Penguin68

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.

Just saw Megan?s are attempting a rebrand of Lordship Lane with a sign they?ve installed saying ?Megan?s on the Lordship?. Hilarious Although there is an element of sense in distinguishing - a simple 'I'll meet you at Megan's' is open to misinterpretation - it's likely that people might naturally use that sobriquet anyway. Or another, worse, one.

There is a strong move not to mow in the early summer/ late spring to allow growth to support wildlife. Long grass is no longer a sign of neglect, but may be of careful management.

The original intention from the Treasury was that this was to be paid 'In April'. This has now been changed to 'From April'. So don't hold your breathe. The 'explanation' is that it is proving difficult for (some) council's to set up. Of course they aren't generally set up to make payments to individual households, just to receive them, and not everyone is anyway on direct debit or has bank accounts (particularly those most in need of the subsidy). All they can readily do is to identify those (in Band D or below households) who are eligible.

also search for your three councillors on the council website I had thought our wards were now smaller, with only 2 councillors elected.

Test and trace has now ended in England so this is almost certainly a scam. Avoid

Is this targetting? Possibly, but most likely by either a utility, a broadband/ telecom company or the local authority. Otherwise vandalism. Criminal gangs do target properties, of course, but not by marking them (which other criminal gangs could spot, and get in first! Hardly a good economic model for theft).

Maybe that was the reason for the closure of Camberwell Old Cemetery on Thursday? There are some fine Traveller plots there.

until he tests negative (which he still hasn't done. Tenth day now.) Some people continue to test positive for many days over the 10; it is however most unlikely that at that stage they are actually still infectious. Though not, of course, impossible.

If you have tested positive with symptoms you are likely to be less infectious by day 5/6 after testing - and probably not infectious after day 10. If you have tested as a consequence of a contact testing positive, but you have no symptoms, you cannot tell when it was likely you were infected [you could have infected the contact, or been infected at some other time by some other person] - so leaving 5 days after testing again is sensible but not 'required'. If symptomatic you have probably become so 2-3 days after infection. If your are positive but asymptomatic (no sneezing or coughing) your chances of infecting others will be reduced, particularly if you wear a mask when in enclosed spaces. As has been said, there is now no legal requirement to self isolate, but as also been said normal consideration of others would suggest you are careful, particularly if you know you will be in contact with someone at risk through a function of age or other health problems. Unfortunately most current symptoms mimic 'normal' cold symptoms - so without testing you cannot know, if symptomatic, the proximate cause. Whilst there was a huge surge of Covid infections around and after Christmas 'excess deaths' as measured by the NHS in England showed as 'negative' (there were fewer deaths than statistically expected, from any cause) for the months after Christmas until mid March, when they did start to climb (into treble figures by April although that may not be statistically significant) - the cause of these deaths may well not have been Covid. What I am saying is that Covid's impact on public health as regards mortality (or probably serious illness) seems much diminished against the earlier 'waves' of infection, probably as a result of vaccinations and recovery from earlier infection offering a protection against the severity of the possible effects.

...Although it is not clear whether this was a consequence of the pavement build-outs which seem to have become commonplace around ED - to narrow the roads at junctions (and indeed bus stops).

Can anyone tell how much the tickets are at the picturehouse. Prices are different if you are a member, if you are old (on some days) or young (on others) and the days you plan to go.

Extinction Rebellion are not a 'green' movement per se, but are (as are Black Lives Matter in the UK) an avowedly anti-capitalist movement using disruption and civil disobedience (which often itself actually causes ecological damage and has distinct 'carbon costs') to publicise protest without actually suggesting viable alternatives which could be delivered effectively within the UK economy. They are spoiled children throwing their toys out of the pram. Their avowed 'ends' may be crowd pleasers, but they offer no real route to those ends. Their stunts are costly and are more likely to put-off those not wed to their tactics rather than persuade. Far more impressive are those who actually live a genuine low carbon life which could be adopted economically by others. Causing traffic jams and vandalising stuff which will then need repair ain't that.

Underhill (my bit) had its full (green and brown this week) collection at the 'normal' time this week and last. If you had a blue bin collection missed last week it wouldn't be collected this week (if you are on the same cycle as me).

But you can vote them in and vote them out. Until (e.g. Putin) they decide you can't. And Trump tried as well and might have got away with it. A constitutional monarch is a useful (and in almost all circumstances powerless) figurehead, in our case wholly non-divisive. Only an elected President on the Irish model (again virtually powerless) would offer an acceptable substitute. One necessary qualification for an acceptable President would be no membership (ever) of a political party and no history of (party) political engagement.

The stated aim of the scheme has always to reduce harmful emissions caused by 'more polluting cars'. The scheme has been successful so far; more so than anticipated. It really is as simple as that. Such an aim is admirable, in so far as it must be assumed that the 'more polluting' vehicles pollute more. To my mind the real underlying metric is a measure of improved air quality - the apparent reduction in 'polluting' vehicles is a proxy for the more valuable air quality measure. And I would make the point that nowhere is it stated by the Mayor and TfL that the reduction in revenues is being seen as a win. I cannot see headlines (though I haven't looked everywhere) of 'ULEZ delivers polluting vehicle reductions in new ULEZ zone'. All I can see is a whinge that planned revenue targets weren't met. We are seeing this as a win for the policy, but that's not (quite) what's been being said. Maybe because if it is such a win, why were we playing around with LTNs if they were being introduced for healthy streets purposes.

Doesn't this suggest that it's been more successful than expected in reducing the number of high polluting vehicles travelling in the zone? If you think that's what it was all about, then yes, but very clearly the Mayor and TfL were looking at it is a revenue generator - they want polluting vehicles in London to fund them. Hence all their focus on revenue generation. The metrics I would have been looking for were (a) a reduction in polluting vehicles entering London and (b) an improvement in air quality (year-on-year - although recent vehicle activity cannot be said to be the pre-Covid norm). It is interesting that these latter metrics are not 'the news' as regards ULEZ expansion. But that less revenue than expected is. Speaks volumes. And throws some light on LTNs (IMHO).

It's simple. Your use is frivolous. Mine is necessary.

Every royal is tax avoiding, dodgy expense claiming in ways that you or I would at best be sacked for gross misconduct but more likely charged for criminal offences. Hard to celebrate such scrounging from ALL the royals. The Royal Family, famously (other than the Sussexes) do not sure for defamation - so such assertions can be made willy-nilly. In fact very few now get state funding (other than the costs of state visits) most are funded by the Queen from her own income and from State Money she does get. Her age and infirmity mean, of course, that she undertakes far less now than she used to, so placing the burden on her immediate family. The Royal Family are hardly unique in avoiding tax - most people do - claiming allowances when they can etc. and ensuring that they act tax-appropriately. This is very different from tax evasion - which is a criminal offence. I am not sure how the author has access to private expenses claims made by members of the Royal Family - those that are in the public domain - associated with public duties - will have been paid openly, and would have been open to challenge. The 'expenses' allowed to lower ranking employees in any firm are frequently the subject of rules which are not applied to e.g. board members - most of whom, for instance, operate with very different rules of travel and e.g. hotel costs than ordinary grunts. This is a nasty book published with the knowledge that the writer will go unpursued in the courts for defamation. That it is so warmly endorsed by a former councillor and parliamentary candidate for what used to be a respectable party saddens me. Republicans can be pleasant of course, and philosophically argue for a different constitution, but I think you will find that Presidents (Putin, Trump ...?) can be rather more venal and unpleasant than the Heads of State we are lumbered with. Republicans (other perhaps than some US Republicans) don't have to be nasty.

And Amsterdam is notoriously flat and quite small. Nothing like London if you live in ED.

Plusnet is a subsidiary of BT - there are pluses and minuses in that. Almost all terrestrial (wired) domestic broadband is supplied by BT or by the Cable Company owned (NTL) and Virgin badged cable TV services. BT is the only company required to wholesale broadband to third parties, so if it isn't badged Virgin then it is likely to be BT's underlying network - and it may be BT's or the 'service provider' providing the terminating equipment in exchanges (there are a few independent providers of networks in local (often village) schemes and new build estates etc.). The non-Virgin virtual providers in the main are distinguished by quality of customer service and price. BT (as a retail supplier) is technically dependent - as are other wholesale customers - on the independently run Openworld - owned by BT Group but operated at arms length from BT Retail. Sky is, I believe, a BT wholesale (Openworld) customer. The business market has more network providers playing in it and operates differently.

And Birmingham, Bath, Portsmouth and Greater Manchester

Oxford has gone much further and allows only EVs in. All diesel and petrol cars are banned. And I believe some Midland cities also have a form of ULEZ.