Penguin68

Tesco (OKR) had own brand Dijon mustard in stock last week. Sainsbury also has its own brand 'Dijon style' mustard, but it's certainly not from Dijon (and is harsher than 'Dijon' mustards actually from Dijon) - Moutarde de Maille is the brand you most normally find in the UK (or rather, don't at the moment)

As posted above, that's intentional. Additionally, when they stopped counter serving meat, fish and delicatessen stuff (Covid!) - they freed up a lot of space which they had to use somehow. They do now have a halal and veggie area, which is good, and their sushi offering has expanded. Some shortages (i.e. real Dijon Mustard) are caused (in that case) by draught and fire ruining the mustard crop in France - others equally are not to do with trading issues. Some are related to lack of CO2 gas for freezing or preservation (ironic, isn't it, not enough CO2!). A lot of veg (in terms at least of quality) have been impacted by low/ no water available. There are. of course, some trading shortages and shortages linked to the lack of cheap casual labour for harvesting- but in truth Brexit has not had a major impact on the grocery trade as such, there are many other pressures on it.

Update - Monday 3rd October - my postie (south Underhill) says they are concentrating today (after the strike) on delivering 'tracked' post and parcels and will start on letters etc. tomorrow. I assume that strategy is also being applied to the other ED walks - but of course if your walk doesn't have a regular postie you will be relying on allocated relief people.

Looking forward to you opening up a bakery called "Nuns' Farts & Cappuccinos That would be either Les pets de nonne avec Cappuccinos or les pets de sœurs avec Cappuccino- so good they named it twice, the second more common in Francophone Canada I believe. Neither would cause that much offence amongst most in ED I'm guessing.

You know who else was a vegan, don't you? Not Hitler, if that's what you were implying.

If the bakery is part of a chain (or a franchise) you are not going to be able to get one outlet to change the name. If you don't like that, then withdrawing your custom is your only remedy. It is clear that there is at least some debate about whether the particular variant is as offensive as other variants, whether you agree with that or not. It does seem pretty unlikely that the Dulwich outlet intends to offend anyone - although of course we now see intent to offend as being in the eye of the beholder, and not the author. Language and usage is problematical. 'Morris' dancers were almost certainly originally Moorish dancers - and not named as such as an 'homage'. Many words originated as slurs (and many words became slurs having originated differently). When I was young, post WWII, 'Coloured' was considered polite - where 'Black' was offensive - now that has all changed. We choose our language to fit the times, of course, but where names are historical attempting to change the past is both fruitless and may be argued as 'wrong' - if we hide the past we may end up forgetting where there was offence, and falling into that trap again. Very few people (non Greek speakers or those not from certain parts of the Islamic world where Greek is regularly spoken) would see the term as anything other than quaintly foreign, and certainly wouldn't translate it - and many names of foods are not 'nice' . There are a range of Italian and French pastries called (in translation) Nun's Tits and Nun's Farts - I can see numbers of religious finding that offensive, but nobody's changing those names.

Actually (Underhill) I have had both post and parcels delivered today (29th). I had a delivery yesterday as well from my regular postie - but over his long weekend (Friday to this Tuesday, inclusive) no mail deliveries, although I did have parcels. I was told there was a temporary manager in place in the ED office in Highshore Rd who really didn't know much - but a parcels postie who lives in SE15 told me he wasn't getting deliveries either. It's a mess, certainly, but not a uniform one. Walks with regular posties are getting mail, but where there isn't a regular in place then it's whoever's free and available for overtime. There is no proper cover for absences, and some walks have no permanent cover at all. It's pretty well the same mess we've had since well before the first lockdown, indeed from about 6 months before our own ED office was closed.

These are the pubs being sold off in London, Croydon is separate. London Battersea - Asparagus London East Ham - Miller's Well London Eltham - Bankers Draft London Forest Gate - Hudson Bay London Forest Hill - Capitol London Hornsey - Toll Gate London Holborn - Penderel's Oak London Islington - Angel London Palmers Green - Alfred Herring

...Only to say that 'Police at the bus stop' might be a better 'subject' - as you say it's not clear what the police were doing there, and it may not be crime related.

As it is written, the neighbours most impacted would be those on the other side of the road adjacent to the building works. These would/ should already have party wall agreements with the owner. So any building damage should be covered. The OP as I read it, apologies if I'm wrong, is in a property opposite the works in question. I. E. I'm guessing by that the other side of the road.

..? Weirdest troll I've seen

The decision you are quoting is about service charges for maintenance of the individual properties owned, whereas I believe the charges from the Dulwich Estate cover (1) expenditure on the upkeep of the estate excluding maintenance costs of the individual properties and (2) the management cost of managing the Estate. The decision was about property owners taking direct responsibility for their own maintenance costs. This isn't an issue for the Estate and I would guess their argument would be that what they spend on upkeep of their whole estate (excluding the private properties) but including e.g. work on Dulwich Woods etc. is to the general benefit of residents of the Estate outwith their specific property location. (See Schedule 1 of the link https://www.thedulwichestate.org.uk/media/2282/som-management-charge-accounts-2021.pdf) I suspect you would be hard pressed to argue that individual property owners should take responsibility for this (e.g. maintenance of Dulwich Woods) type of expense. This is very different from taking responsibility for maintaining your own property. Normally such challenges are made when 'service' charges appear very costly against costs 'normal' householders might incur, e.g. for exterior paintwork, fabric repair and so on. As regards the types of expenditure which the Estate does charge for, lobbying via the Dulwich Society might prove more effective.

I am not a lawyer but I believe that the Estate is pretty well sewn up, with little opportunity, if any, for individuals to vary anything, even when acting in concert. It is far more difficult (I believe) to impact Charities (like the Estate) than private or corporate landholders. Some relevant links (but you probably already have these) are:- https://www.thedulwichestate.org.uk/property-on-the-estate/residential-freehold/the-scheme-of-management https://www.readkong.com/page/guidelines-for-residents-the-dulwich-estate-scheme-of-5044478 https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/5-501-1835?contextData=(sc.Default)&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true The Estate is the Estate - where a property is (Central Dulwich/ 'the Village') is not really relevant. Its writ runs where the Estate runs.

It is certainly worth documenting any damage - with photographic evidence - if you use a digital camera (i.e. as in a phone) the picture meta-data will record the time and date the picture(s) were taken, which may be useful evidence. Rather than at this stage involving your insurer it would perhaps be a reasonable investment, if there does seem to you to be clear damage, to ask a surveyor to report on this. A surveyor's report again would prove useful evidence. This will cost money, of course, but if you see costly repairs ahead this may still be of value. If you involve your insurer before there's a claim you might simply find your cover reduced or your premium rising (I'm afraid insurers are like that!). And then perhaps a solicitor's letter to either the builder or the property owner informing them of the damage being caused.

The current rumour in the press is Herne Hill. Close but no coconut.

...as are very heavy vehicles (i.e. skip lorries) going over speed humps or other obstructions too fast, causing them to bounce! My garden wall has had its mortar shaken out by this.

So you can campaign for road closures? I don't think that's quite right. I believe that (pre LTNs and maybe pre-lockdown) the Society endorsed general moves to reduce road generated pollution (who wouldn't? - remember that the ULEZ expansion was theoretically directed at that as well) but without specifying or endorsing particular solutions - when the specific LTN proposals were actually made the Society still endorsed the claimed objective but did not endorse the particular solution - the Society seemed to recognise the very divisive impact potentially of the actual solutions proposed and realised its own membership would be very divided by them. I therefore believe that the Society as a whole has not taken any public position on local LTNs although individual members of the Society clearly may well have quite clear (and often conflicting with others) views of their own. I therefore believe that the Society has never endorsed the actual 'LTN solutions' now in place - despite some claims made by 3rd parties - whilst still believing that reduction in traffic generated pollution (not its redistribution) in Dulwich is a good objective. For that reason it would not be right to suppose that the Society has, or does 'campaign for road closures' as a general statement of policy. We all know of roads that have been closed or partially closed, some supported by the Society - those leading onto Peckham Rye for instance, or around schools at key periods - but these have tended to be for 'obvious' safety reasons.

There is - it's nested under 'Features' on the site - this is the link to Search https://www.dulwichsociety.com/search

It is unlikely that it is something sprayed on the grass (I'm not sure what you'd spray at this time of year - weed killers and fertilizers tend to be spring dressings) - it is possible that some form of fungus may have sprouted in the grass (which is an autumn thing) , which the dogs are eating and which upsets them, or possibly the keepers have put down rat poison, although I think they tend to use baited traps. Or that dogs have eaten some food left behind by visitors which has turned, although dogs have pretty robust systems. It is also possible that a dog or dogs have fallen ill and the cemetery has been blamed wrongly - we have had 'scares' like this before where no proximate cause to public land has been actually proved.

In addition information about parking (costs, restrictions, timing, particular in Parks such as Dulwich and Belair) would be of value. And possibly links to sites offering travel information - such as real-time train times from local stations (inc. Honor Oak park and Forest Hill which are of value to those in the east of 'our' area). Indeed links to 'live' sites might mean that some of the updating chore is outsourced. As more people access the EDF from mobiles that becomes, perhaps, a real and immediate value. A Link to this site (when they bother to put in the Councillor information!) would be of value, and would mean councillor information wasn't up to you to update https://communitysouthwark.org/dulwich/#:~:text=Councillors%20represent%20their%20areas%2C%20or%20wards%2C%20to%20the,councillors.%20All%20seats%20are%20occupied%20by%20labour%20candidates.

The old Forum used to have a link (board) giving access to useful local information - such as Local Councillors' contacts and other similar information - I suspect that the data on it (some of which was out-of-date) might have been something that was saved during the hand-over. The information can of course, generally, be googled for, but it was useful to have it on one place. It would be good if something similar could be created (although clearly that is not an easy task). Maybe some of the information could be sourced from e.g. The Dulwich Society. Just a thought - but I am really cognisant of your efforts and the continued success of what was, in effect, a virtually seamless migration onto a generally user friendly platform.

I think this has been effectively said by others, but if you want the transactional relationship to continue then 'amending' your agreement to include some sort of notice period for weekend (or alternative day) access would seem reasonable - say 10 days notice for weekend access, with this being dependent on convenience for you (you can refuse this request). Should he wish to request access without that notice, then he should understand that he has no 'rights' to that, and you can very reasonably refuse it. He is buying full access for 3 specific days in the week - when you could not offer his room to anyone else - anything else (day flexibility) is grace and favour from you. If he choses not to use the time he has bought, that is his choice. What he cannot do is to buy 3 specific days and then expect to swap them willy-nilly - that's an entirely different commercial contract - where you would charge him much more than the 'going' 3 day rate for that level of flexible access - in effect he is wanting not a specific 3 days, but any 3 days in a week - thus limiting your own use of the space not to 4 days but to 7 days. You would be entirely in your rights to rent out the room to another person for (a different) 4 days a week - in which case he would have no flexibility of use at all!

"or (2) the 'I've just gone to work on a bin day and I haven't yet got home to put the bins away" Those that fall into this category will be home to put the bins away l-o-n-g before the council will get around to removing them BUT they will still have been reported! - And what if they're away from home for a number of days?

As earlier posters have urged us to report the miscreants so that their bins are taken away and they are punished by the local authority I do hope that those so minded will ascertain without doubt whether they fall into (1) the 'Elderly and disabled' camp, or (2) the 'I've just gone to work on a bin day and I haven't yet got home to put the bins away or (3) the 'Can't be **sed' brigade'. It would be most unfortunate if someone reached the wrong conclusion here.

(1) We are asked to put bins for collection effectively onto the street on collection day - which is not infrequently nowadays collection 2 days. (2) People without large, or any, front gardens find it difficult to store the plethora of large bins within their curtilage - and the bins are often not of a size where they can be readily brought through the house and back again. (3) and as stated those with disabilities, including age, find it more difficult to move bins in and out. Although in theory the collectors will assist with bins of the disabled, crews change so that they don't always know, and some are less helpful than others. When I am in I always try to move my bins off the pavement once they're collected, but if I'm away from home that isn't always possible. For those working away from home the bins will always be on the pavement (or wherever they are left by the collectors), until they householders return from work. Bins on pavements may annoy you, but do try to get some perspective. In the grand scale of things this is all pretty trivial.