Penguin68

All for profit. Yes, well, that is what living in a capitalist society is about. For most actual businesses profit is the key motivating factor. Profit, IMHO, is fine - there are issues about excess profits, of course, where market power allows you to exploit your suppliers (labour and goods) or your customers, but there is legislation to address this. Not always with much muscle or teeth, of course. It is taxes on profits which (partly) pay for much of what we value in life, as well. Without profits you don't get some types of tax income.

PPI killed the NHS - making a fortune out of ‘new builds; charging £200 to change light bulbs in the PPI building for example - all work was charged at an excessive rate to make profit for private companies... This is getting close to being lounged - but PPI had nothing to do with defunding the NHS and everything to do with getting public expenditure 'off the books' - it was a PR exercise, by, mainly, the Labour government. It's just that as the largest receiver of public expenditure the NHS was the most successful target for what was, at best, an accounting obfuscation. Most companies let contracts to other companies for e.g. services. They do so with very tight contractual requirements which are closely vetted by experts in procurement, and with clear cost and performance targets. They employ heavy-weight lawyers to ensure this. They do so, generally, profitably (normally for both contractor and employing company). PPI contracts were, and are, a mess because HMG has no idea how to let or manage contracts (more accurately they forced the NHS to do so under their fiscal rules, but without ensuring they had a proper, commercial, procurement set-up). Government Departments and Nationalised Industries tend to fail to recruit procurement professionals of sufficient calibre to let contracts in a commercial space. PPI was always a bad idea, as it's job was to hide expenditure, not to control it.

Sadly Wes Streeting and Starmer seem ok with private healthcare in the NHS... it’s all very depressing. At one level 'private healthcare' - in the sense that health care is being provided to NHS patients through private contractors as part of the NHS service - has been fundamental to the NHS since its inception in 1948. GPs never 'joined' (as did hospital doctors) the NHS, preferring to remain individual or partnership or company contractors into the NHS, as did both dentists and ophthalmologists. Many laboratories serving the NHS are also, and always have been, non-NHS entities on contract. The core part of the NHS offer - that treatment be 'free' (not charged to) the user at time of need - is what makes the NHS different and special - and that does continue still (in the main, dentistry, eye care and drug prescriptions notwithstanding). How that treatment is delivered, via NHS hospitals (or private hospitals on contract to the NHS) - via private GPs or NHS A&E - via government or private labs is just a matter of process. There is nothing magical, or necessary, in those delivering healthcare being in the employ of government. If the delivery is bad, of poor quality or poor timing is a separate issue - and needs to be addressed whether the deliverer is directly employed by the State or delivering a contract to the State.

Cutting funds to the NHS plus the loss of staff due to Brexit has led to this (Covid not so much, I suspect). Actually, far from cutting funds the Tories (like every government since the 1970s and before), has pumped money into the NHS - frequently at well above inflation, - so increased in real terms. The business model for the NHS was set in 1948 and has effectively not changed since then (with a little tinkering around the edges). Name me a commercial business operating with the same business model for close to the last 75 years and I'll show you a business that went bust 25-50 years ago! And remember that the GP sector (primary Care) has always stood outside the NHS - they are simply private and independent contractors who provide services to the NHS (although mainly trained at the expense of the NHS).

I do think people need to recognise that whilst old people may be able, in theory, to 'work' IT, poor sight (cataracts anyone?) and e.g. annoying things like Parkinson's can get in the way of readily using what can appear 'fiddly' things like smart phones. I'm lucky, in my early 70s that I'm still sufficiently fit that these are not yet a hindrance, but I'm aware that they may become so, even though I'm fully able to know how tech stuff works. So 'think about the old' may well be 'think about the people not fully able' - which disproportionately do include the elderly. Clearly the physically and technically able 'old' may feel patronised by those who plead their presumed problems - but they are not the only ones out there. And there are technophobes - again of all ages but again disproportionately on the aging side. Who should still be able to bank with some convenience.

I particularly enjoyed the weasel comment in the report "The majority of residents in Southwark do not own a car, we are providing facilities for those walking, cycling and using public transport. There are still locations to park for those who need to use a car." - which is comparing the flat, highly public transport supplied inner London part of the borough with a part so far south, hilly and without good public transport that it is virtually not in Southwark at all - and whose car ownership (and needs) much more closely allies to the outer London boroughs it is surrounded by. But then lies and obfuscations are what we expect from this source.

Thanks Mark

The alleged actions may have been unwise, and outwith PO regulations, but (1) there may be a back-story here in mitigation and (2) possibly making a person lose his job (that will really benefit his children, won't it?) and even be prosecuted seems a disproportionate outcome. I'm afraid Covid-19 regulations and alleged breaches of them have brought out the Stasi under the skin in some people. A note on the windscreen might well have been sufficient. Acting to protect children (which is what I assume happened here) may have brought unintended consequences (well, clearly not unintended I suppose) which will be far more damaging to the family.

However; several tables for 4 all with one person with a laptop and spreading can lose a café (if it's 3 tables, say) 9 potential covers. In weather like this - when getting out of the sun and rehydrating may be a clinical necessity this is simply not fair, on other potential customers or the café in question. If you're going to café work - to use their power and air conditioning be prepared to share tables and order frequently.

That was about the arrival of M&S in its place. Many mourned the loss of Iceland too. If we could have had both...

Now that the future of the Forum appears more certain (for which huge thanks!) I wonder if I could boost this? Despite the very high current levels of infection, it is to be hoped that Covid per se does eventually drop below our event horizons. However local health needs and issues of local health provision will not, and a dedicated board to that might obviate the regular pleas from newcomers to the area for advice as to GP surgeries etc. - where previous discussions might be more readily to hand. Of course it would need to be locally specific and not include general discussions about either health itself, or about the NHS etc. in general. Obviously you will have other items much closer to the top of your agenda, but I hope that by the time we start to wonder whether a Covid specific board is still necessary you might have time to think about this.

LTNs have silent majority support it seems from the elections. Probably because lots of people get quieter streets and the people getting fined, are the ones who don't know the area and therefore probably don't live and can't vote here..! I thinks that's complete rubbish - the election was fought and won far more on the grounds of national politics in general as well as disgust with some of the antics at No 10 and views about prices, tax and so on. This area has ben solidly Labour for some time; the little local difficulty with LTNs notwithstanding most people ignored that with an opportunity, mid-term, to wave a warning flag at the Tories. Nobody was so stupid as to believe that LTNs in Dulwich would be sufficient to topple the Labour apparat in Southwark or to change a damn thing locally.

I'm sorry, I was in Japan well before Covid (and SARS) - then people (about 50%) were wearing masks and reasons given were pollen allergies and colds - just because the Japanese choose to wear masks for perfectly valid, non-Covid, reasons (and are culturally attuned to do so) doesn't mean they won't also when Covid is about - but equally the fact that mask wearing is culturally a norm is SE Asian countries and isn't in the West doesn't mean we can't learn from them. I bought masks after being in Japan (well pre-Covid) because I am a hay-fever sufferer. And wore them in the UK during the season. SARS - and then Covid - both occurred after my Japanese visit. The mask wearing preceded the diseases in question. But Japanese think passing on the common cold isn't something they should do.

Thanks - I did pick that one up myself just after I'd posted - so used to the old site when the log-on was on a different page,,,

I was fascinated by the images from Japan over the past few days following the assignation of their former PM. Almost everyone is wearing a mask, yet here the numbers are rising and the mentality is "I don't need to wear a mask" Before Covid many Japanese (perhaps 50% of the population) regularly wore masks anyway, mask wearing is not a 'Covid' thing there. Half the population is allergic to red cedar pollen - red cedars are an iconic Japanese tree. Many Japanese (and Koreans) wear masks when suffering from any sort of cold, as well. So I'm not surprised to see mask wearing - it's effectively culturally endemic and shows no particular special response to Covid.

At the south end of Underhill I have not seen an 'ordinary' (non-package, daily post) postman since last Wednesday. I am expecting letters (of course), and journals. Is my experience unique or are others similarly located also suffering? I'm guessing that summer leave has left my walk uncovered, but it really is (still) entirely unacceptable. And this is without any strike yet starting.

Every time I 'refresh' the page on a PC (Windows 10) I have to re-log in. That's easy to do, of course, but unhelpful. Additionally, unlike the older version, clicking on a link with a 'new to me' post takes me to the first post on that thread, unless I click on the tiny arrow which take me to the last. The old version used to take you to the last post you had read, which was more useful. But it's great that the forum is still here and we will get used to its vagaries, I'm sure.

The red dot says that it is a new post (to you)

The defendents had offered settlement, which was rejected, I believe. The courts look kindly on reasonable settlements being offered and less kindly on their being rejected. The award made was far less than the settlement offered I believe. Courts do not look kindly on litigation they perceive as vexatious. There was an offence, but it was minor and could be said to partly benefit the claimant by offering weather proof protection to their property. We do not know what advice was given to the claimant by their legal team about accepting or rejecting the settlement offer.

Shame on anyone who attended and dumped their junk, including ring pulls and ciggie butts...no excuse. Actually, in a crowd, extinguishing and then pocketing a cigarette butt is easier said than done - the organisers should provide sufficient waste bins for people to dispose of their debris 'locally'. And safely. And (if they didn't) employ loads of litter pickers at the event - not just to pick-up litter but to act as a visual reminder to 'guests' that they need to police their own litter. As it gets dark finding and disposing of debris becomes more difficult - and half the crowd, in my experience, won't have any pockets to take away litter even if they wanted to.

Is the assumed country of origin of the dog's owners relevant here?

Out of curiosity, if you were still a Councillor how would you interact with TfL over this situation ? I believe that (1) Southwark Council got to hear of this proposal at the same time as the general public (i.e there was no pre-consultation with impacted boroughs) and that (2) the current council is, or will be, opposed to this. I cannot think that any Southwark councillor (of whatever political colour) will happily acquiesce to such a reduction in local services. TfL (and indeed the Mayor) are allowed to ride roughshod over the boroughs - and neither group needs to take decisions in concert with the other. The Mayor has argued that if he could access the non-hypothecated Road Tax fund revenues for vehicles registered in London all would be well - but this taxation forms part of general taxation and goes towards expenditures entirely non-transport related.

This is rehashing of "useless Khan WOKE police... No, this is based on 2 experiences, one very recent, one a few years back, both in East Dulwich. One when the police showed no interest in prosecuting a burglar of a neighbour whom I actually had film (in the act), because the amount stolen in the end was of little value (they even identified the likely culprit from my photo and a neighbours testimony on the get away car registration) and secondly, this year, when the police were not prepared to come to the scene of a car driver intentionally ramming a cyclist against another car (going back and forwards to do this), injuring the cyclist and smashing his bike (again in East Dulwich) because 'the cyclist wasn't so badly injured that he couldn't limp away from the scene'. This latter was, in the end, pursued via correspondence, but no police record was made of the scene, the scattered parts of the bike etc. to support any case against what was very clearly a bad case of road rage, which ended in criminal damage and criminal injury (ABH rather than, thank goodness, GBH). I have no brief for the Mayor's apparent vendetta against the former Commissioner, nor the Mail's interpretation of that. I, like you, report my direct local experience; which clearly differs from yours.

I'm afraid the police will only be interested if (a) there is actual serious injury or death (but not just the risk of it) or (b) a substantial sum of money is involved unless you can allege e.g. racism or homophobia (or possible breaching Covid rules, but there are not, of course, now any of those, although historical breaches might suffice). Otherwise I'm afraid you'll just have to live with it. The days of 'chats with the police' are long past.

The 176 goes to Leicester Sq I believe, which is central West End. Only in theory (and I thought it was meant to be Tottenham Court Road?). In my experience it very frequently terminates on the bridge before even turning into the Strand.