Penguin68

A number of assertions have been made here which may be worth addressing. (1) Although the majority of high quality greengrocers in London may well source from New Covent Garden there are in that market multiple traders offering different varieties, quality and prices for produce. Most supermarkets actually buy direct from producers, or from wholesalers much larger than New Covent Garden traders. (2) What Bora and Sons offer is a far wider variety of produce than most greengrocers - their pricing includes the cost of supply, of storage and of loss - the more you stock the more unsold and unsaleable stock you may end up with. This has to be costed in their prices. Their offer of a very wide variety of different produce is a benefit to their customers, but that benefit comes with a cost. Those customers who do want a wide choice (and in the main it is wide and of good quality) should be prepared to pay for it - those who just want cheap fruit and veg will choose an outlet that de-risks by offering little choice. (3) With such a wide variety of 'loose' choices within specific product groups (say tomatoes) it may not be surprising that occasionally the wrong price is rung up in error. Customers do need to keep on eye on this - but I suspect it will normally be simple error and not any intention to defraud.

BA Transfers have always been very reliable for us (and it's not just BA) https://www.batransfer.com/

Why would anyone vote for an individual standing for Parliament on what is essentially a local issue - even if he is trying to make a national point, apparently? LTN implementation may have been flawed in Dulwich, but that doesn't mean that is is universally flawed as a concept (numbers of LTNs across the country haven't been objected to, although some clearly have) - his remedy, to make local traffic rules a matter for national government is wholly disproportionate, of course. What is extraordinary is that as many as nearly 300 people were prepared to throw their vote away - which actually suggests to me that it is an important issue locally - 300 voters prepared to register such a futile objection (futile in it's likely effect) does suggest some strength of feeling. Maybe if more people voted on local issues on local elections (rather than using a local vote to make a national point, which apparently has been the case most recently) we'd get better local government.

If anything it just suggests that EDF 'members' are very broadly representative of participative electors in ED, remembering that they are drawn from a somewhat wider universe. But it might mean that another 'political' poll on the forum might, just might, be broadly representative of more general ED political views.

Although the most common causes of damp tend to be (1) condensation or (2) leaking pipes or gutters etc there are also issues, including locally, of rising water tables. However the comprehensive nature of your problem does suggest that you might have a leaking water pipe entering the building (or worse a drainage pipe). That could account for damp on the floors and wall damp could be consequential condensation, as water evaporates from the floor and re-condenses on the walls. You need an expert. Thames water can check to see if there is a leak on the mains pipe running into the building, but if it is on your property they won't be responsible for repair (though sometimes they do repair this sort of problem).

I said that GPs were the broad equivalent of hospital registrars, as you did. And that Physician Associates should be supervised by GPs. I did say that they were properly trained, but not to the level... etc.

These people are properly trained (not to the level of a trained GP who will be a qualified doctor who then has done specialist GP training - so comparable to a Registrar in a Hospital) - but they additionally only are meant to act under the supervision of a GP. It's not shady if they are being effectively used (but would be where there was no, or even very limited, GP supervision). Increasingly GPs themselves act as referral experts to hospital specialists. Medicine is hugely more complex than it was in 1948 - the practice model is no longer valid from the inception of the NHS (neither, in my view, is the funding model - which was first criticised by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer - Hugh Gaitskell as early as 1949!).

I'd assume that it's a blend of Assam teas from more than one grower. Probably a cooperative of a number of plantations pooling their resources to process their tea together.

You can buy little holders for loose tea which allow you to use them as if they were a teabag, but using your own mix of loose tea. If you make up the mix in advance they are not much of a faff to use. Loose tea is of course more expensive than blended tea in tea bags, but that's because it's generally better quality (more flavoured). But good quality teabags (Assam from Sainsbury's for instance) can be OK. The tea aficionado's would suggest letting the bag steep for up to 5 minutes to achieve a full flavour. Maybe just doing that could help you enjoy blended teas more?

Not to be boring, but we have no idea (nor, possibly, should we) why Alleyn's terminated this long-standing agreement - which I suspect was probably annually renewed, although the contractual arrangement might have been longer. It may have been because Alleyn's could no longer offer the same availability, it may have been because the financials no longer made sense, it may have been because either party was unable to meet some element of the required conditions. This may either have come out of the blue (really only 8 weeks notice) or it may have followed negotiations which couldn't be concluded. Alleyn's are not idiots. There would be no reason to terminate a relationship if that was still financially beneficial and necessary conditions could be met. Mind you, if this was seen by Alleyn's as a 'charitable' enterprise (that is, it was a financial loss to them - no ideas if it is of course) - then it could probably not (as a business) continue to absorb a loss where it was no longer to be treated as an educational charity but a VAT-able business. Were I to be one of its customers I would be loathe for prices to me to rise whilst my supplier was giving away value to a third party. I don't believe TigerSharks is itself registered as a charity such that 'donations' (i.e. fees lower than costs) could be tax deductible. So, this may indeed be a consequence of stated Labour taxation plans. If you say something isn't a charity, but a business, then you have no right to expect it to continue to act as if it is one, if that disadvantages its business customers.

Caveat:- I have no knowledge, let alone inside knowledge, about the workings of Alleyn’s or of TigerSharks. However I can hypothesise perfectly plausible reasons why this may have occurred, and indeed reasons which might make those who currently deplore the situation, re-think. And reasons, to do with both Data Protection and Commercial Confidentiality, why Alleyn’s, or indeed TigerSharks might prefer, or be required, not to openly discuss issues. Sometimes things happen which we might, if we weren’t ‘in the know’ be upset about but which, did we know, we could accept. I have no idea whether any of my hypothetical reasons are even close to any truth, but (and I implore people not to voice speculations themselves) they could be – which might place Alleyn’s in a position where any decision they might have made might be justifiable. On the face of it, it is a great shame that something which has so many champions (and happy supporters) has ended. Maybe something similar might replace it. But, as I have said above, you might not like Alleyn’s but the people who run it have not proved themselves fools, even if issues to do with coaches, and traffic, and the way they interact with neighbours, and the privilege of public schools may upset you.

Why would Alleyn's do this, unless, perhaps (a) they found they could get a better return for the slot booked or (b) there is some other reason that they choose not to make public? The time this relationship has been going on for, and the apparently public good it has engendered would make me suspect that for Alleyn's to have made this decision there is something we don't know. Much as many may dislike a public school and what it does, these people really aren't fools. And yet. on the face of it, this seems a foolish decision.

What I was effectively saying is that the police are pants, at least locally - I certainly wasn't attacking the cyclist in question, the clear victim of a road rage attack, but I was, perhaps, suggesting that one man's 'trivial violation of the Highway code' might be another's horror story. But clearly any attack on anyone by your book is an attack on cyclists, even when it isn't!

When my daughter reported a road rage attack in progress on 999 (a car driver slamming into a cyclist who had annoyed him, 3 times pinning him and his bike to a parked car, totalling his bike and injuring him (attack with a deadly weapon - a car - actual bodily harm and criminal damage) - in Forest Hill Road they were not interested enough to attend - following up a couple of weeks later with a form. But perhaps that's just them being even-handed - after all in their minds it was probably just another trivial violation of the Highway code. They might have come out if my daughter had said they cyclist was lying unconscious or dying, but he was just walking wounded, as so many pedestrians are who are hit by cyclists on pavements.

Blood tests are also required to determine blood-type for cross-matching for transfusions - whilst that facility is down/ much reduced having large(r) supplies of Type O is a necessary precaution, as this can be used across multiple blood types. So, having more Type O means that fewer cross-matching tests need to be done.

I don't think a cyber attack by criminals actually counts as being 'in breach of its data protection duties'. It would have to be demonstrated that Synnovis was willfully careless. Hospitals have also been attacked similarly. If your house was burgled and your address book stolen would you anticipate being charged under data protection legislation?

Being purely pedantic 'the cycling community' might be wholly blind to some (but not all) flaws - i.e. but not to others, and the majority , but not all, could be hell bent on denying any flaws in general. It is possible for these statements not to be mutually exclusive. What is not being said is that the majority of cyclists are guilty of any particular flaws, but that cyclists, in general, feeling under pressure on threads like these, are prepared to deny that cyclists are particularly flawed (and of course many aren't). Many (albeit younger) cyclists I know consider that driving through red lights etc. is a risk they are prepared to take - and of course when they get it wrong they are far more likely to be seriously injured - without considering that this action still puts others at risk, either by riding into them (pedestrians crossing roads and not expecting a cyclist to be space sharing) or by the consequence of avoidant actions taken by motorists trying not to hit them.

From the very title of this thread, and much of the discussion, it would be possible to understand that this thread is indeed anti those cyclists who choose to ride on pavements (and, inter alia, injure pedestrians on those pavements). You appear to be arguing in your frequent interpolations that anything any cyclist does, ever, is fine with you - and indeed you have started, I believe, threads to this effect. On my own behalf I wish to clarify that (1) I am against adults cyclists who cycle on non-mixed use footpaths and pavements; (2) I am against those cyclists who choose to ignore the road rules placed on other road users (stop signs, zebra crossings etc., signalling intentions, showing lights at night etc.) and (3) I am concerned that (some) cyclists seem frequently to be unaware of hazards which a qualified driver would be expected to anticipate. I have no problems with careful and attentive cyclists who use the roads with regards to other road users, both for the safety of these and their own safety - and indeed was a cyclist myself when younger and fitter. I have noticed that the number of careless and inconsiderate cyclists seems to have increased - but this is based on 'sample-of-one' observations and may not be generally true. You should be pleased that almost on your own you have attempted much discussion and debate, although you have a tendency to generalise specific issues with specific cyclist behaviours into a more general discussion of cyclist behaviours under a multiple of circumstances, in order to let very specific transgressors 'off the hook' in my view, and you do seem to evidence some form of persecution complex such that criticism of specific behaviours (running into pedestrians on a pavement for instance) is taken as a personal critique of your own behaviours. But so be it.

How interesting that you think (this is a thread about cyclists on pavements) that it should be the pedestrian not looking for the cyclist, and not the cyclist failing to notice a pedestrian. How interesting that you think that it isn't up to the cyclist to be aware of other users - as a car driver who has passed a test for car driving I am required to be aware of, and alert to, other road users, let alone other pavement users (should I, as car driver, be driving on a pavement). Hazard awareness is a thing for car drivers, but obviously not for the eternally innocent cyclist.

An adult family member was knocked over today by a speeding cyclist on a pavement who chose not to stop, in SE London. I'm sorry, cyclist apologists but this is happening too frequently, and is wholly unacceptable. If you cannot cycle safely and without jeopardising others, then you shouldn't be allowed to cycle at all. And if you think that's actually OK, to use pavements to injure people and not even stop, then you (even if you don't do this yourselves) are despicable. The pavement was not, by the way, in anyway a 'dual use' route. My family member wasn't killed, thank goodness, or even very seriously injured, but that doesn't make it OK.

Boudicca's final battle, recorded as the Battle of Watling Street probably took place in the Midlands, and certainly not south of the Thames. Boudicca's army certainly burnt Londinium and killed many, but it was not here that the Roman Legions stopped her. And it is most unlikely that she would have been brought back to Southwark for burial. Why would you?

Most do, I believe although there are some exceptions (cuckoos for one, who don't do any feeding!)

Not if its solar powered I imagine and it's being attacked at night.

Of course the minimum 'lost time' for normal Rye users is actually the fat end of 3 weeks, once set up and strike is taken into account, and before any necessary recovery time is additionally added in. And that's normally during the summer period (this June is exceptional) when you might be expecting to take most benefit of a park. What I think is also objected to is the opacity of the whole arrangement - is this actually, once fully costed, in fact profitable for Southwark? If so where are these profits distributed (and if not where are the costs taken)? Are the Organisers charged for 3 days use or 3 weeks (or however long it takes)? Claiming 'commercial confidentiality' is not really acceptable when one party is a public body with public responsibilities for proper management. At the least the profit and loss issue of operating as an event landlord should be disclosed, even when the actual charges were kept confidential. If the council cannot be open and honest about its dealings (or chooses not to be) it starts to beg a cascade of questions. Knowing they made £1000 profit (or £1000 loss) does not breach confidentiality when the base figures aren't disclosed, but it does tell us whether the disruption to council tax payers was worthwhile in the grander scheme of things.

I don't, indeed I might assume they had. But the meeting is to discuss local crime and, where appropriate, get advice about countering it. You may also learn if this is common, or increasing, and what steps are being taken to address it. The meetings aren't about reporting crime but discussing local issues. This appears to be a local issue.