such as 5th, are more economic etc. to run when cruising at higher speeds, i.e. 60-70). What this means is that 20mph, for some (often older) cars is a difficult speed to maintain comfortably, either the engine struggles (if in 4th) or it is thirstier (and dirtier) if in 3rd. Of course you may expect for much urban driving to be moving through the gears as you slow down or accelerate (or deal with hills etc.) - but for those stretches of road where a continuous speed is possible, 20mph may not be the 'easiest' (or most economical, or cleanest, depending on your gear choice) speed to maintain. Most cars handle 30mph in 4th very easily. The point I was trying to make, very simply, is that 20mph as a speed has clear benefits but is not a 'cost-free' - in terms of convenience or actual cost - choice - for some, but not all, cars.

driving in third gear at 20mph in a new Golf feels very comfortable to me - It very much depends how cars are geared - driving in third is generally less economic (more petrol used, more emissions) than driving in 4th. My point was that driving in 4th at 20mph can feel uncomfortable and juddery in some cars. I am glad you are happy with your new Golf. I don't disagree that 20mph is a better speed in residential areas than 30mph as regards the likely effects of impact with other vehicles and particularly pedestrians. My point was simply that many cars are less than happy in 4th (the optimal gear) at 20mph. You apparently drive in 3rd at that speed, and 3rd is not an optimal 'cruising' gear, for the reasons listed above.

James Your 'nothing to do with you' belief about where I live is wholly mistaken - in fact I live just over the boundary of ED and College ward - the police station is (given the Whately extension to Underhill), at the end of 'my road'. If you really believe that the police will spend 25% of their time travelling between Camberwell and ED then either the traffic at their time of travel is even worse than I normally experience, or their shifts are exceptionally short. Of course, given the number of 'refs' they presumably have to go back to maybe they are travelling back to base a very large number of times each day, to build their 25% travel time. From what I have seen, this doesn't reflect the number of arrests they are making (and anyway, they send cars to pick up arrested people, they don't move them by bus!). I don't know whether you've actually noticed the frequency of police patrols in Dulwich (there's one PC who gets about a lot, but that's it) but most of the police in the ED station spent their time there and not patrolling. They might just have well been in Camberwell (or on the bus to and from it) for all the benefit we got from their presence.

With all due respect to UncleBen, having somewhere local that the plod can park their bums in is not the same as them knowing the local area - patrolling (even if they are bused in to do it) is the way they get to know the local area (and some of them do this). It is entirely possible to organise 'local' policing without having a local base to operate from. And the police aren't 'generally rubbish' (I do know I insinuated this) - but the way they are organised and prioritised could be re-visited.

Note also that google view is taken from cameras on poles on the top of cars - the old photograph looks to have been taken on a box brownie (possibly) so would have been held at waist height to see into top view-finder. So there might have been 3-4 feet or more difference in camera height.

The gap between the windows is definitely different on the photographs (as is the detailing around the bay window roof, including the little ridge tiles on the modern photo). This would have to have been a replacement roof for the bay. The gap between the windows could be a function of the slightly different angles to the house in each photograph (i.e a photographc difference, not an actual one). The detailing of the roof ridge on the adjacent house entirely matches on both pictures, as does the height relationship between the two houses and the detailing around that (where brick courses are in relationship to each other). The changed roof ridge on the main house probably is a reflection of the loft extension work to be seen by the new dormer windows visible - although both roofs do seem steeper (bigger pitch) in the modern photo. The only concerns therefore would be the apparent difference in gap between the two windows over the left hand and right hand bays. The modern picture suggests each window is the same distance from the next, the old photograph suggests that the windows over the bays are closer to each other than to the window over the next bay. And the roof pitches seem different - again this may be down to photographic angle.

The speeds quoted (Barry to Friern) are for a strip of road without shops, without lights (after Barry), and without (much) pedestrian traffic - this also falls outside the proposed 20mph area - some speeds may be above 40mph - but the figures quoted do not (statistically) evidence that (40mph speeds are not inconsistent with the numbers quoted - neither are they predicated by them). Hence I cannot see that these figures are at all helpful in this particular debate - which is about a 20mph limit between Goose Green and Whately (if I recall correctly) - where there are shops and pedestrians (which would put the case for) and serried ranks of lights which tend to hold traffic (whilst pedestrians are about) to well below 20mph - which would make the limit otiose when it is 'needed' and pointless and an intrusion when it isn't.

In order to determine what, if anything, might replace the closing police station it is worth remembering that the station plays a number of roles 1. Base for policemen etc. to sit in, go back to, write up their notes, keep records, take prisoners suspects to, keep their civilian clothes in etc. etc. There is in fact no practical reason why such a base needs to be in ED, so long as police serving ED can readily get out into the streets. Ideally, if police are out patrolling (on foot, on bikes, in cars) then it may be slightly less convenient to have to travel (slightly) further to get back to base, but it is not a deal breaker. 2. As a location for members of the public to visit to report crime, show documents etc. Here modern communications (phones, IT/ internet and so on) can substantially substitute for physical presence (indeed, if members of the public data entry their own reports this will be an additional saving of police time). I would far rather report stuff by phone or on-line than get down to a police station, sit in a reception full of odd people etc. etc. 3. As a location for individuals to hand-in 'found' items - keys, wallets, and so on. Physical presence is required here, but it would be possible for this sort of activity to be franchised to e.g. Post Offices, banks, shops etc. What this means is that, in determining what should replace a station we need to move away from the concept of one-stop (cop) shop and consider the different roles and what might best be modern alternatives. I have found no comfort in there being (as there was when I first moved here) a large ?armoured? police station packed with horses at the end of my road ? but rather was comforted by seeing foot patrols and police cars. That station has been part-time for years now (and a complete waste of space, mainly) ? better use of resources (and some advance into the 21st century regarding processes) might be of real value to the community. The police now have access electronically to vehicle documentation (including insurance, MOT, ?Log books?, driving licences) ? so the most common reason for physically visiting a station is now obsolete. If I am burgled or mugged I rather expect (although nowadays this doesn?t seem to happen so much) for the police to visit me, rather than the other way round. There is no reason to report other crimes face-to-face. In the main the police don?t bother with them anyway, so they may as well not bother with them based on phone or internet reports. (When my car was vandalised and robbed I saw no one, although I did get a nice victim?s support letter eventually. I actually had evidence of the robber left in the car, but no police interest in that either.)

It would be much more comfortable Different cars are optimised around different speeds - ideally you want to be travelling 'normally' in 4th gear - which the car drives most comfortably in (5th is cruising at motorway speeds) - some cars are unhappy about travelling at 20mph in 4th, and would prefer 3rd - which is an accelleration gear, if you see what I mean. Judging speed again is quite difficult, particularly differential speeds. Imagine you are standing still and think how quickly someone walks away from you (normal walking speed) - that's about 4mph - if you are being overtaken, how quickly does the over-taker get away from you - how many multiples of walking speed? And once you are overtaken, do they slow back down to be 'just' outpacing you - in which case they may be no more than walking speed faster once they have decellarated from taking over. I have occasionally (on motorways) been over-taken by a car I imagined was going very fast, but if I speed up to match his pace, I often find it is only 10mph or less faster than my speed when over-taken. Of course, there are speed merchants on residential and local streets, but often the ones you think are speeding may be, but not by that much. Considering average vehicle speeds through London have been 12-15 mph since 1900 (pre car) our perception of urban speed is often clouded by our experience.

Just to be clear, I'm just curious (as I said). Sorry, but I don't give enough of a ?$%^ to engage in this any further. Er...Irony?

I'm just curious as to what motivates first mate And some of us might be curious about why you are curious about first mate? You are insinuating that the interest being shown is somehow suspicious or motivated in non-obvious ways. 'Just asking' may not be a sufficient get-out here.

The Iceland site is an important part of LL - what store, if any, operates from that site will have a significant impact on ED residents - including the possibility of no store at all, if/ when Iceland leaves and there is no store to replace it. A decision has been announced in this forum, but not on any official Southwark site, it appears. Considering the extensive fuss and pother on this thread and many others about the retail future for LL, first mate's concerns do not by any means have to smack of suspicious partiality. We (actual ED residents who use this forum) all have an 'interest' (being ED residents, with some stake in the locality) in this.

Amazing that Southwark cabinet councillors need to be "told" to discuss this and shame on the people who belittle this post 1. Air quality in London has substantially improved over a relatively short time - I too remember the last smog, and I also remember how most surfaces were constantly grimy. Although, obviously, air quality could improve further the low hanging fruit have now all been plucked - a huge expense and disruption would be required to significantly (so we actually noticed) further reduce the problem - over and above the continuing impovement to e.g. reducing car emissions already being planned in to new vehicles. 2. The council cabinet is made up of mainly part-time elected members who already commit a lot of time to discussing stuff - hopefuly stuff where they can reasonably make a difference - it's not clear, worthy as the idea of improving air quality actually is whether that is the best use of the limited resource of their time that we have access to. 3. If they are obliged by this petition to discuss the issue, other than deploring poor quality air, I doubt whether much will come of it - the amount of resources and leverage required to make any noticeable difference are far more than a cash-strapped local council has at their disposal. And the time taken up will (may) mean that something they could actually make a difference about will go undiscussed. So - I do think that this exercise is about political flag waving and not about anything which can be done practically by Southwark council. Frankly, my asthma is triggered by the clouds of rape and other pollens which come blowing in from Kent - perhaps the greens can propose paving over the fields and stopping this nuisance and (indeed) damaging incursion into my life. It is the countryside in spring and summer which blights my breathing, not cars.

The person will only alight the vehicle looking like a pantomime drag artiste anyhow. No, the extraordinary thing is that most frequently the make-up is expertly applied as if the applicator wasn't sitting in a jolting bus (tubes are far smoother, and offer less of a challenge). It's quite amazing to watch, simply as an exhibition of skill. What is quite interesting is the way in which people construct an imaginary bubble around them when they commute, so that their actions no longer form part of a collective, but instead allow them to operate in isolation. Considering how much of a social anaimal we actually are, this ability to shut out other people is quite amazing. I am not sure whether it is peculiarly British (flowing from our 'reserve') or whether it is replicated in other cultures. Some other cultures (Japanese?) certainly seem much more aware of the impact being made on others around them.

Green Goose wrote:- The silent majority would put up with searches every day of the week so long as it helps reduce stabbings and othe crimes committed with weapons. I think Dietrich Bonhoeffer had it right about the 'silent majority' when he wrote:- "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me" There was a 'silent majority' in 1930s Germany (actually, at times quite a vociferous majority, it has to be said) - and things were done and allowed in their name which no one now would support. It is the mark of the libertarian (not the liberal) to argue for freedoms which give their enemies the same freedom they claim for themselves. My 'ilk' as you so charmingly put it would rather see the same rule of law applied to all people, however much we personally despise them, than to see partiality in the law applied against those the state have decreed as enemies. That is the price of a free society, and one well worth paying. I still have a hope that the Supreme Court will determine that the assurances made by Jordan that no evidence obtained through torture will be used are sufficient to return Mr Qatada for trial there. If they don't, however much I don't like it, I will be pleased that we live in a state where the judiciary do not dance to the politicians' piping. The silent majority, in so many states, have sleep-walked into oppression. Indeed, if you want to see oppression at work anywhere, listen out for the self-satisfied baying of the silent majority.

I walked through the gate with my Swiss Army Cyber Tool. For work purposes- it didnt detect it. So, intrusive, oppressive and ineffective - that sounds right.