Penguin68

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.

Posted in error

We put up pics and footage of our work with the kids every month. Thanks. Where? - You have linked to a logo picture but not a website. I cannot see how a charity 'earning' less than ?5k annually can help children 'world-wide' - particularly where it is paying collectors. A full time chugger earning ?200 a week (+ bonus - that assumes a 5 day working week at your rates) would need to be raising at least twice that to be worthwhile - i.e. ?400 a week or ?19,200 a year (assuming a 48 week working year). Just to earn their own pay would require an income of ?9600 - again more than your 'under ?5k'. Your numbers do not add-up. Take care

oimissus and Penguin68 - she is not elderly. I refer to her as a miserable old bitch because she is an adult who behaves like a child As someone in happy receipt of a freedom pass I find the use of old as a term of abuse, well, abusive, particularly when it is apparently being intended as a substitute for 'childish' (rather the opposite, I would have thought). The creation of a fenced path for her to reach her garden, whilst clearly reducing your 'available' garden might help ('good fences make good neighbours') - in the end choosing somewhere else to live, if you can, might be a better option. At least you have sunk no equity in the property. The trade-off for you will be (based on your figures) whether not having her as an immediate neighbour is worth ?175 a month to you.

Some at least of what has been described in the behaviour of your neighbour may be relevant to your categorisation of her as 'old' at least as regards e.g. suspicion, doing things at night/ odd hours - it is possible (if she really is that old) that she is suffering from early signs of dementia - that is to say that the behaviour you find difficult may be a function not of her being nasty or an unpleasant neighbour, but of her suffering from some impairment. That makes your life no more easy, of course, but it may change your view of her from being annoying to being sick. It is not infrequent to find suspicion, and some forms of aggressiveness, associated with some types of mental impairement - this doesn't, as I have said, make it any more liveable with, but it may help your own response to the difficulties you face. Of course, if that is a correct diagnosis (which it may very well not be) - then things are not going to get better.

every night we have nutters exceeding motorway speeds on residential street I believe it is exceptionally unlikely that there are vehicles travelling at over 70mph every night between the library and the Mag - I have lived in ED for over 25 years and I have never seen this happening (though I accept that motor bikes in the dead of night might do high-ish speeds on occasion). Vehicles at 40-50 (again late at night) I would be prepared to accept, but not as a regularly nightly occurrence. There have been police chases of vehicles (police are restricted as to the speeds they may use in built-up areas) - but again not nightly, not at 70+mph and these are the 'nutters' who are (most frequently) caught. Hyperbole does not get traffic calmed, nor does it help make a case for this.

It is not uncommon for the hot water from the boiler to the hot water cylinder, (which then heats the water in the cylinder for the taps) to be taken through a towel-rail style radiator - that way towels get warmed even when the central heating hot water (which will be pumped through the other radiators) is off, i.e. for the summer or when the ambient temperature is below that set on the room thermostat. Could the radiator which now warms up be (or have once been) a towel-rail radiator (though these are normally in the bathroom or shower room)? If hot water is drawn off the hot water cylinder, then the boiler will trip and circulate more hot water to the cylinder to heat up the cold water entering the cylinder to replace the water drawn off. The water in the heating systems (to the radiators or the hot water cylinder) is, effectively, sealed - water is circulated through the system (using a pump) - in the hot water cylinder it goes through copper tubing which then heats the water which is then drawn off through the taps - that water will typically enter the system via your water tank - itself fed from the mains. No water which you take from the taps will have come directly from your boiler/ heating systems - but have been heated by them via convection through copper pipes in your hot water cylinder. (An electric shower which heats the water itself will be drawing off cold water and then heating it up inside the shower installation itself). It is possible that the radiator which heats up is on the route from the boiler to the hot water cylinder - as I said at the start unless it's a towel rail (or was at some stage) that's probably poor design.

And your point about your child is irrelevant, as they didn't have cash anyway! The point I was making was that even though they were children (clearly) and were entitled to travel free with a card, without one the driver wasn't prepared to accept them - and if this goes ahead wouldn't even if they did have cash to pay - which most times they did have. If the parents are bright enough to send them here clothed and with cash, they can sure as heck work out how to get them an oyster card. Tried buying an Oyster in Manchester, or Glasgow have you? - you can do it by post, but unless you know (how much publicity is there going to be?) that you can't travel on London transport using cash, why would you? Many young people (over 15, under 18) travel around the country - to visit friends or whatever, without needing to be accompanied. From a middle-class perspective cashless is fine - but many people still live in a cash economy - or are we thnking that London Transport should be a middle-class enclave?

Very little - there are multiple ethical systems many of which are in direct competition with each other - utilitarian against deontological for instance. 'Ethical' in this context means, probably, 'doesn't upset my personal sensibilities' - a vegan's ethics would be quite different (regarding menus) to a carnivore's. A Moslem's quite different to a Hindu's. And so on. In the 10 (which 10?) commandments - 'thou shalt not kill' referred only, in fact, to co-religionists - the slaughter of different (and non) religious adherents was both encouraged and at times required. Event the ethics we think are there, sometimes aren't.

You can buy an Oyster card in most newsagents and pay in cash. Why would you not use one? And, I have several Metro tickets from my last trip to Paris (from a book of ten), so poorer value than an Oyster, as you can't cash them in for a refund... I assume that you knew how many trips you were buying - and chose a carnet of 10 because these were discounted (by about 20%). You bought 10 trips, and used less than that, but you knew what your money was buying. Quickly - I have charged my Oyster with ?10 (about the sterling equivalent of a carnet) - how many trips does that buy me? And that still doesn't address the child (under 16) who is in London without an Oyster card and perhaps nowhere near a newsagent (or they are shut) - how is he or she to get home? My children, who could travel free with a child's oyster, were turned off buses without one (and without money).

London is a tourist city - whereas many cities have easy to purchase tickets (or goups of tickets) where you are in effect buying journeys - such as the Paris carnet system - the oyster card system is more difficult to operate (you cash-charge it rather than buying a number of journeys) - so it is more difficult for a visitor to operate - how much do they need to charge it with if they want to make 10, or 15, or 5 trips in London? Charging foreign debit cards (for trivial amounts per journey) will incur disproportionately large foreign usage charges (for the user) - with one card I have if I used it abroad it would add ?1.50 for each journey - I assume that travellers to Britain would face much the same penalty. Children - actually anyone unbanked - who may not have their oyster with them (or be from out of London) - will not be able to pay for travel independently, since they tend not to have debit cards (and one wouldn't encourage them to have to take such a card with them wherever they went, considering the number of children regularly mugged) At least for central London (Zone 1) not taking cash would be dreadful - since many people visiting London would be disbarred from using public transort. As I have said, where transport systems don't use cash directly, they use tickets (journeys) which can be easily bought from many outlets - such as newsagents. If only 1% of journeys are paid for in cash - with 6M a day (2009 figures, so probably many more now) that is still a lot of people being turned away a year (those who could have an oyster would, I am assuming because of the cost benefit, so we are talking about those not having their oyster at the time, or who don't have oysters at all)

Some cars are known to have a lock vulnerability so that if they have remote locking they can be interferred with. I think (very happy to stand corrected) that VWs are amongst those with this vulnerability. It may be worthwhile checking whether your make: model is known for this. I expect googling it with some tag like 'vulnerable locks' would be sufficent.