Penguin68

But, I think you'll find, a tradition of apartment living rather than extended suburbs - the point I am making is not about absolute density but about where populations and cars are to be found - the leafy suburban roads of Dulwich, for instance, offer low rise housing with lots of cars and people - but the roads are not so congested that their topology forces low speeds (as it does, for instance, in the City - during working house probably one of the most densly 'populated' parts of London). In the Netherlands you tend to have compact, highly densely occupied towns, where people live in apartments (and don't need cars to get anywhere local) and then countryside, with relatively low population density and cars driving on natioanl roads, with fewer local roads around estates. In most Dutch (and other European towns) you can easily walk from one side to another, from countyside to countryside. I have walked across Paris, and Rome. Even quite small English towns (Oxford, York) are now quite a challenge to walk across from open fields to open fields, with lots of suburban estates full of cars and people.

I think there is a study worth doing in comparative road densities. I suspect that in many countries you either have very light density (few pedestrians/ few cars ? think of rural France, where the population areas, when you come to them, are small villages and towns with many crossings and few pedestrians) or very heavy car and pedestrian density (city centres, high pedestrian and car population but restricted roads and road speeds ? because of congestion ? and hence impacts are normally low speed). The UK (which is anyway pretty densely populated) has a lot of suburban development ? which includes suburban streets where traffic flows (relatively) freely but which also has quite a high number of pedestrians ? so you get the ?worse possible? situation ? high levels of cars travelling quite quickly coming into contact (sic) with high levels of pedestrian traffic. UK towns have a wide circle of development around them ? this matches a UK desire for houses rather than an apartments ? but in order to get in and out of them you need cars - which you don?t living in much smaller European cities in apartments where car ownership itself is less ?useful?. So if UK pedestrian accidents are higher than elsewhere, and death rate higher as well, this isn?t that surprising and reflects local geo-demographic conditions rather than drivers who are ?worse/ more careless? than Europeans.

With Forest Hill I have only had that sort of wait to see a specific and named doctor (which isn't a surprise). I have seen 'any available' next day - current day for something which appears urgent.

I am afraid their mal-adminstration doesn't trump your intent to defraud. If you had paid anything towards your card and they had cashed that payment then you might have had a better case (at least in mitigation) but, in practice your best position would have been to have paid but kept record of the payment and asked for a refund based on their failure to process your card application properly (had they done so you wouldn't have incurred the cost you are reclaiming). But that is very much after the event. As this is a summary on-the-spot fine you shouldn't (probably) pick up a criminal record - get it out of the way quickly would be my advice.

In the summer I had a mob (12-17) of sparrows that visited my bird feeders - by autumn it was down to 3-4 and now I hardly see one, although tits, a robin and nuthatches? still visit daily. I only rarely see the green parrots (they swing over the garden in a group of about 6, on occasion) and no evidence of them interacting with my regular small garden birds. Magpies are always about however.

He also revealed that Goose Green roundabout defies highway planners by having an unprecedented low collission rate. The roundabout area is (and will be after any change) very small, with feeder roads close to each other and with traffic which is anyway generally slower moving (because of the volume of traffic and the road widths and crossings approaching the roundabout - these aren't being changed). I would be very surprised if circulating speeds around the roundabout go above what is now (for daytime) their normal (relatively slow) maximum, what will be changed is that this maximum will be more frequently achieved. As pedestrian crossings do not look as if they are being altered, approaching these causes vehicles to slow/ stop anyway, outwith entry to a roundabout, so speed into the roundabout is normally already reduced - what this may encourage is a better (but by no means actually fast) speed through and out of the roundabout. The slight widening of the roadways will tend to avoid scrapes going round the circuit. Any changes will not stop (or encourage) idiots and drunks of course, that requires education. The increased width should benefit (slightly) cyclists, giving them more road. Overall I would suggest that the positive 'good' collision rate is a function of the overall size and layout of the circuit, with traffic entering always slowly and with good visibility and awareness of other users - it's just too small to get any speed up anyway, which means traffic has much more chance of (time for) taking avoiding action where danger threatens.

The arc of the roundabout opposite Spurling Road is often damaged - it is a narrow passage for large lorries/ buses to negotiate - I suspect, as is stated, that the plan to reduce the diameter will avoid constant repair bills for that. James' 'very occasionally' is actually, in my experience, about 4 times a year or more. Additionally this will allow more readily two streams of traffic in that corner, one continuing down Lordship Lane, and frequently halted currently by road works and in future by crossing points, the other exiting East Dulwich Road to continue up Grove Vale towards Dog Kennel Hill. Recently that has become a real bottleneck (and yes, oh anti-car folk, that is an issue as stationary and queueing traffic adds to localised pollution). On balance, I am thus in favour of this. Traffic passing through ED more quickly will reduce pollution associated with idleing engines - there is absolutely nothing to suggest (pace Mr Barber's comment) that this will lead to more traffic absolutely, just more of the traffic we already have not caught in queues of traffic. I find it interesting that Mr Barber sees it as beneficial for ED to have stationary traffic puffing out exhaust fumes near schools, and for local people and visitors to be inconvenienced - there is here no trade-off (one person's good is another's dismay) - but strong evidence of a clear anti-car (and indeed anti any form of mechanised transport) bias. An attitude of 'if it's good for drivers, it must be bad' does't wash - and 'if it helps people visiting or passing through ED it must be bad' doesn't either. 'Local Roads for Local People' - we live in East Dulwich, not Royston Vasey.

There were bangs which were assumed at the time to be gun shots - quite possibly a starting pistol - the fact that there has been so little in the news etc. suggests that this may not have been live ammuninition - when that is used the police tend to cordon off for some considerable time afterwards for forensics etc.

It is a scam - be careful that you have not run software which could have put your computer at risk - they also try to plant Trojans on you in this manner. If you have downloaded anything at his request, your computer is almost certainly now at risk.

If your computer is a desk-top then it is possible that the grill which allows air circulation has become blocked with dust/ fluff - that can be simply cleaned out by you if you isolate the console from the mains, open it and clear out the dust. You can also check if the fan is operating properly (or at all) by listening for it. If you have an over-heating laptop then disconnect it from the mains - some laptops have had a battery problem which has resulted in fires (a friend had the top half of his house gutted by fire this way). You shouldn't use laptops on your lap (yes, I know that sounds silly) for any length of time as this can lead to over heating if there is poor air circulation. Make sure that you don't have a heater or radiator close to your machine. Different computer engineers will charge differently - an initial charge of ?20-?40 for diagnosis doesn't seem unreasonable - it could easily take an hour of testing if it isn't something obvious like dust - as they will have to fire up the computer and run it to see the event. - Is the charge for a home visit or taking it in to a repair centre?

It may just be a coincidence, but following a series of successful trappings I installed those electronic disrupters (not the ones that just send out a beam of ultrasound, but also set up a disturance in the electrical circuit itself - I think its an annoying (for mice) humming) - you need one for each ring main (normally in a two story house the upstairs and downstairs mains will be separated, in a flat there is likely to be just one. This seems to have kept mice away. [Don't try this if you keep e.g. hamsters] Wood mice (light underbellies) do come into houses, but prefer the outside, house mice (grey all over) do what it says on the tin. Live trapping and release tends not to work, unless you release them a long way away, as they just come back. Make sure all food is in sealed boxes - but mice can go a long time without food. And they will want to come in in this weather. If you do find holes, you can block them with wire wool (mice don't like biting through that) - gaffer tape it in - make sure you air bricks aren't broken. If you can put a pencil through any gap, then mice can get through as well. The problem with poison is that mice can die in awkward places, smell and become maggot infested (see an earlier thread for the consequences of that). But if all else fails.... If you have a friend with a proven mouser it can be worth asking to borrow that, but not all cats are effective or a deterrent.

Meter reading is contracted out to readers who look at meters in an area; they often carry id from the dominant supplier - as edf is in London - so probably the man saying he was from edf was a kosher meter reader and was just 'guessing' who your supplier was - the infrastructure which runs into your property will be edf's (i.e. they bought the distribution network in the areas they initially supplied, in your case the old LEB infrastructure) - you are now buying supply from another supplier, but it is still being delivered over old LEB wires 'owned' now by edf. I doubt very much whether you are being visited by a regular once-a-year burglar re-casing your joint, or an edf salesman. It is a legal requirement that every property is visited at least once a year for a 'live' reading rather than relying just on estimated usage. As 'dominant' supplier locally edf will arrange that. It would be hugely inefficient just to send a dedicated OVO reader to OVO supplied properties. The service operatives of your supplier probably have no idea (where you live) what the local meter reading arrangments are.

The cold snap may have brought them in - they are very possibly blow-flies - which means that you may have a corpse somewhere close - fox? rat?

this would never happen under female rule But it could http://www.shewee.com/products/Shewee-Extreme.html

I believe that Barry has now moved roles, so he probably doesn't check this site any more. You could try PM'ing him, but if you want to speak to him in the role he had on this board, that's probably too late.

I think this is about aesthetic pollution, not physical pollution. The government doesn't have any taste, nor do they require local authorities to have any. [This is outwith planning issues covering listed or otherwise protected areas, where it is not so much an issue of taste as of fixed rules about preservation of an area's style, however tasteful or not it is.]

And I think urine does colour with age. It's actually used (was used) for fixing dyes - maybe we have a local craft dyer operating in ED?

Councillor Hilton I wouldn't worry that there appears to be a lack of comprehension on this thread - there are a number of people posting who have very fixed, indeed immutable, views which are mutually irreconcilable. Many of us have boxed ourselves into ideological corners where a change of opinion would be a loss of face. Which is why this thread still has people fighting battles in a war which is now ended.

that we had a european guy nock the door, my grand mother answered, he claimed he come to fix a car batterie, The garage in Hindemans Road employs a young eastern european mechanic - quite tall, light haired, very nice (and competent) guy, in his early twenties - in the past the garage has sent someone out to sort out my car battery (they now fail catastophically, rather then giving hints about getting old as they did in the past so that you had time to get them replaced). So it is possible that the caller was genuine, but had called at the wrong house.

wrong address for the local crack-house - possibly entirely wrong street!

Penguin68 old man, you don't want to believe anything that doesn't give you what you want. No, I don't want to be called a cretin and off my tits because I have the temerity to disagree with your points of view. You disagree with mine, but I am prepared to debate, not name call. Evidently it is you who respond like a spoiled child when people disagree with you.

If, like Penguin68, you still think they're a great idea and we should knock down more buildings to make more space for cars, you're quite simply off your tits. A cretin. Huguenot - that's frankly offensive, and on a number of different levels. And I did not suggest, anywhere, at any time, knocking down buildings to make more space for cars. Perhaps you could choose to troll some other community website from your eyrie in Singapore. And I very much doubt your claim that 50% of the space in London is dedicated to cars. There are very few places, for instance, where the roads are as wide as the adjacent land - forgeting for one instant the multitude of parks and public land throughout London.

I don't think that the LD councillors were initiators of the strange zone, which had something to do, it was claimed, with TFL who were funding the consultation, or even the rules regarding consultation, but at least one of them very clearly supported and argued in favour of them. Most agreed there was no parking logic to the zone chosen, so one does look for other drivers.

A shame there is no way of making the congestion free status only work for those without a second car The point about congestion charging is to reduce the negative impact of cars in Central London - that clearly includes the environmental impact of exhaust gases. If you are using an electric car in Central London you are thus contributing to cleaner air and that's why you don't pay the charge. And what's wrong with making car ownership easier? - are we taking some moral anti-car, anti people with cars stance here?

I'm not sure how introducing a CPZ constitutes altering electoral boundaries The gerrymandering reference was (a) to the slightly weird shape of the proposed CPZ itself - which excluded some roads close to ED station - and (b) to the roads which were being polled as to their views, excluding roads which would have been impacted by a CPZ while giving CPZ proposed raods an option to consider the impact on them of another road close being CPZ-ed.