Penguin68

To note (for new readers!) that the T J Centre houses a GP practice together with outsourced phlebotomy (Kings) and some other hospital services. It also acts as a hub for e.g. Covid jabs for a number of SE London GP Practices. I think SelDoc (out-of-hours services) is also still based on the site. I'm not sure what those hours quoted above are for, but I imagine the GP hub practice and maybe the GP practice. When people say 'Tessa Jowell' they are referring to a site with multiple medical services being run on it.

Almost all the local GP Practices have good and bad moments - there are none (even the Gardens) - which have uniformly positive reports over time - and a good practice now can go downhill in a couple of years, as can a bad practice improve. Many have very tight catchment areas as well. Find some which are close enough and look at their most recent reports is the best I can offer. It also very much depends on your circumstances - some are good for those with young families, others for those with long-term conditions. Good doctors can be offset by bad reception staff - so depends what you are looking for.

In general most residents' parking is (a) timed (so normally in the evening and at weekends (however defined) people without resident's permits can park and (b) gives you access to a general area in which to park, rather than specific 'bays'. In most areas residents can additionally apply for temporary permits (when restrictions apply) which are now frequently electronic (no permit card to display). So it would be quite difficult to be certain that any parking is in fact 'illegal'. You generally have no rights to park (on the street) in a specific location outside or adjacent to your residence (things are different in private car parks where bays may well be allocated). Even bays marked as disabled are available to anyone with an appropriate badge, and not a specific badge holder.

Veolia does not have access to an anaerobic digester in London. That is used to handle kitchen waste and garden waste is composted. Until they get a digester (they are expensive) all organic waste is ground up and composted. Digesters are mainly used in the countryside to deal with slurry and fresh farm cuttings to produce heat for power generation.

I love the fact that 2 years ago everyone was whineing about the introduction of changes to what was a free service They (and me) were also concerned that the council would take the opportunity to ramp up the prices quickly (as these charges fall outside those generally scrutinised) - in fact the initial charge of ?25 - which didn't cover a full year - and was raised to a comparable ?40 last year - has been held this year. And most do recognise that councils are under particular cost and revenue pressures currently.

I gather that Tooley St is pressing for a mandatory 15 year imprisonment term for anyone not referring in future to LTNs as 'a magnificent boon to all mankind'.

Re "you should have done it to big diesel lorries, etc." I would have thought that such vehicles are carrying a lot more than one or two adults and a kid or two on a short, walkable journey, so their ultimate carbon footprint would be lower? If the issue is air pollution (which I thought it was) then carbon dioxide, the vital gas for all terrestrial plants and hence the whole of the human food chain isn't (in this context) a problem. So this isn't about carbon footprint. I take my car to Durham on occasion, not a 'short, walkable journey' unless you live in Durham. I think, as well, that I said diesel vans, not lorries - which do tend to be parked up all around ED. Lorries tend not to be.

Edited to add a link to useful article questioning the 'SUVs' are safer mantra: If you follow the links in this article (which was about an horrific accident in Germany) you will find the key statistical safety claim links to a 2004 article - written at a time when the SUV style was mainly associated with very large (Chelsea Tractor) SUVs. 18 years is a long time in car design and road traffic statistics.

The safety argument for the driver is spurious as most are driven around urban environments and don't reach high speeds. The only argument for 'safety' I think I have made is that the driver's driving position, being higher, gives him/ her better visibility, thus being able to see, and respond in a timely fashion, to hazards. I would agree that SUVs are not particularly sporty (unlike hot hatches) and do not thus appeal so much to drivers for whom speed is important. As SUVs (as a modern style) tend to be more modern than some cars on the road they also are more likely (like other modern cars) to have more safety features built in, though these are of less use in low speed urban environments. I think that the issues about instability (which did effect 'high' SUVs in the past) have been partly overcome, and are less likely an issue, again, in low speed urban areas. Those SUVs with some element of battery power (self generating or plug-in) are again, because of the weight of the battery, more stable. And I should say that in my motorway driving (and in the countryside) I have seen a lot of SUVs which suggests to me that to say 'most' are driven (implicitly almost exclusively) around urban environments may be an exaggeration.

And my point, very simply, is that what has been targeted is not just 'a big modern SUV' but also small modern SUVs. So it's about hatred of a type/ style of car. Targeting big diesel vans would be far more effective if what you are on about is pollution and not class hatred. And, by the way, people may well park-up SUVs in Dulwich without exclusively using them in (our) urban settings. Asking why people should need them in Dulwich is no different from asking why residents should have the temerity to store their skis or scuba gear in Dulwich. And I'm always amused when they are also accused of 'rarely' using them, just leaving them parked up. So you would prefer to have them being used more?

Nissan qashqai 1475 kg

Mountain bikes take up the same space as all bikes. SUVs do not. That is rubbish. It is true that the 'Chelsea Tractors' of old were (and are) large - but many SUVs, like the Nissan which was attacked mentioned above, have a very similar or identical footprint to what was known as 'family saloons'. And indeed to people carriers. There are, certainly, big cars (as there are very big vans) but all SUVs are not the same. The most popular indeed (obviously, as they are cheaper) are those which may look big and butch (part of their appeal) but which are actually a pretty standard 'car' size. It is the fact that they are functionally hatchbacks, but taller, and not 3 box cars which make them look more imposing. Their height, by the way, as I have already said, gives their drivers a much better road position to identify, and respond to, hazards. They also tend to be more stately (slower) than many other types of cars (reference 'hot hatches') - and thus more safe (at least and in so far as they do not appeal to those who like driving fast).

'SUV' is a style, like saloon, or estate, or people carrier. It refers to a car which which is relatively tall (but less so than most vans) and which is built to 'look' butch. There are big SUVs - which are often used in farms, or for 'country pursuits' and some of them are 'luxury' (but no more polluting for that). Some big SUV capabilities are probably unnecessary for purely urban driving (though they may not be used just for that) although I do recall that in the very rare occasions when we have had snow and ice in ED that it is the SUVs (and not even the buses) that were able to manage the hill on Underhill by the cemetery. SUVs are the target of class hatred (of their owners). A modern petrol SUV is, as I have said above, actually unlikely to be a significant contributor to urban air pollution (compared, for instance, to the large diesel vans we see constantly on the move, even ULEZ compliant) and many in ED are not used on a daily basis, or for long (in time terms) drives in local streets. The SUV style is now quite popular (for many relatively small cars - such as the Qashqai mentioned above) and to target 'SUVs' is as sensible as targeting all 'saloons' when what you hate are Rolls's, and big Beamers and Mercs (and of course, those with the temerity to own them!)

And it is worth reminding people that 'SUVs' are a type of vehicle based on their overall design - they sit taller than standard saloons (which is very handy if you are elderly, for getting in and out of) - but they come now in many sizes. The driving position gives better visibility (particularly when you are driving amidst e.g. higher sided vans) which is a safety feature, and modern smaller petrol SUVs are decidedly less polluting than many older and particularly diesel saloons. And Hummer is launching this year an all electric (huge) SUV! Which clearly operationally has a very low pollution contribution (even where its manufacture may not - but that isn't relevant to use around locales). It would make more sense to attack large, diesel, vans than SUVs; but then there is much less envy and class hatred directed at van drivers - so that's all right then.

The PO is being disingenuous here. The concept of the USO on stamps for letters (same price, wherever delivered in the UK) is based on cross-subsidy - rural mail delivery is subsidised by urban deliveries, which are more cost efficient. In the same way (surely?) parcel deliveries by the Royal Mail postmen cross subsidise letter deliveries - so that if one class of delivery reduces in volume, but another increases - the two should both contribute to meeting the overall costs of postal delivery. In their PR at least the PO is suggesting that the reduction in letter volumes should be treated as stand-alone in their cost recovery considerations. It may very well be that the PO is operating at slimmer, or even negative, margins; but they need to demonstrate their overall revenue shortfalls across their delivery service, not just across one element of it, to justify their price hike. 'Stamps' are of course their payment medium for both letter and parcel post - but the prices (in stamps) set for parcels and letters are different. Of course they are being competed against on parcel delivery in a way they are not on domestic letter delivery, so this is a way they can leverage their effective letter monopoly for domestic post - but there are rules on exploiting monopolies and these should be invoked.

I would strongly suggest that you follow the recommendations from the Red Cross and others regarding donations in kind. Such donations will be much more useful for refugees who end up in the UK (and especially locally in Southwark). Right at the moment (and for some time to come, I fear) the crying need will be for medical supplies and assistance - which can only be effectively supplied from 'qualified' sources - and cash donations are the most effective in acquiring this type of support. Relatively bulky material aid which ends up in the Ukraine may well be destroyed (or looted) by the Russians.

I think in some cases people who are planning to go to the conflict area to offer help and support think they may as well travel in a full car or van as not. That's a lovely sentiment of theirs, but (see above) it may not be the best way those not planning to offer direct help and support can best direct their charitable instincts.

Really? Does it still work with just the nose? I assumed they were totally different tests. I believe the pathogens appear earlier in the throat than the nose, so a full screen may pick up infection earlier - but if you are symptomatic the chances are that they are in the nose by then. So throat and nose are more thorough. So long as one bar appears you will know that the test 'has worked'. If you were prepared to 'waste' a test you could try just nose and then throat and nose on another slide to see if the results were the same. I suspect that for many, when they do both test sites, their throat swab was anyway ineffective - it's quite difficult to hit the right spot on yourself, so many apparent dual tests were actually really just a nose swab.

Yes, I did in fact donate to that. It seemed to address the most immediate needs during a time of conflict and (validated by e.g. Bellingcat) attacks on civilians.

Can I urge people locally to consider donating cash and not things to Ukraine and refugees in the front-line states - things (such as toys) may be appropriate for refugees who do end up in the UK - but cash will allow the right (needed) stuff to be bought locally in the front-line states rather than incurring costs of sorting and transport across Europe. And needs I believe are now for medical equipment and staff to support the wounded. And choose well-known charities (such as the British Red Cross) - I'm afraid that these events bring rogues out of the woodwork who will set-up scam charities. Check the background with the Charity Commission if you find an otherwise obscure charity that rings your bells. Because this is happening in Europe there is a huge and effective infrastructure in place (and goods available to buy locally in the front-line states) which means that there are no actual shortages in the medium and long term even if specific localities may be short of some things immediately [of course, there are shortages in Ukraine itself, but getting stuff there is non-trivial and shouldn't be being done by blokes in a van].

No, I was responding to the 'can't see your point' post. And your comment is the equivalent of suggesting that to criticise, e.g. the raising of National Insurance rates now would mean that the criticiser was against all taxation, or against funding the NHS. You can object, not that I actually was in that post, to specific traffic law changes without exclaiming there should be no traffic laws.

Possibly the implied point was that were the LTN roads still to be open, then traffic could have naturally diverted away from the (albeit it appears short-term) blockage, thus allowing traffic to flow freely and not contribute to local pollution levels by being 'standing'. Additionally, when traffic is blocked (for whatever 'good' reason) emergency vehicles used to have alternative routes to choose from, until roads were blocked by planters etc. (now I think to be addressed, if only in part).

It was still possible (26th Feb) to order these on line. But now only every 3 days, not daily as previously (for those with large families and a need to test).

I feel as though I need to know more about how these count tubes work. This may help https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-black-strips-laid-across-a-road-measuring

I received yesterday an e-mail reminder from Southwark to renew my garden waste collection subscription (still at ?40 as last year) - which runs from April 1st 2022 to March 31st 2023. The system for doing so on line works quite well - (it does ask you to confirm your email, having emailed you (!)) which does seem a little silly - but I think it actually simply logs you in to your account that way. If you are expecting a reminder (and haven't got one) you might check in your SPAM folder. If you don't pay for things on-line I'm guessing doing so will be slightly more awkward than it is via on-line and credit card.