Penguin68

. Probably most people locally actually haven't Once again the SUV Chimaera raises its (ugly) head. For clarification, there is much confusion over what an SUV actually is, (and whether it’s the same as a 4x4 or a 4WD). The original SUVs (American) were car bodies (effectively) on a truck chassis – that is to say that the ‘utility vehicle’ was a truck, with large wheels, a robust engine and some, or indeed in some cases a lot, of off-road capability – these were based on e.g. vehicles used on construction sites. The car bodies chosen were analogous to Jeep or Land Rover styles (both former all-terrain military vehicles) and the ‘sports’ element referred to their leisure rather than work use. Inevitably they were both relatively big and relatively over-powered for the ‘work’ they now had to do. A body-type design language was built up for them. Later what are often referred to as ‘cross-over’ vehicles were designed, using a car, not a truck chassis, but with robust looks and some similar capabilities, particularly four wheel drive with some off-road capability. SUV’s and Jeep/ Land Rover styling coalesced, with e.g. the Range Rover an early example of moving to ‘luxury’ in the type, although again not built on a traditional truck chassis. Formerly always large vehicles there are now medium and small cars (not trucks) with SUV-type body styling. Whilst ‘green’ attacks on original-type SUVs – trucks (often diesel powered) styled for domestic use – may be justified; modern cars with SUV styling – often petrol driven, if not hybrid or even Plug In or full electric – are nothing like these as regards climate impact. And having four wheel drive is a perfectly reasonable safety option where there are issues of either ice/ snow or need to go off-road. Without it I would have been in real trouble in East Sussex during the cold snap before Christmas 2022 when other vehicles were unable to proceed home one evening and were stranded. Another benefit of the SUV style is a higher body and seat position, which gives a greater field of vision to the driver – as well as being far easier to get in and out of than a low slung car for the less flexible. They are, the bigger ones anyway, frequently, heavier (as are all-electric cars with heavy batteries) which does mean that, if speeding, they may cause more impact damage, but they are also, because of their generally staid style, not that appealing to boy-racers. As they tend to be more modern in design they tend also to have more safety features to avoid accidents built-in. About 50% of new sales are now of SUV body-type cars – which is why the type, when you see it, tends to offer the most modern features. The medium and small cross-over 'SUVs' are no more climate-impactful than estate cars or people carriers, indeed, as most (see above) are pretty modern in construction (the style has only recently evolved), they are probably far less adversely impactful on the environment than older estates and people carriers. Even my 2004 cross-over ‘SUV’ (coming up to 19 years old) is ULEZ compliant for instance. Probably, locally, only 10% of SUV ‘style’ cars you see are actually built on truck chassis and are thus not ‘cross-over’ cars but ‘true’ SUVs. For obvious reasons most, if not all, will be ULEZ compliant. And a significant minority will have 'foot-print' and weight the equivalent of any modern saloon on the road.

Thank you, helpful advice

The only thing you have to be careful of is to ensure that you don't use the softened water for drinking, cooking or watering plants - which probably means drawing water for those purposes exclusively from the kitchen tap - which should be routed directly from the mains and not via the water softener. That will require some additional plumbing work. [The water isn't poisonous, per se, but it isn't advised for drinking. Teeth cleaning etc. no problem.]

I think because it failed in an unusual way - giving both red and green signals simultaneously, as I understand it. Electro-mechanical switching shouldn't allow that, I'm guessing; whereas digital switching might. If you stand by an old style traffic light you can hear a click, sometimes, as it moves between phases. Which I'm guessing is electro-mechanical switches operating.

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/

I think it is quite wrong to suggest that individual schools either fail intentionally or don't try to succeed. There is no evidence, that you offer, to suggest that the borough, or those within borough schools are not all working to improve; and certainly no evidence that the borough is favouring one school over another. In a borough with good public transport (ours isn't) the distance of the schools from their pupils (their catchment area) should matter less. Indeed some would argue that schools with a wide® catchment area (everything else being equal) should benefit from having a more eclectic mix of pupils thus introducing pupils early to the benefits of diversity. If broadening the catchment area means that schools don't close then all to the good, as they will continue to have an offer to those pupils most close by (if their standards are maintained). Parental choice of school is generally a good thing, if it encourages schools (and the borough) not to be complacent about standards.

The catchment for Primary Schools is a function of (a) their popularity and (b) the local demand for places. A very popular school (high scoring) in a borough where there is high demand may well have a very limited catchment, whereas a high performing school in a borough where rolls have fallen (demographics) may well be able (and wish) to recruit pupils from far further afield (and may well offer anyway siblings who have moved further away to continue at a school). As I understand it, demographics have led to falling school rolls in Southwark (happy to stand corrected). Goodrich, which is a high performing school may well therefore be attracting pupils from comparatively far.

You (Malumbu) don't say cars should be banned, but it is formal Southwark labour policy to work towards removing private vehicles from Southwark. They are formally and officially anti car, even if you are not. And it is them calling the shots.

Considering that the ordinary punters (sorry, electors and their families) are expected to be able to cycle everywhere (that they cannot readily walk), without in Dulwich, the benefits of much public transport (and no tubes) - reduced bus services and very uneven train services I think this is a little rich. We may also have health issues and not be proficient in cycling, but we don't get the option! Shame we cannot pray-in-aid this argument when it comes to resisting the roll-outs of anti car use measures across our bits of the borough. But what's sauce for the apparat is verboten for the ordinary joe.

Why? Or perhaps, why have separate boroughs at all? Or democratic decisions by elected representatives? Central decision making by the apparat; a command economy; - where does that remind me of? (Apart from the current Mayor's bailiwick). Perhaps our tanks could start rolling over Kent in a land-grab (which is what the ULEZ expansion seems to feel like to the outlying suburbs anyway).

Most of the footprints of LL shops are too small for chains - the (former) Foxton's site was an exception. Hence we had to lose one chain grocer (Iceland) to get another (M&S). Where the big chains are now are virtually the only LL slots which would be suitable for High Street chains (and even then they are actually small) - one of the reasons we have never had a Waitrose, despite the ED demographic now being very suitable. If you are worried about more (rather than different) 'High St.' chain stores coming into LL, don't be. Chain restaurants yes, possibly. But not chain stores.

If you start with such a process plan, you will fail (though you absolutely need that eventually). What you must start with is a definition of customer needs, and ability to pay, and some feeling for the scale of the market you might wish to address. Any actual business that does not start with the customers and their needs will always fail. (An inventor may invent something which seems neat, but it is not something around which a business can form unless and until customers with clearly defined needs - and an ability to pay - can be identified). Then you need to think what USP you have. You may be the first in the market (in which case how easy is it for others to copy?) , but overall your product/ service must be of a high quality (which includes design or style), or a compelling price, or very innovative to succeed. Nowadays being 'local' may also be a USP - but your local market must be of a sufficient size to be addressed profitably over the long(ish) term. That is why local business such as restaurants can succeed, as they are looking for repeat purchase. If you are selling something which your purchaser may not need to buy again in a year, then you need to consider whether that frequency of purchase will be sufficient (can you make a living from it?) 90% of start-up businesses will fail. Many of them do so because they haven't considered customer need, USP and necessary scale of activity. And of course some are just bad ideas, although some will be good ideas, but without the reach of customer need to make them a viable business proposition.

As someone who lives in Underhill (and has done for roughly 35 years or so) I can confirm that traffic increases significantly during rush hour, particularly the evening rush when traffic is heading towards the South Circular. (Sometimes I have standing traffic outside my house, something that never used to happen save when there were skip delivery issues). This traffic is caused by other access to the South Circular (East: West routes) being blocked by the LTNs - interestingly Wood Vale (another access route) has latterly been effectively blocked by introducing a short section of single track just by the entrance from it to the South Circular. [The morning rush is less bad as then traffic coming out of the South Circular doesn't meet the hold-ups that accessing the South Circular offer]. Buses that use Wood Vale are introduced to it (or exited from it) via Underhill. The measurement strip close to my house, only in place for a week, was effectively anyway useless as one of the two pneumatic tubes came loose on about day 2 of the measurement, meaning all measurements (if any were actually made) were invalid.

There are a few myths going around on these pages which do need a tad of busting:- (1) The figures Southwark (and their friends) quote for e.g. travel and car ownership reflect the whole borough (made up of the old boroughs of Southwark and Camberwell). Old style Southwark is relatively flat and very well supplied with public transport options, including rail, tube and bus services (with many buses coming in from more distant parts of South London and coalescing towards the centre). Old Camberwell borough has no tube, and much poorer bus services, and indeed flakier rail services, and is relatively hilly. This means that the need for private vehicles (and the ability to walk or cycle for those less able) is different between the two old boroughs. What works in the north may not in the south of the combined borough. As others have said, Old Camberwell is far closer in nature, and need, to Bromley than to old Southwark. (2) London, as a city, is very extensive and covers a wide range of topology. To compare walking and cycling in many other European cities to London (i.e. Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Berlin) is not to compare like with like. I have regularly (when I was fitter) effectively walked across many European cities without too much difficulty, something I would not even consider attempting in London. (3) Many people write as if all those now living in Dulwich LTNs support these, implicitly at the expense of those not in LTNs. In so far as any proper polling (or consultation) was done, there is significant evidence (if not too strong a word) that this is not so. Many LTN-ers have indicated that they did not want, and now do not want, these restrictions. Indeed, I believe that in some areas a majority of those responding indicated that they were, and are, against the plans. (4) And finally it is worth noting that some at least of the LTN cheerleaders on these pages do not even now live in Dulwich (though they may have done so in the past). As this is a very local issue (and arguments about LTNs elsewhere do not necessarily contribute helpfully to our local issues) their views should not, perhaps, carry the same weight as those who do live in Dulwich. (For the record, I do live in (East) Dulwich but I do not live in an LTN)

Thames Water closes off the South Circular (wholly or in part) every 18 months or so by the Horniman - and have done so for years - they even, once , closed it off for several weeks/ months to replace (!) the main. They are wholly and, I would argue, close to criminally inept in their works here. That the infrastructure should fail is, of course, inevitable at some stage, that it should fail every 18 months is something entirely different. TfL - whose road it is - should be fining them for obstruction.

Gangs often seem to return to the scene of a successful crime hoping for more rich pickings. (They often return to burgled houses a few weeks later hoping to pick up new electronics replacing that they've just stolen!)

I cut up my (8ft) tree and put it in the brown bin. The problem the bin men face is that whole trees are bulky and can actually fill up the bin-lorry - sometimes they use a separate truck for them, but they often can't collect all of them in a single run. Hence they are left lying about. In my experience they do their best, but can be defeated by too many bulky trees left out.

I've not seen them doing that, but I have seen old Xmas trees being blown about by the wind, at least today.

If I have read past posts correctly - what is happening in the centre of Dulwich is no longer an LTN but something else - the fact that it was introduced under LTN 'legislation' now being irrelevant, as its now a mini-Trafalgar Square scheme - again something not actually agreed by anyone other than the self serving Southwark apparat. So all criteria for judging whether it has met the aim of e.g. reducing pollution would now be irrelevant (and I don't think there are any general criteria for judging Trafalgar Square type closures).

Having had no post this week, today I received 40 items, 16 Xmas cards (the earliest posted at end November, of those I could check a post mark) 12 subscription or club magazines - the earliest again an issue dated 26th November, 7 catalogues or sales brochures and handful of 'business letters, including membership cards and a dunning letter (wrongly dunning as the bill was paid months ago!) My Christmas cards now stand at 70 (including hand delivered) only 10 down from my expectation. With the strikes these may not have been even posted. [i had only 4 delivered by post before 25th December). The postie delivering the batch (not one I'd seen before locally) said there would be another 'big' delivery tomorrow. 3 of the subscription magazines were this weeks (!!!) - but the only Private Eye I received was the 'Christmas' issue. The good news, I suppose, is that they appear to be catching up. The bad news is of course that they had to. As much of the missing post pre-dates the concerted strikes it's fair to assume that this was not, despite their protestations, actually strike related.

There are a number of 'endings' to the Christmas season, one of the oldest being after 40 days, (a period to match that of Lent) https://ucatholic.com/blog/when-does-christmas-actually-end/ Most recently the 12 days of Christmas, ending on January 5th is the most common one, but that is most recently. January 1st is also one. Since the majority of people in the UK are no longer practicing Christians (based on the census) - you can end it when you like!

Looks like a wood mouse, but house mice are not always uniformly grey. If you can get it back in the garden it might be happy, but make sure entry options are properly blocked. Air bricks in particular, if damaged, are entry sites.

Field (or possibly more likely in suburbia, wood-mice) come inside during bad weather, particularly the cold. Their entry into the house is most likely solitary - though they may be a pregnant female. They can be released if caught in the house back into the garden, although they will try to get back into the house again if the weather stays cold, or becomes cold again. Releasing them a long way away is likely quite cruel (as is them being in a 'humane' trap for any period). Old fashioned mouse traps kill very quickly (the mouse normally dies of shock if it's neck isn't broken) and are, in many ways, a more humane way to dispose of them. Cats can kill mice (when they do) over quite an extended period - they like to 'play' with them not hungry. Again, not humane. A resident cat can discourage the entry of mice, but they're not humane if meeting a mouse in the house.

Traps

No it won't, it will transfer congestion, just away from the school. What it will do is to make pedestrian etc. activity at the school gates marginally safer - which is a good thing, of course.