Penguin68

oh for goodness sake, it was a throw-away remark by an activist depressed about what he saw as an outcome of a flawed selection process for mayoral candidate, it was not a conclusion drawn from a 1000 respondent survey or a doctoral thesis. And, considering it was activists who were disproportionately tee'd off with Ken I would guess it was about overall personality as judged by working with him and not just a single specific such as the tax issue (which might have influenced others, of course).

Penguin, do you mean that the Labour people you were speaking to said there was a contingent of them not voting for Ken because of his personality? Please explain. I was talking to a (senior) Labour activist who told me that their own findings in London had shown that 5% of Labour party members in London would not vote for Ken, which rose to 15% when Labour party activists and workers were questioned. Clearly no formal poll had taken place, this was purely anecdotal, but it reflected (seemed to reflect) real Labour problems with Ken as candidate. We will know in only a few hours, but if Ken's share of the vote is significantly less than that of Labour candidates for the Assembly it might be a pointer to the truth of that (though, obviously, figues will not identify Labour party members voting records, let alone those of activists). And yes, it was his personality which was being questioned.

There was also a very low national turn-out - just over 30% I believe - don't know what the London figures are - but the disenchanted often stay out of the polling booths in local elections but still 'forgive' their party at national elections - whereas those voting 'against' the national government (to send a message) are more likely to turn out. This may be particularly true in London, where (outwith the Mayor issue) most of us feel fairly remote from the London Assembly. London will be interesting, with personality (possibly) counting more than party regarding the run for Mayor. Speaking very recently to a (Labour) activist (and former parliamentary candidate) I was told that the 'anti-Ken' vote was running at 5% for labour party members rising to 15% for labour activists and party workers!

Most practices have an electronic database of patients. That database can be searched to throw up all patient records which haven't been changed (perhaps accessed) for 2 years - i.e. nothing written in to them by doctors/ practice nurses etc.. I assume that this list of innactive database records can then be checked against the manual records to look for any manual (but not electronic) data entry. Patients with records which have had no amendments for 2 years are then written to to confirm they are still at their listed addresses/ registered with the practice. The search can simply be on activity (unspecified) - which means that searchers at least initially only need very top level access to databases to sort and filter. They normally wouldn't need to see specific records, just access dates for those records. Back in the day when I was a younger penguin I could go several years without bothering a doctor, so there must have been occasions when I was 2 years and more without record update - nowadays this is no longer so (anno domini). But in those days records were all manually recorded and kept in those brown envelope files. Much more difficult to run a search on.

One aspect of vehicular access is about fire-engines etc. Clearly if fire-engines cannot access a property the mortgage company's risk is much higher - although since they can (and do) require buildings insurance of their mortgagees their investment should be protected. There may also be an issue of how they calculate the value of a property - if they assume a standard value based on size etc. and then reduce it by a fixed %age factor for non-access then they may not have factored in e.g. unique design (you say your property is a one-off) or even the fact that the estate-agents' valuations may already have factored in non-access, and then perhaps increased valuation over standard because of other positive aspects. Finding out how the estate agents valued it, and what they took into account, might be a starting point. Lenders are anyway very nervy nowadays because of the poor lending decisions they made in the past.

Renata Despite the fact that we are living through the wettest drought since records began, I assume that the new trees to be planted will avoid those native British species (i.e beech) most susceptible to drought conditions in those parts of the cemetery which are not normally water-logged (i.e. the boggy bits along the Langton Rise border). Are there disease resistant chestnut and elm that can be planted. Will there be more London Plane trees?

Good points - remember that thieves are opportunists - if they can find tools for B & E on site they don't have to risk carrying those about with them. That's why sheds are often hit first, their security if often weak and they may have tools/ ladders which enable greater thievery. Padlock ladders in particular - first floor entry is frequently easier than ground floor, weaker/ no locks, windows left slightly open etc.

I think there has been a proposal that if there is a planning application made 'green' measures could be forced on the applicant - you shouldn't need planning for new windows (unless you are in some types of conservation area or your house is listed) or boilers at all. I don't believe this is yet planning law.

When sending Data Packages can Stored and Resent. You will see this when downloading large pictures. the picture will build up slowly. I watch streamed video on my mobile and that will be even easier via G4 - it is true that if you are using more limited bandwidth options that can make picture download slowly - but many people are now using higher speed connections - these inevitably hold more bandwidth. Voice (which is now actually packetised as well over IP systems) is dramatically pared back (high and low frequencies are filtered out) making 'continuous' voice calls quite light consumers of bandwidth. The old 'always open' circuit for switched voice calls (as opposed to packet data switching) is a thing of the past - most transmissions systems use IP backbones. You no longer measure usage in erlangs but in Mbts.

The higher the planned or anticipated traffic density the smaller the cells (micro-cells) - and thus the more hand-overs between cells for a moving call, and the greater likelihood for signal loss (through contention) for those not connected. Micro-cell towers also broadcast at lower signal strengths (because they have less far to hold calls before hand-overs). Signal loss is typical just below the brow of a hill, when the microwave 'beam' hasn't had the opportunity to spread out (curiously this often means that the towers are relatively close to where you have lost signal). Problems of connection are exacerbated when data connectivity is required - even though signals are packetised they can be much more demanding on bandwidth than voice. In fact capacity of existing systens is reduced the more data is sent. As people increasingly use smart-phones as data hubs this problem exacerbates. The release of the analogue TV bandwidths is meant to ameliorate this with G4 services. Eventually. Local authority and planning rules (and simple unavailability of suitable sites) mean that carriers cannot (sometimes) errect as many cell towers as they would ideally like to match traffic.

The problem for all mobiles is hills, we have quite steep ones around ED which means that, when you are relatively close to transmitters, but out of line-of-sight (below the crest of a hill etc.) you can lose or get poor reception. Additionally cells are programmed to try to keep conversations going, so when one cell hands over to another for an ongoing conversation, if it has too few circuits to manage this hand-over it will 'remove' connection from a phone not currently in active use - so sometimes you seem to lose signal in places you previously had it. I am under a brow of a hill, so I often only get (Vod) signal on upper floors (but not always). Atmospheric conditions can also effect signal attenuation. Two places I often lose signal (even during conversations) are on Dog Kennel Hill and Sydenham Hill - in each case I believe that is a line-of-sight issue.

Razors forgive me for sounding rude but who are you (in relation to the local community) that residents of Chesterfield Grove feel it appropriate to address you with the issue of the car wash in the street? I think you will find that Razors is actually quoting James who was being consulted by residents - the embedded system of 'quoting' content when it has already been quoted can confuse?

The ideal way for this thread to work would be that users would ONLY make their initial report of a crime on this - with any comments, notes of sympathy, discussion etc. posted to another thread. That way this thread would sink down the list during 'quiet' times and only rise to the top when a new crime was reported. Even better would be two threads, one for crime about property, and one crime which involved injury or attack on people. That way regular readers would be getting a 'crime thermometer'. And simple comments and words of sympathy wouldn't keep the apparent incidence at the top of the listing. But I don't think we can expect such an orderly approach from forum-ites - and indeed those new to the forum wouldn't necessarily have any idea of such a convention.

I don't know, you wait all day for a post about a bus crash, then two come along together...

Last night around 9:30 (28th March) the junction of Barry and Underhill was once again sealed off as police dealt with the aftermath of an accident, this time (as has happened in the past) apparently involving a bus. The road is open again this morning. I have no idea of the details or cause (and I hope that there weren't any or any serious injuries) but (for new readers) accidents on this spot have been being regularly reported over years - and were themselves the cause of a number of changes to these roads, narrowing the entries into and out of Underhill and raising platforms there. The accidents keep on happening. Despite regular protestations to the contrary, the visibilty for those trying to cross Barry, and the speeds of vehicles proceeding along Barry, have anecdotally often been seen as the cause of accidents and near accidents there. Nothing much, despite the changes to Underhill, really appears to have changed as far as safety at this junction is concerned.

And the whole "it's ok to pick daffodils because they are cheap" reflects badly upon society. I don't believe anyone has said that - one person said something which was interpreted as being that by someone, but others did not read it that way at all. And, once again, nobody is owed a living just because they are long established and local. If you can't raise sufficient revenues from your old customers to continue in business you have three choices - change your offer to meeet the needs of the new customers, stop trading or move to somewhere where the demographic you want to serve is still a viable customer base. I know its tough for the residual (no longer commercially sustainable) customer base to see 'their' shops or eateries closing - their choice is to spend more there themselves to keep them profitable, or to accept that change happens. Getting grumpy or chippy about incomers is simply a rather sad case of sour grapes.

but if you're in a public place there's no law being broken if a complete stranger takes your photograph Open season on snapping kiddies then...and nothing anyone on the forum can (legally) do about it, apparently. Actually, it's strange that you can photograph anyone in a public place (and that's right, you can) but you can be arrested for photographing a station or a public building or a bridge (from a public place) under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Indeed, you could be arrested if in photographing a person (legally) a building was in the background.

The price of daffs this time of year is practically free! It's like stealing penny sweets. I had thought the point being made here was that the objects being stolen were of little monetary value - and therefore that there would be no need to steal what could be so easily legitimately purchased - not that the little value meant that it was OK to steal them. Theft is wrong, theft of something of no value is wrong and pointless. But maybe other posters are reading it right.

It was a decent independently owned restaurant, but because it didn't 'fit in' with te image the new middle class residents wanted to promote of ED, it failed to survive the onslaught of drastically changing trends. Like many of the peculiarities of middle class folk, they pick and choose which 'indy' shops fit in with their remit, and equally re same with chain stores/restaurants. A real shame, a real local business. But oh well, as long we have gourmet burgers and organic cat litter who cares eh? Long live Clapham! Or to put it another way - it failed to meet, or perhaps to communicate it was meeting, customer needs. That's a failure of marketing (marketeers identify customer needs and design products and services to meet those needs, or communicate effectively that they have got such products and services). No business is 'owed' a living just because it, in the past, did its job well. If it wanted to continue trading it should have changed to meet its customer needs - it was no longer occupying a commercial position. Lots of non cat litter and burger businesses do survive, indeed do well, in E. Dulwich. Local is of no use if it isn't good as well. Or do you subscribe to supporting bad local businesses? I certainly don't (a bad business is one that doesn't meet customer needs at a 'market' price).

It is entirely appropriate if you consider that someone is acting suspiciously to notify those competent to come to a considered judgement about this; clearly others too had a concern. However we should be wary of ourselves leaping to conclusions (as opposed to suspicions) without clear evidence. We are increasingly being sensitised to treat others with suspicion, and to assume the possibility of the worst of motives. There are people out there who are odd, or different, or ?look? threatening but in fact are not a threat to anyone (except, sadly, sometimes, to themselves). Raising a concern is good; coming to premature conclusions (and then, in some cases, though evidently not this, acting on them) is how ?innocent? people ? crippled, mentally ill, physically ill sometimes, end up being beaten up and injured. Even, recent cases would suggest, informed people such as the police cannot distinguish between someone who is threatening and dangerous and someone with autism. Be wary, absolutely yes, but avoid being judgemental in the absence of clear facts or knowledge. Alert others to the possibility of a problem, yes, but don't start a witch-hunt (which I don't believe the OP was in any way trying to do)

If you are being attacked and use your car to defend yourself then it's clearly self defence. The defence is one of proportionality - so I do not think Mr Barber is right in giving this unequivocal advice. Is a (perhaps) 2 ton car a proportionate weapon against a hammer? There is no doubt that damage to an attacker caused by your car when you were trying to escape him (i.e. damage consequential on a legitimate attempt to escape) would be very likely to be considered either accidental or proportionate - chasing a criminal who had attacked you in your car and pinning him fatally to a wall would be a much mooter point. The movement from 'defence' to 'attack as a method of defence' is a difficult area - in another sphere entirely the Americans and Israelis have initiated attacks on individuals or locations on the basis of those attacks being ultimately defensive in nature - not everyone agrees with this.

A CPZ survey delivered through interpretive dance - that hits all the right buttons.

The solar flares are only due to hit us this afternoon/ evening. They (BBC radio news) are reporting that oop north there may be a view of Northern Lights.

Its for Rich posh people isnt it? And your point would be..?

In many ways this is as startling naive as any ED thread. 'We asked everyone whether they wanted stuff, and they said yes, so everyone's in favour' - well of course, who wouldn't say yes to an unconstrained 'do you want things to get better?' As we don't have unlimited resources the questions needs to be - do you want stuff if it means giving other stuff up? For every 1% extension to a bus route, the bus frequency at any one stop reduces by 2% - assuming no additional buses are put onto the route. Each aditional bus that is put on the route has fixed additional (capital) costs and variable running costs - so the additional fares needed to pay for extensions to routes, assuming you deploy additional resource - must cover both the variable and the fixed costs. Most people do not want to reduce bus frequency (on routes they use) - so extending bus routes almost always requires additional buses to maintain frequency. So, to pay for this, additional fares have to be earned - or additional subsidy has to be generated through taxes. Every choice has consequences - and yet people who were given an option that didn't include those consequences can be quoted as being 'in favour'. There is a proper set of trade-off research techniques which could have been used to generate real responses, where consequecnes were understood and factored in, but these are expensive to administer and to number-crunch, so 'I talked to lots of people on the door and they all wanted stuff' will do as a substitute. Or not.