Penguin68

Interestingly, as Poundland is opening stores (but ours is the only one opening in London), Iceland is closing more. Which suggests they may not be addressing the same demographic, or with the same business model.

By post? - Not if you're served by the ED DO (in Peckham) - you could be waiting weeks - just because the post has most recently improved (as it has for me) that is no guarantee that the improvement will hold. I pick my meds from the Day Lewis Pharmacist in Forest Hill Road - they text me when the meds are ready and I just pick them up. Normally within 3 days (or fewer) of putting in the electronic request to the practice.

So we know the findings already. Full steam ahead!

Like many, I have had real problems contacting FHRGP, and indeed am unsure that there are any doctors (as opposed to practice nurses, pharmacists etc.) who actually work physically out of the surgery at some times. HOWEVER - I recently had a heath scare with certain worrying indicators. I managed to talk to a doctor on the same day (having held out for a receptionist in the morning misery) had appropriate tests within 24 hours (despite a mix-up at the surgery where I was told to leave samples in the wrong place!) - and was seen by a hospital clinic within 4 days (under the 2 week target regime). Which suggests that, although things can be very clearly 'wrong' organisationally the basic principles still seem to operate - that scary things are handled perfectly well. Granted this was all at arms length by the surgery (and I still haven't actually seen a GP there in over 4 years!) and that all the heavy lifting was done by Tertiary (i.e. Hospital) services - but nonetheless, I can't actually complain that GPs aren't/ the practice isn't, doing its job - just not in the manner we used to expect. (And, so far, no bad news, although one final test needs to be analysed)

It is certainly true that the Practice could be more clear in what they are doing here (and indeed I have said above that they did have a hand-out once) and it is also clear that they are treating us with some disdain in not even disclosing (unless forced) that they are requesting this additional and in most cases uncalled for test. BUT - it is a good thing that local healthcare should be aware of anonymised data about certain illnesses which are dangerous, can be treated and have a cost-implication to NHS provision plans. Of course opting out should be clearer and easier and you may wish your own data not to be sold, (anonymised or not) to non-NHS third parties (there's a form for that). But I would personally be relatively happy that this is happening at all (and it was sort of reassuring, if not surprising, I must say, that it turns out I'm clear!)

I have just returned from Ljubljana (capital of Slovenia) – which is serious about being ‘green’ (and it’s won prizes for that). There the (old) centre of the town is blocked to general traffic, with rising pillars blocking each route in – it is one single 24 hour LTN. The pillars drop down automatically for authorised vehicles (police, fire, ambulance etc.) which have sensors within them, and people with a need to enter (builders, tradesmen etc.) can enter a code. There are no cameras or fines for entry, as without authority you can’t enter, full stop. This area can be readily walked through, but within the area there are free bikes to use, and there are also free to use electric bus/ Taxis (a sort of cross between one and the other). The area enclosed is pretty flat. This operates as a traffic free area, designed around convenience and equity. There are no ‘special enclaves’ – all suffer (or benefit) equally – and this is not a revenue raising scheme. Proper parking provision (at a price) has been created for those kept out of the area, although private cars can access it with permission. Clearly the topography of the area is different (and the entire state has only just over 2 million inhabitants) – but the intent of the scheme is clear, and it has been properly implemented to be a benefit to the inhabitants (or, as I said, to share the disbenefits equally). This is not an ill thought out scheme on the cheap to act as a source of funds, nor are unreasonable claims being made of it. It is not, as frankly our LTNs are, a symptom of a ‘broken’ Slovenia. It was implemented because it was understood to be ‘the right thing to do’ – not through ideological hatred of private vehicles or personal choice. It was also 'joined-up' . The restrictions and the public transport mitigations are provided by the same authority - not one element acting with disregard to the other.

Your post suggests that you already have stairs and some structure from a previous loft conversion, if so and the work to date has been done to standard then the costs will be less than from an entire new build but standards, e.g. on insulation etc have moved on over time. The costs are normally based on square footage and the type of loft being converted. If there are conversions already locally on your type of house you may be able to guage what's possible from these, although local planning rules do change (for dormer windows, juliette balconies and so on). But get quotes from builders or architects, any guesses on this forum will be precisely that.

A generation is generally taken as 30 years. That means that on average people might expect at least 2 and possibly 3 coronations in their lifetime. This will be my second. I'm the same age (give or take) as the King so it will be a toss up whether he or I pegs out first.

Whilst suggestions as to causes of lung cancer were already positing smoking it was not until large epidemiological studies had been undertaken that the linkages were made, statistically, and it was some time after that that a convincing mechanism was discovered. During both the first and second world wars the calming effects of smoking were perceived as beneficial - such that advertising cigarettes as health giving were not seen then as the rubbish we now consider them. Sometimes doctors turn out to be right, other times not. The problem with 'proving' smoking as a cause of cancer was that, until a mechanism was identified, it was always possible to dismiss it as a statistical anomaly (until the sample sizes were sufficient). Science moves on by scientists challenging 'accepted' ideas. We remember the successful challenges, we tend not to the unsuccessful ones. For every new type of drug or treatment that proves itself effective, there are multiples which do not.

Plus they are asking you to pay almost 6 weeks in advance. In my case my permit expires on 31st March. They are asking for pre-payment, but I believe that this will mean that your garden bin will be emptied through to 31st March 2024. If you are preparing accounts it will be shown as a pre-payment in y/e 5th April 2023 for 360 days of tax year 2023-24. The logistics involved in ensuring that you have a 'paid' sticker for your bin need some lead time - in fact in previous years they did not issue these stickers for everyone renewing until more like April 20th in some instances, so Veolia was instructed to collect bins which did not have the annual appropriate sticker until a late April cut-off.

Years ago "scientists" also told us that the earth was flat and we would fall off the edge if we sailed past a certain point but proof was discovered that changed their thinking. Actually, no, they didn't. The Flat Earth society was a Victorian invention (there are still mad Americans arguing it) but the fact that the earth was a globe was well known in antiquity - indeed its diameter was initially estimated possibly by Aristotle! It was post renaissance scholars who assumed that people in the middle ages thought the earth was flat - there is no contemporary record of that, and indeed you could look into the sky and sea both the moon and sun as orbs, so that shape was already clearly a viable one for the earth as well. From cliffs looking out to sea it is quite possible, in good visibility, to see the earth's curvature.

Last year it cost me £40 to arrange for garden waste collection. This year it's £60. That's a 50% annual rise! Clearly rather more than factoring-in inflation. And I doubt very much whether Veolia is seeing a 50% increase in that element of the fees Southwark pays them. I have said it before on this forum, but Southwark is looking to move its revenue streams (c.v. CPZ and traffic fines) away from capped and into uncapped areas - where it cannot be restrained! No doubt their cheerleaders will once again suggest that I am exercising conspiracy theories. Well, if it looks like a duck...

It does seem clear to me that in many people's minds the alternative to private cars, certainly in our neck of the woods, is now 'active travel' - walking or cycling. As others have pointed out, public transport is not in the remit of the council, and indeed quite clearly their plans now simply ignore what public transport may be available to us. Private cars usage is condemned, public transport no longer forms part of the council's planning space. So if you can't walk or cycle, well, we really don't want you here...

However, as the diversion of the bus was consequent on re-surfacing works - which I think is a Council decision on roads not managed by TfL (and I think TfL would notify the Council if they were undertaking works locally except in emergency) the Council could have been in charge of news management of the impact of their works. As if they gave a damn. [i have heard that Conway actually makes those decisions, particularly at the end of the year so they can use up all their call-off contract money, but I have no idea if that is true!]

This is not specific to the HIV testing, and I think pre-dates it. The FHRGP used to have a one page hand-out on the HIV test, explaining what it was about and how it was used. I believe Southwark (and possible other inner London Boroughs) has a very high incidence of HIV infections and uses this information to continue to scale the problem. Although the sample is biased (it doesn't include anyone sufficiently well not to need a (routine) blood test, and therefore excludes the fit well - who are most likely to be relatively young) it is not biased, particularly, otherwise by age or e.g. ethnicity. It is also not a self selecting sample (albeit you can opt out). I am surprised they didn't use such a process to check for Covid-19 exposure once it was known so many asymptomatic cases existed.

No, unless such research is within your skill and knowledge set; but you shouldn't be accepting 'consensus' as if it's 'truth'. In the 1950s Gastric Ulcers were 'known' to be caused by stomach acid, and treated as such, until it was demonstrated, by a very brave scientist who experimented on himself, that it was a bacterium (helicobacter) which was responsible. So elimination of helicobacter became the go-too treatment. Most recently it has been at least hypothesised that helicobacter has beneficial impact on the gut flora, and that eliminating it to treat ulcers may not be such a good idea. What you should be doing is looking very closely at the research, and at consensus and drawing your own judgements as to how far you should go in buying into it. Who did the research? Why? You may recall that HMG research was quite clear that we should all be buying diesel and not petrol vehicles (and it was following that advice that left so many people the victims of ULEZ). Then consensus changed. So just because someone has published something and says it's scientific just isn't good enough. Even if it's being treated as such. As an asthmatic I'm quite happy to buy into hypotheses that say that breathing (some) stuff in may make me worse. What stuff, and how much, and what the long term effects on the general population are is a far mooter point. And I'm wary of the precautionary principle, which, in the end, suggests that doing anything may be harmful, so better do nothing (or, as a corollary, stop everything).

Then I'm sorry to say you're an idiot. It was an 'expert committee' that determined, at the height of BSE, that we should expect 500,00 BSE deaths in the UK by the year 2000, for instance. Almost any 'committee' is wielding a political axe of some sort. (Granted often small p politics). You need to do your own validation - based on the amount and quality of data you are being given. You don't have to be an expert in any particular corner of science not to be able to look at data and determine whether you know enough about it to trust its interpretation - and data is interpreted - it's never self interpreting! In the statistic you have quoted the survey length and size, the fact that you do not know what its recruitment criteria were etc. etc. all says to me that the findings, such as they are, may be interesting (or not) but are not a certain conclusion. I'm not a scientist involved in the relevant niche science area, but I have taught at undergraduate and graduate levels social research methodology and research analysis and presentation of results techniques, and for a long time I was closely involved in forms of social research such that I can comment validly on what looks like 'good' and less good designed and reported research. I happen to agree with you that most wood burning stoves are used in ways (and with fuels) that will contribute to poor air quality, and that usage in urban areas is probably unnecessary (though they often are efficient sources of heat) - particularly as local authorities have proved themselves useless when it comes to 'policing' such usage as regards, e.g. fuel types used.

So really not sure why you question the science/data Any scientist (actual, real, scientist involved with scientific research) will tell you that both 'science' (that is to say scientific findings and conclusions) and data are both to be questioned, and constantly. Indeed science evolves through just such questioning. Political conclusions drawn from data even more so. I would not be prepared to even consider survey data which is published and which purports to have statistical significance (that is to say, have any meaning) without knowledge of the 'metadata' which surround it - when was it gathered, what was the sampling process, what is the likely range (at 95% Confidence levels, most frequently) - what questions were actually asked etc. Anybody who refers to 'the' science, or indeed 'the' data shows a remarkable lack of understanding of either scientific or data gathering process. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that there is no such thing as 'the' science. Just our best understanding (which is about human interpretation) of the findings so far, including understanding how likely the findings ae to represent any sort of reality.

This begs two questions. Car use, in and of itself, is not bad. Driving polluting vehicles may be - but the definition of 'polluting' is an interesting one. CO2 is not a 'pollutant', indeed without it we would all be dead, as it is the basis of food production. In so far as it is also a greenhouse gas (but by no means the only one - the largest contributor is water vapour, and methane on a volume basis is far more damaging) it may be contributing to global warming which will put pressure on human habitation until remedies are discovered - as they may well be. The auto-pollutant which impacts immediate health is NOx2 (and particulates from some types of wood burning). EVs in their use are not (to any great extent) polluting, so EV car use would actually fit the stated intent of LTNs, which is to address local air pollution (inter alia). 'Supporting alternatives' does not mean, in LTN speak, public transport, but walking and cycling - which again may be positive for individual health (for those young and fit enough to benefit) but do not contribute to general health, nor do they offer any mitigation in themselves to air quality. I also dislike the intrusion of not being able to decide for myself my own exercise regime, but have one forced on me by politicians. So I would actually challenge the statement 'the big issue...' It isn't. The issue may be about individual health, and may be about air quality - but it's not about two proposed solutions to these 'issues'. You may just as well suggest that the 'big issue' is the availability of runners with cleft sticks when the actual problem may be about communication.

Quite significant fine revenue (allegedly £3m in the first weeks of operation) and it forms part of a concerted effort to drive private use cars out of Southwark - which actually makes more sense in the north of the borough (where car ownership is lower, and where public transport is much more effectively offered, with e.g. tubes as well as trains and buses - which tend to converge on the North of the borough). Additionally of course it is far flatter there, making bike travel more easy, for those who can manage bikes. But Tooley St has always considered the old borough of Camberwell as its cash cow. That is also why it has plans to turn all roads, eventually, into CPZs, if it can. CPZ revenue and motoring fines are not capped. (Neither is revenue from charging for garden rubbish collection - again Camberwell is a better source for that than 'old' Southwark).

they can only engage on issues with their constituents! There is absolutely no bar on MPs engaging on issues with anyone - they may choose not to work with people not constituents, but it's a choice. That was confirmed to me by a former senior advisor to a number of former leading Labour MPs (in succession). Any MP who suggests that it is somehow 'the law' is just making it up. There are numbers of cross-constituency issues where MPs choose to talk to individuals, not themselves constituents but constituents of neighbouring MPs. Again, many MPs champion particular causes and talk to anyone else involved in that cause. Where it would be wrong (at least morally) is if an MP chose to present him or herself as 'representing' someone not a constituent, which would not be the case. Putting forward or supporting a case where both constituents and non constituents were effected (for instance the terrible case of those sub-postmasters wrongly accused of crimes by the PO) would be entirely appropriate. An MP is elected to represent a constituency - if any undertake 'vetting' of constituents to weed out political opponents - and I'm sure that can't have happened here (!) - this would be a disgrace.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/development-plan/supplementary-planning-documents-spd/spd-by-planning-topic?chapter=3 This paper is dated February 2022 - that is to say before the Ukraine war, the energy price surge, the upswell of inflation, the surge in mortgage interest rates, the Truss mini-budget and so on. The 'affordability' levels quoted, as regards what will be affordable in 2-3 years time when the Berkeley Homes development is built and goes on the market therefore will be irrelevant as regards what available incomes people will then have for rental or mortgage costs, and indeed what the actual construction costs Berkeley Homes will have to pay to build the tower block. 'Affordability' is about the moment, not the future. Had Southwark expressed affordability in non-monetary terms (as a multiplier on average wages, or the living wage, or the minimum wage for example) it would have made a little more sense, but they don't seem to have done that (It may be the basis of their figures, of course, but that's not clear. Berkeley Homes appears to be signing up for 35% of properties within the development to be affordable - but they are doing so not knowing what their costs will actually be, nor how the economy is panning out over the next, probably 3, years. It may be (it would have been at the end of 2022, compared with February 2022) that people's available income for housing (taking into account energy price rises and other inflationary items, including an increased cost of supporting a mortgage) would be less than assumed in February as a share of a 'given' income level. What was 'affordable' in February 2022 may well not be in February 2023 - if Berkeley Homes price at that level they will thus fail in their commitment, in this case not really through any fault of their own.

There is no measure for 'affordable' (local prices, and earnings will differ in different locales, as will expectations, and building costs and costs of borrowing may change) - it requires close scrutiny and liaison between builder and local authority - and, depending on the time taken to build, what is deemed 'affordable' now may well not be when the properties become available. Increase in interest rates means what was affordable in the past, based on the cost of borrowing a fixed amount, may not be now, for instance. So a planned 35% affordable offer (however well intentioned, which they aren't always) may well, when the properties are completed, not pan out like that. Ideally the local authority should keep a constant scrutiny on changes in costs and prices and keep negotiation and discussion 'live' with the developer throughout. Don't hold your breaths on that one!

This is the Standard on London activity https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/earthquake-response-efforts-syrian-and-turkish-communities-london-b1058843.html

There is absolutely no point in second guessing the market. If Poundland is right, there will be enough people within the site's cachement for the enterprise to succeed, at least for a time until and if demographics change. If they are wrong, it will fail. Whether you, as a sample of one, to choose to shop there or not, and share that view here, or if I do, is frankly irrelevant. It's one of the relatively few large sites in LL, its success or failure will have no impact on the desires, or not, of other chains to come here.