Penguin68

So, if this report is true, the certainty expressed here that it was definitely an attempted abduction because Heber said so.....?

We do not know that they had never 'met' - there are children who live round me that I recognise - and (current climate of course notwithstanding) might have offered a lift to if I saw them walking, perhaps with a heavy bag. Nowadays they would be quite right not to accept that lift. I am sure that everyone's suspicions here are reasonable, in the sense that there was a possible danger; but what I am saying is that, apart from a refused offer of a lift, nothing actually happened. It is of course, as has been mentioned elsewhere on this thread, a real tragedy that the concept of an 'innocent' offer of a lift is no longer possible to contemplate. When a helping hand is automatically assumed to be an abusing hand, we have really got ouselves into quite a nasty place.

Once again, the only thing that appears to have happened is that a boy was offered a lift and refused it - other than an uncorroborated statement by the school, which, I suggest, arises from an inference made about the lift offer, there is no report of any abduction that I have read, or attempted abduction - certainly a lift, if accepted, could have become an abduction, but unless there are reports of attempts to manhandle a boy into a car, or to grab him from a car, then all we have for certain is the offer of a lift, very properly refused. If an adult woman had been offered a lift, and refused it, would we be reporting an 'attempted abduction'- or just something slighly suspicious of which to be wary? Just because Heber says its an abduction doesn't make it so. What Heber said has been properly reported here I am sure, but Heber has no lien on absolute truth. It had suspicions, it raised these with parents. Fine. But I have seen nothing of the actual incident reported which goes beyond 'lift offered; lift refused' If there is more information (rather than inference) on the incident, please share it.

henryb - you have looked here only at the 'worst case' scenario of childhood death, but I believe that similar ratios are also true of non-lethal 'abuse' whether that be physical or sexual. And probably children injured in RTAs (rather than killed) will also be a significantly large number. 'Stranger danger' is very scary, but also comparatively uncommon. Children are at far greater statistical risk in the bosom of their families, or amongst family friends (or in school or church) than they are alone in the street. In fact just warning children to be wary of strangers is like warning them to watch out for artics when they walk on the streets, but not mentioning cars.

No it's not. Heber school sent a text message that stated "a man tried to abduct a Yr 6 child" Based on the only reported incident, which is that a child was offered a lift and (sensibly) refused it. 'Attempted abduction' was an inference drawn (by someone) from the lift offer, but the only thing that actually hapened was the refused offer of a lift.

My grandparents (who were born in the 1890s) warned me of not talking to strangers! Considering the incidence of offences against children conducted by those already known to them, including those perceived most worthy of trust, such as priests, the better advice might have been not to go off with anyone where your parents had not already pre-alerted you that they would be e.g. offering you a lift. I believe stranger abuse is far less common than abuse from known adults and elder chilren. [And, despite reports, both are pretty uncommon and not increasing, as far as can be judged given less than full reporting] The suggestion made by Carbonara seems more balanced whilst still alerting parents to a possible (not proven) threat.

The only evidence put forward so far is that it is an attempted lift offer - it is certainly true that offering lifts has traditionally be seen as an entre into attempts at assault/ abduction - but offering a lift per se may be seen as a necessary but not a sufficient preliminary to such activity. Of course warning parents that there could, based on the offer of a lift, be a predetary adult about may be sensible, but it is about suspicion, not certainty. It is still quite possible that the adult involved may have recognised the child (possibly a neighbour) and have been making an entirely innocent offer of assistance (it is also true that many incidences of child assault are instigated by people who already know - and may have been grooming - the child, so the 'no lifts unless pre-arranged with a parent' rule that we instill in children is still a sound one). We must try to draw a line between reasonable caution and being alarmist. If the police do have reason to believe there is a predatory adult in our area (outwith the sole 'evidence' of the offer of a lift) then perhaps they should make this clearer.

And you had to edit that Penguin because of? Because I noticed a grammatical error

And those residents should get preference over others because of? And those residents should have others' preferences chosen over theirs because of..?

Do the keepers not have any control over how many queens there are? 4 swarms in as many days!... I assume from 4 hives - very possibly not controlled by the same beekeeper. Swarming is how you propogate (increase) the number of hives and hence honey production. If bees are increasing this is a very good sign - many hives have been in distress with varoa.

Bees swarm when the hive becomes over-crowded, and when there are new queens available - I believe the old queen leaves the hive with her followers, leaving it to a new queen. Worker bees judge when the hive is becoming over-crowded and resolve this by feeding selected larvae with 'royal jelly' to turn them into queens. Any bee (other than a male drone) carries in the egg a regal crown and sceptre, it is a special diet which allows them to grow.

Until he was caught Peter Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper) was 'secretly famous'. This may not be a good thing!

With modern communications, living anywhere in London, with a London constituency, even, god forbid, North of the River, allows a diligent MP full access to his/ her constituents and their problems. I have never heard any complaint against Tessa's commitment as a constituency MP. And she is quite correct that the varied make-up of her constituency would mean that wherever she lived (even in the consituency itself) the hard-nosed could complain that she wasn't directly experiencing 'their' take on the constituency. I would be worried by any MP who did not place his/ her own family high in their priorities - what sort of person would that make them and is that the sort of single-minded careerist I want as a consituency MP? I would, I suppose, be more concerned if a local councillor lived North of the River, but not an MP. By all means challenge Tessa on her policies and beliefs, that's entirely legitimate in politics, but her place of residence (in the light of her achieved constituency commitment) is wholly irrelevant and a red herring (and, slightly nasty in tone from some attackers).

James, I do hope you have judged this right - a lot of anti posts on this thread, but think how many were in favour of either M&S or Waitrose moving in when you floated the idea initially 18 months or so ago. You may find that being the champion anti doesn't earn you that much favour, if you succeed and block the plan. Or even if you try to block the plan and fail. It could be the CPZ all over again.

Appropriate that her honour is handed her by a Tory government. But it will be off the Labour list, and is almost certainly Olympics related.

There have been past threads on this problem - there are underground streams coming down Underhill (and a spring in the garden of one house in the 90s) - but overall it is probably a water-table problem. Very heavy rain can cause localised problems including run-off as well.

I think you will find that the answer is that expenditure is made only when there is clear evidence of e.g. accidents - even where there are fatal accidents (the junction of East Dulwich Road and Peckham Rye) things can take a lot of time to happen - where there are non fatal accidents (Underhill Junction with Barry Road) what happens does nothing to calm traffic on the 'main' road. So far what has been reported on this thread is near misses and nervousness. Won't cut the mustard, I'm afraid.

I think that the notion that commercial developers seek only to maximise profit and any balance in terms of wider interests, and the only possible brakes on this are those imposed imposed by local planning officers and us nimbys is a rather sad state of affirs, if true. There is a lot of blether about things like 'corporate social responsibility' - but in the end companies act well because customers like them to, and they do what customers like because that's how they make their money... M&S will come into ED (if it does, and if it wants to) because it thinks that people will want to come and buy stuff from them, in sufficient numbers to make it worth their while - i.e. that there is a market out there for them, with willing customers. Of course some people will not like the change, for whatever reasons - commercially they must be assuming (if they are interested) that the numbers who will welcome them will be more. There can be virtually no commercial enterprise, indeed no enterprise at all, that doesn't have its critics, people who run those enterprises make assumptions about the balance of pros and cons and act accordingly. And I would be very unhappy if I was a shareholder to be told that the people I employ to run my company weren't knowingly acting (within the law and general morality) in the company's best (long term perhaps) fiscal interests.

this is a bad 'un where the absolute focus appears to be on maximising the value of the property rather than effecting a balance between commercial interests and the quality of life of locals. It is up to planners to make those decisions, not those wanting to act commercially. Neither M&S (nor Iceland) nor the site owner are registered charities, I believe, so the fact that they wish to maximise their profits seems to be their 'job' assuming what they are doing is not illegal or immoral. The value of having an M&S store locally (and clearly, vide the past threads there is a percieved value to many) will have to be balanced against the disruption to those living closely around the site. That is what the planners (and the politicians on the planning committee) are there to determine. Many locals will consider their quality of life enhanced if an M&S store opens locally - to say that this does not impact in a positive manner the quality of life of some ED-ers (if not those living immediately adjacent to the site) is quite wrong. If you take a strictly Utilitarian (greatest good for the greatest number) approach to this - are the numbers positively effected by the proposal (because they want to shop in a local M&S store) more or less in number than those whose lives will be adversely effected - discounting the views of those not actually impacted either way but feeling they want to support one or other side for political or social reasons? Of course, you might (greatest good) want to scale the positive feelings and the negative - perhaps the amount of 'good' for those wanting the store is only a third or a fifth of intensity to the 'bad' felt (or which might be felt) by those close - but of course even those disrupted by deliveries may still take benefit from the presence of the store...? By the way, those preferring Iceland to M&S don't count here, as that is not the choice the planners will have to make.

as the water table falls as a result of abstraction for drinking water etc Outwith current issues of drought, the London water table has in fact been rising in recent years as major water extractors for e.g. industry and brewing have closed/ moved away. Forum posts in (recently) past years have been about cellars and basements starting to flood and be water damaged. It is often the removal of trees that can cause (slight) structural damage, as water is not taken up by the treees leading to local water-logging and movement. It really does depend where the trees are in relationship to the house - in hilly ED a tree up the hill may well have roots which are interfering with the house (and services) - downhill and it is most likely the roots will be too far down compared with the house foundations to cause much damage. Shallow rooted trees like birches also have quite weak root systems. Cypruses (which are what leylandi are) have quite deep root systems, but if uphill from a house could cause problems. Older (Edwardian and back) houses are sort-of built to move a bit, their construction is quite forgiving. More modern houses are often built in a more rigid way - while their foundations will be much better they can be temperamental. Finally loft-work etc. can place new strains on house structures.

This may explain it http://www.helifix.co.uk/products/remedial-products/helibar/ Once cracking starts it can move around to points of weakness - stablilise the source of the problem and the other areas are less likely to worsen - hence maybe the suggestion that it is the front of the house only which needs treatment. But I would get that properly checked.

Ice cream vans plying their trade at odd times when people wouldn't normally be out buying ice creams, are often not selling ice creams - wet Sunday evening in - ideal - or is that i deal?

Iceland is a very profitable company where sales were up by 15% compared to 2.5% by M&S food. Furthermore, Iceland was bought by their management. Given its profitability and cash reserves of ?150m they're well placed for expansion and acquisitions. This isn't about Iceland as an expanding company, this is about whether Iceland sees its Lordship Lane site as a good continuing investment. See my earlier posts, but every site is examined to see whether it's optimal for the company leasing it. Of course, it is possible that the site owner, together with M&S, is flying a development kite, and that Iceland is keeping its powder dry, hoping the plan will be turned down and Iceland will be left as the only game in town (and with bargaining power) and that's what the 'keep Iceland' brigade must be hoping as well. But is is also very possible that Iceland considers other sites will give it a better long-term return and isn't interested in renewing the lease. My guess is that it will have been given the first option so to do, if only because continuity is better for the landlord than a gap in rental income, unless they can get a new leaseholder to co-fund development.

Once again, the choice may be between M&S and an empty shop - if Iceland no longer sees a good business case for it to stay in Lordship Lane. This isn't a referendum, it is a planning application. The planners cannot force Iceland to renew its lease if it doesn't want to. The ground landlord clearly wants a more economically rewarding use of the site - probably the M&S planning application (which would grow the shop footprint) had as its quid pro quo the apartment development - you won't get that if the shop isn't developed as well, I would guess. We have the chance to bring reasons against the development, sure, but we have no other say over how, or if, the site is used, or by whom. We can only 'retain things that make East Dulwich special' by buying them up and keeping them, possibly uneconomically. Spare cash available, anyone?

Last night in a bus close to Elephant the driver accelerated and hooted wildly at a (very overweight) white late teenager (girl) crossing the road in front of him, causing her to race for safety onto a traffic island, which she just made - the (mainly also overweight and black) passengers on the bus laughed and cheered. I report the colour of the protaganists because it seemed relevant. All good heat-wave fun!