Penguin68

Tetraethyl lead was added to petrol as an anti-knock additive - it was removed because catalytic converters (introduced to remove unburnt hydro-carbons from emissions) are gummed up by the lead in leaded petrol - leading to failure of the cat. The lead in petrol fell to the ground out of exhausts (it is, after all, notoriously heavy) and it is a very moot point whether lead from petrol ever got into people sufficiently to impact their health. In order to pick this lead up you would have virtually to have follow cars around licking the roadway after the exhausts. It didn't get into the atmosphere (although it could, at very very diluted levels) enter waste water. The correlation is far more likely to be with improving air quality (with fewer unburnt hydro-carbons, being trapped by the cats) - which was always believed to have an impact on health - hence the introduction of cats in the first place! The removal of leaded petrol was never about health, directly, but about the efficient operation of the catalytic converters. More impact may have come from the reduction in use of leaded paints - here paint flakes from old paint were sufficently light to get into the atmosphere, but again the jury really is out on the epidemiology here away from those in close contact with deteriorating lead paint treatments. It is rather like assuming that the reduction in smallpox incidence is related to the increase in the manufacture of syringe needles, rather than the use of the vaccine itself. In so far as there is any possibility of a causitive link (correlation not implying causation) it seems far more likely to be linked to improving air quality (the purpose of using cats) than to the removal of lead from petrol, which shortened the cats' lives, but not - on any epidemiological studies - people's (unlike unburnt hydrocarbons). The level of lead poisoning needed to develop symptoms as described is far, far higher than any exposure to precipitated lead particulates from leaded petrol could engender. Although there are, clinically, no known 'safe' levels of lead (which is one of the commonest substances) there are nomrally many more physical than 'mood' symptoms of substantial lead poisoning - that is, behaviour changes as described leading to increased levels of violence would normally be accompanied by many other physical (and visible) symptoms - unless we are into the 'homeopathic' mindset regarding the influence of substances on individuals (less is more!).

I should have added that Steven Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, and previously (until 2003) taught in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Studies at MIT. His book concerns the apparent (and he believes real) reduction in human violence and the possible causes of this in terms of pyschological and sociological behavioural changes. His aanlysis of historical changes in violence levels is a necessary precurser to his discussion of causative issues for this. He is a very serious academic.

stats do not need referencing as they are pointless Unreferenced statistics are pointless - you do need to know their basis, their source, caveats about their collection - all of which are discussed in detail by Steven Pinker in his book, which is thus the only reference I offer - but understood statistics are the very lifeblood of modern decision making - to say - 'don't confuse me with evidence, my unsupported assertions are sufficient' - now that is simply pointless.

increase in the homicide rate post aboltion of Capital Punishment to more than double the rate Sorry, didn't happen.

@Penguin68 - What are the proportional incidences over the last 100 years ? - obviously taking into account population growth. Interested to find out. The full details, and many more, are in Pinker's book - but, for instance, in 1900 (all figures per 100k population) Italy was running at 4, Germany & France at about 2, Sweden at 1.5 and England at 1. Everyone in Europe has thus tended towards the English level, with England remaining pretty stable over the past century, so actually no real fall - but equally no rise as sentencing of homicides has become far more lenient (no death penalty effectively after the war). The US (in 1950) was at 4.5 - rose to 10 in the 70s and 80s and has fallen back, as I said to about 1950 levels now. Canada has slighty risen - was about 1 in 1960 and is 1.5 now.

Football hooliganism was reduced MASSIVELY almost to the point of extiction (not quite) by harsh sentencing, This also co-incided with the final moves away from stands - where violence is much easier to kick-off, and also much better policing - when you consider the levels of crime and casual violence in the 18th and early 19th centuries (and before) - very much higher on a per capita basis than now, when punishments were hugely more severe (and when you moved from trial, normally no longer than a day, to execution within a week) for many more crimes than simply murder, then the idea that harsh punishment leads to crime reduction is less clear. If harsh sentencing has reduced crime in the US (it is reducing everywhere, in many places without harsh sentencing) it should be remebered that the US locks up more people (again per capita) than any other western country. The most useful source for the movement in the incidence of violence at the moment is the excellent and very well researched 'Better Angels of our Nature' by Steven Pinker -(subtitled 'the decline of violence in history and its causes') which I would recommend. In 2010 homicide rates in the punitive US (with a death penalty in numerous states) was 4.5 per 100k, in adjacent Canada it was under 2. In lenient Italy, England, Sweden, France and Germany it hovered around 1. For all these countries, the incidence has fallen dramatically over the last 100 years (with some fluctations) - but the current position does not support a 'harsh is best' conclusion, at least as regards proportional incidence.

Thames Water did write to people warning this might happen - now that they have responsibility for (most) drainage in private land they are surveying to see what they have been obliged to take-on. Many tenements have drains access (i.e covers) on their land rather than on the footpath, hence the need for access. Some of the drain covers are at the back of houses (and some houses share drains before they exit into the main drainage system in the street).

In regards to stabbings stats - many go unreported What is your evidence for that? - any stabbing (penitrative wound) which required hospital treatment (I would assmme most do) would be reported by the A&E staff. Or at least recorded by them. There are many crimes which do go un-reported, but I would have thought stabbing didn't figure high in that list. It is possible that knife cuts may be less well reported and recorded - but cutting tends to be done under different circumstances. And slashes would themselves normally need stitching - again an A&E issue.

Water companies took over responsibility last year, that's why numbers of people have had letters from Thames Water saying they may be undertaking a pipe survey and may need access to your land (for inspection points). http://www.thameswater.co.uk/help-and-advice/8654.htm

There are active springs in ED (for instance in the valley between Underhill and Wood Vale) - the work in Camberwell Old Cemetery was (partly) to deal with standing water at the corner of Langton and Wood Vale and the recent inclement weather (since last May!) - together with a general reduction in London manufacture - especialy brewing - which has raised general water table levels throughout the city - all makes me think that your problems are more likely water table than pipe-breach caused. By the way, recent changes in legislation make Thames Water (for us) responsible for all drainage systems into the main sewers (as well as water supply) whether the breach is on public or private land. They are only not responsible now for stand-alone drainage systems (e.g. soak-aways) which do not lead into their own sewerage and waste water systems.

Walking by the cemetery yesterday (Sunday) I noticed a large number of plants put out waiting for planting, including a lot of (I assume ground) ivy, some dogwood (I think) some either cypresses or (which would be traditional) yew trees, some broad leaf deciduous trees etc. All quite small (nothing seemed taller than 5-6 ft) but it does look like a very positive move.

Interestingly the S Times piece identifies its 'Dulwich' as SE22 - and clearly includes East Dulwich by name (and Lordship Lane shops) as part of its article - it's not (just) about Dulwich Village and 'central' Dulwich. Mind you, it also praises Balham (for not being Clapham). So not wholly reliable.

It is always a good idea, to avoid claims of under-insurance, if you specifically exclude from any contents insured stuff you don't want to cover. So if you have loads of paperbacks, but are not worried about them being stolen or lost, exclude them from your cover - that way the 'nominal' value of paperbacks (probably now about ?30-?40 a foot - used to be ?20 many years ago) doesn't count towards your insured value (only an issue in this case if you have lots of books). Remember that you will also have to list anything which is in a 'collection' (i.e. coins, stamps etc.) - where the individual elements may be below the 'individual item value' - where you have to list items - but the collection value as a whole is above it. If anything does happen, loss adjusters will look for all the reasons they can to pay out less than you would want them them to. It pays you not to give them that opportunity. There are many items (i.e. mobile phones) which can be included on your household cover and which are normally cheaper to insure in that way than through specialist insurance from e.g. service providers.

Funnily enough if you do fear for Lordship Lane then having 12-18 months of site closure and rebuilding would be the worst possible result. I do not agree here James, where there is clear and positive economic activity going on which is seen as regenerating an area - even if it is meant-times disruptive this normally gives a positive boost - I am sure were the work to be going on it would be clearly flagged as new accommodation and a new 'attractor' store - so others would be positive themselves about investing in the area - it is closure and stagnation which creates a downward spiral. Investment attracts investment - empty stores (or, I am afraid pop-up and make-weight charity shops) repel it. At the moment the ED/ LL Charity shops look positive-ish - at least they don't look like a desperate 'any port in a storm' move by site owners. If Iceland is (a) to close and (b) to be replaced quickly by a 'proper' retailer (whether that be a chain or a quality independent) that is good - but for instance a pound or 99p store wouldn't be - if what you want to see is a vibrant and economically active high street.

There was no, repeat NO, planning application by or for an M&S - there was a planning application by the owner of the Iceland site to replace, if I recall correctly, offices with flats and extend the retail area downstairs into the carpark. The plans submitted showed signage for M&S and it has been assumed by everyone that M&S has been negotiated with to replace Iceland, HOWEVER, as I understand it, the reasons for turning down the application are associated with e.g the actual plans, the impact of reducing shopping parking paces locally, the impact of building close to existing buildings etc. etc. - i.e. standard planning criteria. Some local complaints have been put forward based on estimates or fears of the impact of deliveries to an M&S store and how this would effect those living in the side street, and by people with properties adjacent to the existing car park on their loss of amenity. At no time has, per se a plan for an M&S to operate in LL been turned down, just the specific changes to the Iceland site which would have increased the value for the site owner and make a store such as an M&S a viable proposition, the existing store footprint being too small and not having sufficient storage space, as it stands. The headline to this thread should always have read - Planning Application for Iceland site - I am sure that M&S, if they are working with the site owner, have input their requirements, but this has never been an M&S Planning application. Why woud they be interested in the usage (i.e. flats) of the area above which they would have rented?

I agree, if you were caught on camera then they may issue a ticket - in my experience when a traffic warden tickets you they are standing by your car when they do this (write up the ticket) not sitting on a bike. Checking on the council site wouldn't be any harm (if Southwark does post this). However (see another thread) -http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,336529,page=96 it appears that Southwark can no longer get vehicle details from the DVLA - so it would be interesting to see how they can pursue motoring offences when they cannot get vehicle ownership details.

As the parking ticket normally acts as the notification of a parking fine you are probably OK - moving traffic offences are notified by post, and it's possible that parking offences captured by camera are also so notified - but a guy on a bike doesn't match this. If you drove off while a warden was attempting to place a notice on your car, that probably too is an offence, but this is not what you have described here. Hope you are feeling better

The area that is being filled-in (and the surface raised by about 4 foot) was regularly (certainly along the Langton Rise boundary) heavily waterlogged in the winter - and would have been completely unsuitable for continued burials. So something had to be done, although what that is may not necessarily be what has actually been done. We will need to see what the 'remedial' re-planting will be - taking into account the narrowing group of native trees that aren't being infected by 'foreign' pathogens - but right now the Wood Vale/ Langton corner looks a complete mess - and is certainly taking far longer to complete than was planned. Like so many 'works' in SE London it is quite rare to see anyone actually working on them. It would be nice to see flowering and fruiting trees being planted - though how practical that is in a cemetary I am not sure. I am also assuming that the unpathed elements will be re-seeded with grass seeds. Again wild meadow grasses with wild flowers would be a positive addition to the area, but I would presume that this wouldn't be consistent with regular mowing that I am sure will be scheduled.

In the old days (when I was much younger) and most men wore hats, it was simple to tip your hat to someone in a friendly, (but not obtrusive) gesture - I still do when someone stops at a crossing to let me cross - but then I am old enough still to wear a hat (not a cap) when out. Hat etiquette (like the friendly gesture of offering a cigarette to a stranger in a pub) is something of the past - although a very long-time no smoker (and very glad to be so) - the offering of a pack at social occasions was an excellent ice-breaker, and when ciggies were relatively cheap not so intrusive as offering a drink, which offer carried with it too much obligation if accepted.

James Technically I think they are asking to open 23/7, not 24/7 (and not even that as Sunday opening will still be restricted to 10-4 or 11-5). They will be closed (presumably for cleaning/ re-stocking) between 5:00am and 6:00am. So your headline should be Lordship Lane Co-op want to open 23/7 (except Sundays) But you have been quick to start to correct and apologise for unintentionally misleading readers.

This has all the aspects of an urban myth - logic suggests that not all dogs bark, many of those that do wouldn't be suitable for use as 'bait' for fighting dogs - so people marking homes with dogs (which presumably are known to be there because they have barked) so they can be stolen doesn't make sense. There was a case 15-20 (or so) years ago of an empty hourse in Underhill (between Belvoir and Langton Rise - 2 doors up from me) being used to stage dog fights - so the 'sport is locally known, or was, as is the stealing of dogs locally, but not, I think, as described here. Traditionally travellers (and tramps) used to mark houses where they might expect a good or bad reception - this sounds like an extension of this idea.

With the number of people working into the evening in LL in the eating and drinking establishments, together with shift workers at e.g. Kings - the offer of extended opening for shops where you can get necessities (and a hot drink and snacks) seems like a very good idea which adds to the amenities of the area - or maybe these sort of people don't vote Lib Dem. 24/7 life marks a vibrant city - I don't want to live in a one pony burb where the only sign of life is the smoke rising from the (CPZ surrounded) crematorium.

The various sports grounds around Dulwich all (well most, anyway) rent out their pavillions for parties - great for summer events as the party can spill out into the ground - good for over-energetic 16 year-olds. But you will need to book early - they are very popular.

Were these internal doors to the flats (i.e. was their actual destructive break-in taking place inside the house or from the street - or garden?)

The Co-op is applying for these extensions not (necessarily) because they wish and desire to use them to their limits, but to give them the opportunity to market-test extended opening - if the customers want it, they will keep it, if they don't, they will revert to current practice - Sainsbury's in DKH could have opened 24/7 Monday-Saturday - tried it and found it wasn't economic. If their only late night customer base is roaring disruptive drunks (normally costing more than they're worth to serve) - which appears to be a fear in this thread, then they probably won't bother. If they can get existing staff to work longer hours they will, if they can't they will have to employ other people or raise wages. In the long run the market works as a very efficient system (if you put in some safeguards, very much as back-stops) - trying to second guess it with social engineering or command economy tactics normally is ineffective, and frequently has unintended consequences.