Penguin68

It's a crime in Dulwich Hill and is appropriate for reporting at this meeting, particularly as there appears to have been two similar incidents in the same area. It doesn't matter, I think, if you haven't been the victim yourself.

That is correct, the collection and delivery operations are separate - the delivery operations work from Delivery Office (DOs) - such as Peckham - whereas collection goes directly to Sorting Offices. What is true however is that there are more daily collections from Post Boxes associated with Main and sub Post Offices - so if you need something to go urgently using one of these will get your post to a sorting Office quicker. [A confusion can arise because the final sort of post into 'walks' is done at the DOs - but post collected from boxes does not go to DOs directly].

I have found the bin men themselves very helpful. They are also able to report it I think. In the recycling collection obviously, not the kitchen waste. If you can catch them.

It is particularly important that you have a survey done before the work commences (which should be paid for by your neighbour) - this allows a 'before and after' picture to identify any issues caused by your neighbour's work - which again must be remedied at his expense. As this all must be paid for by your neighbour (under law) it may be an acceptable risk to commission your own survey (again your right to choose the surveyor although your neighbour can offer his own surveyor or structural engineer, which is normally cheaper for him, if you are prepared to trust that). You might additionally, although the surveyor should also do this, photograph any areas in your property you believe may be at risk - new cracks in plasterwork are his responsibility to remedy as well. Your neighbour is quite wrong to suggest that the work he is intending does not fall into the party wall legislation - and informing both Southwark and the ground landlord of his intentions is a good first step. As others have said, a solicitor's letter to remind him of his legal obligations might be an expense worth bearing. The potential damage to his and your property could be irreparable. Other than choice of surveyor (his or yours) there are no other areas of negotiation - the party wall legislation is surprisingly clear on this, I believe.

Just out of interest, there was NO LTN debate at the Dulwich Society SGM or AGM. The initial poster of this extracted thread believed the Dulwich LTN was the cause of the SGM but it was never a point of fact at the meeting. The discussion was about the Rules, and particularly how many members could call an SGM following a rules revision. Later argument surfaced around the conduct of the Chairman. And about appointments to the varied sub committees of the Society. Again not around the LTN. The topic heading of this thread is factually incorrect.

I'm not sure pharmacists have any discretion to alter specific medication prescriptions, although they can choose supplier where a generic is prescribed which may be offered by more than one company. This will only be for older medicines which are effectively 'out of copyright' . They can't issue alternatives on their own authority as they don't know what counter-indications there may be for specific patients. GPs may prescribe a specific supplier of a generic medicine where, for instance, they know patients have an adverse reaction to e.g. the medicine casings, so the Nottinghamshire directive to specify only generics where available may not always be helpful.

As the meeting, which I did not attend, was moved, as I understand it, to the Alleyn's School Theatre, one of the few venues large enough to take the members attending (the Dog's upstairs room has a capacity only of 100 as I understand it) the cost, or lack of it, of the Dog's room is immaterial. The costs of the meeting would have included costs of communications to members (printing and postage), printed ballot and voting slips etc. Nowadays these costs (particularly postage) are non-trivial. Much of the membership is of an age where digital communications are not always appreciated or even possible. The material (which I have seen) is not ideal for smart phone viewing, and ballot slips need to be real, not virtual. The cost of setting up electronic voting systems would have been far higher than printing ballot papers.

I'm out of the UK at the moment, but proper pictures would be useful to take now as evidence for when the next round of applications for events comes up. Showing what is objected to in pictures may be worth 1000 words!

Male wrens build several nests for the female to choose. An empty nest may be a symptom of pickiness, not a tragedy.

The 'festival' itself is clearly an annoyance to some (and noise, litter and alfresco urination would certainly qualify as such) but it is only for 3 days in 365. So long as (a) it remained this length and (b) the impresarios running it were properly managed by Southwark - full and complete tidy-up and restoration, no tree cutting or other damage and no longer than 5 days (total) for set-up and recover - revenues not eaten up by consequential costs to the borough - then I think we could, and should, cope with it. But we have bids for an extended, or repeating event and we know that our asset is despoiled at our cost - and we are excluded from use of our asset for too long a time. This is not a field in the middle of the countryside which has a year to recover (and which is otherwise unused by the general public - vide Glastonbury) - this is a much used and loved (and needed) inner-city green space. And the 'fun' isn't in the middle of the countryside, it's on many of our actual doorsteps - in the case of litter and urine quite literally!

Yes, but anecdotally that's a lot of people caught speeding at 21-25 mph (now) in built-up areas, many on roads which are not truly residential - indeed many classed as A roads. Speed awareness courses are only offered to those 'marginally' speeding - true 'boy racers' aren't offered speed courses (neither are those caught more than once at 'marginal' speeds). The old '10% leeway' now seems abandoned in many areas, I have been told of fines and points being awarded for 21mph!

Whilst I think it was clear that the Dulwich Society response, or lack of it, to the LTN actualisation was a stimulus to those putting forward the agenda of the Special General Meeting you should note, see above, that no parts of the 4 proposals were linked to LTN issues. They were about the governance of the Society and were wholly appropriate, given that the Society had proposed to make very radical changes to its 60 year old Rule Book, but whose existing Rules did not allow lay amendments to those Rules to be debated at a general Meeting. [In fact the New Rules were written to align with Charity Commission recommendations on Rules for the type of Charity which the Dulwich society is.] Actually, nothing as regards the LTN was 'defeated' at the meeting. After saying that the Society was in favour, in principal, of the declared intentions associated with the LTN introduced during Covid (reducing local pollution, encouraging active travel) it has not, I believe, made any public comments about the actualisation of the LTN in delivering those intentions, nor of the consultation, or lack of it associated with it. It always recognised that issues to do with traffic were contentious and were divisive within the wider Dulwich Community and within the Society itself. As this thread clearly exemplifies.

I had certainly heard that Helen Hayes was planning to stand down from being an MP - although I don't think I've seen that confirmed anywhere that I recall. If so, that is a shame, she was generally very competent and she knew the area well. A very good constituency MP and had performed reasonably creditably in a minor Front Bench role. A loss to Parliamentary politics, in my view, if she is standing down.

If you are buying the property and it comes notionally with a parking space which might be reneged on by a third party then I think it would be the seller that needs to take out indemnity insurance in case the right (to parking) which is being sold evaporates. The seller needs to indemnify you against failure to deliver what is purportedly being sold.

They're not that interested in Southwark residents unless they're already on the same political (small p) page as them. Unlike our local MP, it must be said.

This is, I believe, the area that the council plans to put in formal drainage, cutting down numbers of mature trees 'because it will be easier for the contractors' - and hence demonstrating once again its contempt for it's south-of-the-borough constituents and nature in general, where it cannot be sufficiently monetised. It has, I think, suggested it will plant saplings to replace the mature trees, so our children may be able to see the results, when they get a lot older.

As I think it's just the trunk that is covered the only possible damage is constriction - that the paper cuts into the tree. In all honesty that isn't likely - the tree is more likely to burst the paper, in the several years needed for the trunk to widen sufficiently. Trees 'breathe' (transpire) through their leaves and take in moisture through their root systems, neither of these are compromised by the wrapping. If left alone the paper will wear away long before it could possibly damage the tree.

That a substantial minority of cyclists do not feel bound by normal road rules is self evident - rules which include, inter alia, use of pedestrian pavements (not marked as dual use or as cycle paths) for pedestrians only (with the exceptions of wheeled vehicles/ chairs used by infants and the disabled). This 'independence of spirit' for those cyclists that use pedestrian pavements very frequently is also seen in their use of highways - yesterday (on the South Circular!) a cyclist crossed over my path cycling with both arms crossed over (not holding the handlebars) and thus unable to brake immediately should the light have changed or someone got in his way. Clearly a skilled cyclist, but one with no sense either of self preservation or the safety and lives of other - it was dusk by the way and he also had no lights showing! It is this lack of care for their own or others' safety which is so upsetting - those of us in vehicles which require a licence to use them are at least trained and tested in road awareness and the importance of signalling manoeuvres. On pavements, in my experience, cyclists jink on and off the pavement to e.g. avoid standing traffic without either signalling or appearing to be aware of whom they are sharing the pavements with - at best they bell (or shout) you down to get out of their way! When I see a cyclist signal that cyclist is almost inevitably over 50 (and indeed often much older) - when my generation learned to cycle things like signalling intention, following the rules of the road and respect for other road users was drummed into us (or at least me!) - for our own safety mainly.

It is certainly true that some ground landlords do exploit leaseholders. But much of what has been listed above as issues (and they are) are and should be addressed by your solicitor in correspondence with the sellers and their solicitor - not by and with the agent, whose client is in fact the seller. I would also advise trying to contact other leaseholders in this property to find out their impressions, There may be a leasehold tenants' association (I used to be Hon Sec of one such in the 1970s) Worth finding out. Amended to add - well run private leaseholds may have a 'sinking fund' - so that leasehold tenants pay into that such that a sum builds to exist to meet large ticket items (roof repairs etc.) - although that does increase the annual costs it also offers a cushion against surprises. If such exists (but it probably won't where the council is the head landlord, then the head landlord should be paying-in (or accounting as if they had paid in) a similar sum for non leasehold tenants). Where a council is directly charging leasehold tenants but not others then they have to quite strictly account for monies both forecast and actually spent. They cannot just place the costs of works on the leaseholders but be clear how the costs have been pro-rated across all the properties. But something like roof repairs can be charged to all tenants and not just those occupying the top floor!

It is also, I believe, against all good practice, and may even be an offence to cut or prune trees during nesting season, save where there is evident danger to life and limb. Which danger to Profit isn't. Shame on the organisers and shame on the greedy council for allowing it.

Actually, Mal, what you said in its entirety was In normal usage the 'those' in your second sentence refers to the cars for which Southwark 'also provide free parking space'. You would have needed to say in your second sentence - 'And over 100,000 of cars freely parked in the UK get stolen...' Although of course the figures I quoted refer to all cars stolen, and not to those stolen from 'free' street parking - i.e. not off street or in garages , or in paid for parking spaces on road. For which I don't have figures. And of course as all those who live in CPZs know, Southwark does not provide free on-road parking in much of the borough. If you are going to 'throw remarks away', please do so accurately. Or make your hyperbole transparent.

Not in Southwark. The 2022-23 figures in the whole of the UK were only 128,000.

For any large party dining in an Italian restaurant a pizza option is always a good selling point, as is risotto, which cover the main carb bases. You have to be very high end just to concentrate on a single strand of a Italian cooking, and then probably genuinely regional. But certainly if you are more than a pizza joint making that blindingly obvious is sensible.

If you are going to use free WiFi I suggest also using a VPN which will offer you some security - 'free' WiFi will often be open WiFi, if offered without any password protection. Even with that, a VPN offers more security. If you are a BT or EE broadband customer you can choose to access BT or EE broadband capacity where available (if you offer such access to others). This is more secure.

As a resident in this part I would agree, with the proviso that it's quite hilly so not ideal cycling territory for the frailer or very much younger. Obviously good access to the South Circular, now virtually the only east: west route open after LTN closures. Only one blue plaque - C S Forester. Most houses are Victorian or Edwardian with some slightly earlier. Generally 4-6 Bedrooms depending on attic conversions.