Penguin68

You are not, when the light is 'stolen' by trees, (with special exceptions for certain types of hedging). . You are as regards a neighbour building e,g. an extension.

I assume the trees are not on your property? If they are not, then you have a right to cut (or have someone cut on your behalf) overhanging branches (offering to return cuttings to the property where they originated). You have no rights to natural light as such, as regards trees, although there are restrictions on the heights of certain types of hedging. You may not cut neighbouring trees in a way which would permanently damage them (cause them permanent harm) - for instance by severing roots. You can ask the owner of the trees whether they have been assessed for safety, pointing out that where they have not been, and where subsequent damage to life, limb, or property occurs, they may be fully liable. (Of course, trees even when assessed can subsequently be brought down by, e.g. high winds, but regular assessment would avoid claims of negligence against the tree owner).

Money, more particularly a revenue stream not capped by central government. Oh, and they don't approve of private ownership of cars. So 'hitting' car owners and users for money is morally OK for them.

I think 20 years, rather than 10. Though could be next week!

Correct of course that north polar ice is already in water, but ice on e.g. Greenland glaciers may contribute to rising sea levels. And it still means that more free water in the oceans, and a hotter climate will lead to increased water vapour, itself a greenhouse gas of course, and more precipitation. And of course melted north polar ice is also free and available for evaporation. My point was not really about sea levels but about rain. Evaporated water (falling as rain) is salt free. And we're quite likely to get more of it, broadly a good thing if we still have reservoirs to store it in. Thames seems to want to rely on acquifers and abandon reservoirs - for a price. My argument is that, addressing leaks in the system, we don't have to be running out of water, despite Thames' scare tactics to get us on to meters.

I'm talking about the ice at the North and South poles, the melting of some of which will raise sea levels substantially. According to the models. With warmer air temperatures there will be more evaporation of sea water and hence more rain. Which you may have noticed recently. So hardly innovative. Just science.

Water availability isn't an issue - or shouldn't be. Thames, when it wrote out to people, forecast a huge future requirement for water, based on population growth estimates over the next 20 years, but this additional requirement was actually less (by quite a margin) than the water lost now by Thames on leaks. They have 20 years to remedy this, should they care to invest anything into it, rather than pillaging Thames's accounts for Dividends. Additionally, as you have been keen to point out, we are entering a phase of global warming which will release substantial volumes of free water from icecaps etc. If Thames were not to sell existing water storage (i.e. reservoirs (to feed the hungry purses of their overseas owners) but actually invest in more, then the forecast 'water shortage' would be even less. But instead they intend to use universal water meters to force (eventually, you bet) higher and higher charges onto Thames customers, thus driving even more revenue into their hungry maws, without investing any of 'their own. money on the system. Indeed if they can engineer 'shortages' (by continuing not to cure leaks) they can force even more out of us. All they are charging for is delivery, because supply is free from nature - not funding delivery properly - which they aren't - means that they are actually making their profits from the freely acquired water dropping from the sky. Oh, and Thames (after the Post Office) is the last company I would rely on to have accurate 'smart' metering or a system which could be trusted. And we will have no way of knowing the accuracy of smart meters. We will just have to 'trust' Thames Water!!!!

They are actually delivering. At least to me. I've received Private Eye on the right day (first time in months) and a letter posted in York on Monday arrived on Tuesday, first time I reckon in well over a year, perhaps 2 that the first class post target was reached for me. Can't last!

Air quality is not. It is actually improving. To claim something is getting worse, when it is getting better, is doom mongering, in my book. Your arguments are weakened when you over-egg your pudding and make claims that are untrue. Geopolitical volatility is probably no worse than in (most) other decades since the end of the second world war. It just seems scary when you are in it. But I've been in it for nearly three quarters of a century. Try having (armed) US nuclear bombers fly training flights over your house every few days, flying so low the crockery trembles and see how you feel about geopolitical volatility now. During the Cuban missile crisis the Royal Observer Corps (I used to be a member) was locked down in their nuclear proof (as if!) bunkers - we don't even have an ROC now! I've lived through Korea, the Suez Crisis, Vietnam, Hungary, the Prague Spring, Les Evenments of 1968, the break-up of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union ... well a lot. What's happening now is nasty, but hardly unique, or more worrying than what went on in the recent past. And this century is by no means worse than the second half of last century (of which I saw all!).

Air quality, in London at least, has massively improved. Look at the figures. I'm old enough to remember the last true London Smog. Even since 2000 it's been improving. (The lock down period was an anomaly, when traffic almost ceased). One can argue that there is still room for further improvement, but doom mongering makes no sense, neither does denying improvements because they don't fit your argument.

Actually and strictly 'the world has never been so hot since regular measurements with properly calibrated scientific instruments started, in the second half of the 19th century'. That is, towards the end of what has been termed 'The little ice age'. Certainly temperatures locally have been hotter in the recorded past; during the Roman occupation of England grapes were grown for wine in the Vale of York. And it has been much hotter in the geological past. The issue of current global warming being triggered as a consequence of Man's actions is a real one, but don't over-egg your pudding. In the 1970s the great climate science fear was that we were 'due' another ice age (which have been coming round every million years or so recently). Maybe man-made global warming will stave this off! Ice ages lockup free water and make half the world totally uninhabitable. Like Antarctica on steroids.

There may be a problem here about authority - street furniture (i.e. signposts) are the remit of local authorities, not railway companies - and although Thameslink uses Denmark Hill is it actually 'their' station, or is it Network Rails? I suspect that the best that could be done by rail companies is to signpost actually on the station, which may be unnecessary if you've got that far. I agree the signposting isn't good, but whose fault that may be is moot. And who must remedy it mooter.

Yes, you're right, for some reason I still write SPG when thinking of the TSG. Just initials. And then expand it to the old name. The name was changed of course because of their appalling rep, but effectively the unit remained, or quickly became, the same. They're still the MET's tactical heavies. But their remit, and that of their predecessors, was always far wider than riot. In their case one TLA is much the same as another.

But this is being implemented by Thames Water - the very last people I would trust. The amounts of water lost by Thames through leaks is huge (more than would be needed by population growth over the next 20 years) and their repair policy and implementation - including full replacement, is lamentable - the stretch on the South Circular outside the Horniman is regularly repaired (which has included full replacement, which took months) every 18 months or so for almost as long as I have lived in ED (35 years). Their revenues have been diverted into dividends (and debt repayment for a debt leveraged purchase) and away from maintenance and repair. You are right that a fully occupied house with say, a family of 5, will properly use more water than a family of one or two, but Thames will use this as another nice little earner and not a way of 'being fair'. They expect to impose rationing on families so they don't have to mend their leaks. And I would trust Thames even far less than the Post Office as regards handling computerised tariff information - 'smart meters' are very scary when Thames is handling the data crunching. Stand by for £milllion pound bills.

As a general remark - there are no such thing in the UK (or London) as 'riot police'. There are the SPG (Special Patrol Group) but these are not, specifically riot police. When I reported a burglary under way in ED it was the SPG who turned up, having been on a pointless 'obbo' in Brixton and getting bored, and hearing the 'shout' that I had caused, decided to respond so as 'not to have a completely wasted day' as one explained. So the appearance of the SPG does not, necessarily, imply high levels of anything, except, apparently Met boredom!

Actually, East Dulwich, like very many parts of London has gone down and up in social terms - if you look at the housing stock, over time, large houses have been split into flats (and houses with rooms) and then re-configured as single houses again; there is, and generally has been, a mix of council housing (now 'social' housing, although originally without that concept), private ownership and private renting. 35 years ago, when I moved here, Lordship Lane was very different, as were house prices, but the area had previously (in the mid to late 19th and early 20th century) been far more upbeat. Oh, and I recall 25 years or so ago, in the 'posh-er' part of Underhill a huge raid on an empty house which had been used to train fighting dogs - so these things do happen, and will happen again. I don't think East Dulwich, by the way, was ever 'very poor' (too many nice houses and parks) - but it was certainly much poorer than it is now.

You may find that a service garage could help. I know that the Dulwich Test and Service Centre now in Tyrrel Road (Reg and Paul) have a pump. And are lovely people. Call them on 020 8693 1442 and explain your problem.

Yesterday afternoon, in the high winds, discarded trees were sent flying across the streets, which was quite dangerous. Thank goodness the winds are lighter today, but if you are putting trees out, ideally please do so in the morning, not the night before, and if possible wedge them (or cut them down) and put in your bin as an anchor. But the binmen seem, as usual, to be taking them where they can.

If your son wasn't using a Nectar card it may be worth checking that the 45p wasn't the Nectar price - I'm finding this whole dual pricing regime quite confusing. Which is probably what was intended!

To be fair, Royal Mail and The Post Office are, now, and managerially were, then, different entities. The people responsible for cocking up our mail delivery had no responsibility for sub post offices or indeed main post offices.

If at first you don't succeed, troll, troll and troll again... eh?

This is not data but simply personal observation, but it would not surprise me to find that usership is disproportionately male and under 35. I would be very happy to be proved wrong. I should say that I avoid commuter times when I'm out and about to observe, so usage then may be different. As was noted above, the amount that bike usage displaces even more active forms of travel cannot be so directly observed.

I think they might also be bus or train users locally, and of course anywhere (almost) else in London, tube users.

No, it's not about controlling roads, save in their guise as a profit stream, it's about generating revenue. The outsourced wardens are incentivised based not on some measure of 'controlled roads' but on revenues (fines) generated. One is not a true proxy of the other when the roads (as was demonstrated in the case of the southernmost wards in Southwark) had no need of 'control'.

You are, of course, right that there is such a thing as dangerous parking (and indeed inconsiderate parking) - but these wardens are not engaged to deal with this - but with fining people parking safely, but, at the stroke of a pen, illegally (sometimes illegally only for a short period of the day) - driven, we now know, mainly as a revenue earning opportunity (as was explained, before being denied, by our councilors). The fines being levied by these gentlemen (and I'm sure ladies, as traffic wardening is not a protected occupation) are indeed punishment for victimless crimes. In the areas they patrol, 'bad' parking (i.e. as described above) may be penalised as it will not be parking in the areas permitted, or by an individual permitted to park; but do not expect wardens to travel, or penalise, outside the revenue generating roads.