Penguin68

I think you can find out insurance status on the DVL site - but not necessarily the name of the insurance company. However, as a scammer (as opposed to a genuine accident victim) taking the case up with the police might not be a first port of call. The very fact that, as described, a 'quite fortuitous' 3rd party record of the incident may exist might suggest some problems with the veracity of the incident, together with proof of ownership of the moped, driving licence etc might discourage the scammer from pursuing this. They operate on a blackmail basis, and bringing in the authorities to support such an action may be self defeating. My original suggestion was, of course, tongue-in-cheek - but if you believe that you've been a victim of a scam I wouldn't hold back or try to be a good citizen. Of course claiming you are uninsured is an offence (you are meant to exchange insurance details) but believing you are a victim of an Insurance scam may be a defense. Victims of crime are allowed to defend themselves.

Or you could tell the con-merchant that you're an uninsured driver, and to go whistle...

When I first moved to ED, Lordship Lane was a dump, too many second hand pram shops and faded grandeur - in the last 35+ years it has massively improved to being a retail and eating destination - badly let down by the poor quality of the pedestrian infrastructure as described by rch (and welcome back to these pages). Only a little extra expenditure (and following good advice) to do the job properly and not skimping on preparation could have made such a difference (and been an investment which actually saved money long-term).

2 million people are reported as attending this 2 day event, so probably 1 million a day including Notting Hill residents. Currently 8 stabbings and 334 arrests are being reported over the two days. The run rate for a population of 20,000 at that rate would be 7 arrests a day and no stabbings (less than 0.5) over the 2 days. The police presence to make those arrests in ED over 2 days is negligible, and not the thousands for the Carnival. So probably in fact no arrests either.

These people 'earn' money for the council by fining all who use our shops etc. and who can be fined - there's nothing in it for the council repairing roads and pavements. Additionally shop owners frequently also own some of the pavement area in front of their shops - so not all of the puddles will be on common property. We in 'the Dulwich's' are a cash-cow for Southwark, but 'they' have little interest in spending money on us (except for in Dulwich Village to support their traffic ideas). I suspect a lot of resurfacing in Lordship Lane could have been paid for with the monies squandered in DV.

And troll feeds troll...

It's not worth printing smaller ones...

As the man is reported by the police as being sought by the police I suspect they actually are responding to it. And would presumably like evidence they could take to court.

No, of course not - and the CCTV footage will help in any conviction - but if there is other graffiti which is of a similar criminal nature using the same ink this will support further convictions (or further cases being taken into account) as regards sentencing where it can be shown that he has access to, or has used, these inks in the past. Circumstantial, of course, but that is acceptable evidence to offer to a jury, together with graphologist evidence possibly as an expert witness. My point is simply that in the case of a serious crime, as this would be, destroying evidence before it can be assessed and recorded forensically is extremely poor practice. If it is so offensive to read then covering it up (a sheet across the graffito fixed so as not to disturb the evidence) would be acceptable.

Where the graffito is an offense, the author of which which may be prosecuted for the message itself, as a hate crime, (rather than simple vandalism) then removing that evidence is deeply unhelpful. Much graffiti is simply messy or rude and can be removed or painted over of course. If you want to prove authorship for a much more serious offence than vandalism then the materials used may be relevant, where there is no other evidence of authorship.

The graffiti is evidence, it shouldn't be cleaned until it is forensically recorded. Not just what it says but the materials used etc.

Horizon is a repurposed Fujitsu/ ICL accounting application from a bespoke proprietary package (and badly designed) - there would be no common application code between it and anything the Royal Mail would use. As reported it does not appear to have been a comms failure. It will be wholly unrelated to any Royal Mail e-mail notification of non delivery (as described above). The well documented failures of Royal Mail to deliver post in SE22 has nothing to do with the way Post and sub-Post Offices are managed or their specific accountancy systems, nor the frequent lies by delivery agents employed by Royal Mail or other carriers about delivery failures..

If the tower you are relying on is lower than you, then you may still not have line of sight to the transmitter, the microwave beams are still directional. They tend to beam out and down, and not up, for obvious reasons.

In this case it's the Horizon system which had failed. This is a sub post office and post office transaction system, not used at all by the Royal Mail.

Or, if they are in private vehicles, not.

You should also note that local topology (hills and valleys) causes problems where line-of-site is an issue (as it is with microwave transmission). You need more masts for a given area to give good coverage where there are hills. More needs for masts give more opportunity for nimbyists to complain. Add to this exaggerated and false health complaints and fears about microwave radiation, particularly as regards closeness to schools and you get unnecessary blocking. Microwaves are a health concern for those actually working on towers, but the whole point about cell technology is that by using a lot of (micro) cells you can allow the microwave radiation to attenuate very quickly away from the masts, offering virtually no health concerns to anyone not actually working on a tower. Additionally, for 5G transmission you need many more masts than for 4G to achieve necessary coverage and speed. And these are not cheap. I should add that each cell only has a limited channel capacity - the more demand the more likely that, for those travelling, there won't be capacity in the 'next' cell - so coverage appears patchy even where the cell operator believes that it offers coverage in that area. Even though the cells are served by high capacity fibre connexions and switched through IP, demand will still cause service availability dips.

Could someone tell me (ideally those living locally to ED) what definition of 'super flat' she is working to? Or indeed someone in Highgate or Hampstead? Or maybe it is her definition of 'London' that needs an explanation. So glad someone so expert in topology or geography is a transport minister. Fills me chock full of confidence we will have informed governance.

The post office and the mail delivery arms are now entirely separate businesses, and have been for many years.

This smacks of US strike-breaking methods. I wonder who is advising the outsourcing company? Is it American?

The hygienist will have been rewarded for upselling, possibly on a %age basis. Not I think the most acceptable practice in a quasi health context. But increasingly the norm, I'm afraid, and particularly where looks and not (just) health are being sold.

The only evidence to that is to the contrary. Any consultation or polling done has not shown majority support for these imposed changes, even in some of the streets 'benefited', and I use that word quite wrongly.

It looks like your lighting circuit has blown. Check the fuse box. A dodgy bulb blowing can trigger your circuit breaker, which is a safety device. If it's over sensitive it can be triggered by a blown bulb.

Existed as dirt roads maybe in ED, but as paved roads with pavements here not until the advent of motor vehicles, I think you'll find. As far as paved and user friendly roads in the suburbs it was cars wot done it.

You are right, the Southwark Labour Party manifesto I think 2 elections ago, but it might have been 3, only declared that it wanted to drive out privately owned cars from Southwark. Private ownership of anything is of course anathema to a certain part of the socialist universe, including those who have only recently withdrawn 'Marxist' from their personal description. And, yes, their hatred of privately owned cars and their reliance on revenues derived from the same does show a lack of consistency and common sense.

This appears to be the update that some posters may have missed.