Penguin68

I don't understand the point made above about London Weighting, as I would have thought ED came within the area for Royal Mail staff to get London Weighting, but maybe I'm wrong. I believe Sylvester Road is classed as Outer London, Highshore Road as Inner London, so has a higher London Weighting allowance (at least, that's what a postie told me). When I worked for the Post Office, before BT split away in 1981, the two allowance rates existed, and I assume they still do .

I'm certainly not saying privatisation was the answer but maybe if they had had some competition they would have been a touch more dynamic. BT had not been able to raise money in the markets whilst still a nationalised industry (and indeed, as I said, had to 'lend' its operating surplus to the government as a negative borrowing requirement). After privatisation it invested ?20bn over the next 10 years in the network (a non-trivial sum in those days) - certainly competition changed attitudes (over time) - but it was the ability to borrow and invest which was the key element at the start. The government could have opened the investment taps without privatising, but chose not to. I'd worked for BT for 10 years before privatisation, and then 20 years after. It is unlikely, with its operating model, that Royal Mail could borrow as successfully as BT did, so investment in a new, state of the art, DO for East Dulwich was less possible - the revenue streams just aren't there to justify it. But recruiting and retaining staff for Highshore Road is a different order of commitment. Our problems are ones of poor management - the fact that most DOs across the country aren't in crisis mode simply reinforces that view. Management and unions, seemingly, supported the closure of the Silvester Road office and we are the ones who are feeling the pain - who was looking after our interests? The management were, and are, incompetent. The unions (quite properly) wanted their staff out of a DO which was not fit for purpose as far as staff well-being went, and were gaining for moving staff higher wages (inner London, not outer London weighting). This is what unions do (and are paid to do). The Royal Mail has service level contracts which it is failing to meet. Its regulator should be penalising it for failure. This is a failure of management and of regulation.

In the 1980s (and previously) Business Mail had been a very important part of the Royal Mail Business - as such things as email and later web transactions took off (but not really until the late 1990s early 2000s) a lot of Royal Mail's lucrative business fell-away - hence both the increases in postage prices and the reduction in Royal Mail profitability. Competition in the carriage business (parcels) did not help matters either. When Royal Mail was eventually part-privatised it was already a business in difficulties, with an increasingly un-robust business model. BT's privatisation (and subsequent actions of competition) led to a huge increase in service quality and range of services, together with a decrease in prices (driven by Oftel's RPI-% pricing policy imposed on BT for the areas in which it still had effective monopoly powers). The same was not true for the Mail.

BT separated from The Post Office in 1981 and was privatised in late 1984. Prior to the separation the Post Office had a 'negative' PSBR (Public Sector Borrowing Requirement) which meant it had to lend the government money. Much of that derived from BT profitability. I don't think the Mail side was especially loss making, but it was telecoms that drove value in The Post Office. BT's negative PSBR continued to privatisation, after which BT was able to start investing in the network.

I suspect this is specific to the Gardens - and running out of medication is clearly 'urgent'. If GPs are isolating because of Covid they may still be able to access remotely their systems (i.e. work from home) - I know some can in some surgeries. Keep on trying! And Good Luck.

I didn't suggest it would be easy - I did suggest that the only route to 'stop' a council once it ceases to listen to, or care about, its electors is to use the oversight remedies - which include judicial review. Yes, you are right, it is difficult and may be costly, which is why Private Eye can continue to run a fortnightly full page listing different councils' excesses. Which very rarely 'shames' a council into acting properly. The point I was making, again, is that collecting evidence of the council's failures may still be worthwhile - otherwise the only option is to roll over on your back and play dead and let them do what they want - (which is what they want you to do). Save where there is a balance of electoral power (we don't have it) local 'democracy' is local autocracy - where the autocrats for us are the Labour apparat. (Other local autocracies will have different masters, of course). Or are you advocating 'giving up'? I suppose if you dance to the council's tune you are, but if that, then you would be, wouldn't you?

Does anyone know why some roads would be getting deliveries yet others would have had nothing for so long? A fully functioning DO will have regular post-people allocated to each 'walk' together with office staff (ones who handle enquiries in the DO) who double as relief post people to cover sickness, annual leave and rest days (post people work 5 days out of 6). If there is a lot of sickness some staff will work double shifts (on overtime). Our DO is NOT fully functioning. Some of the walks do have regularly assigned post people - so they only don't get deliveries on rest days, holidays or when their postie is sick (as there aren't enough staff to offer any cover) - but a number of others do not have a permanently assigned postie - they may get casual staff, more frequently no staff at all. [However, collections - from boxes and POs - are handled differently - so you may not get any deliveries but are still able to post out effectively - so long as you aren't posting for delivery in your own DO, of course!] Walks which are only covered by casual staff are frequently poorly served as casuals may not know the walk, and probably aren't being incentivised to find 'missing' addresses. I suspect that the true appalling nature is being hidden by local management from the centre to protect their own backs. I pursued a case via Helen Hayes and (what a surprise) received close to a months supply of letters in two deliveries (over 20 items in each). But you shouldn't have to do it this way.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/1544990/royal-mail-parcel-delays-update-warning-postcodes-affected-uk The postcodes affected are listed below. Bicester DO (OX25 to OX27) Chelmsford DO (CM1 to CM3) Chipping Norton DO (OX7) Cricklewood DO (NW2) Croydon DO (CR0 and CR9) East Dulwich DO (SE22) Erskine DO (PA7 and PA8) Gerrards Cross DO (SL9) Greenwich DO (SE10) Havant DO (PO9 to 10) Herne Hill DO (SE24) Holloway DO (N7) Hornsey DO (N8) Manchester South West DO (M15, M16 and M32) Norwood DO (SE19) Oxted DO (RH8) Peacehaven DO (BN10) Rottingdean DO (BN2 and BN51) South Croydon DO (CR2) St. Helens DO (WA9 to WA11) Sydenham DO (SE26) The Hyde DO (NW9) Upper Holloway DO (N19) Upton DO (CH30 and CH39) Upminster DO (RM14) Wantage DO (OX12) Ware DO (SG9 to SG12) West Wickham DO (BR4) Willesden DO (NW10 and NW26) Do you feel that SE London is not getting a fair crack of the Royal Mail whip here?

We share specific problems with a (thankfully relatively small) group of DOs. They are understaffed (in terms of permanent staff employed - too reliant on casuals) and have been badly hit (particularly in London) by the latest Covid Variant. But the move to Highshore road, which much predated Covid-19, was always a planning disaster - but probably at the regional rather than national level. Our old DO was no longer fit for purpose, offering a very poor working environment for staff - which is why the union supported the closure. And staff moving their HQ to Peckham moved from outer to inner London weighting, which was personally advantageous. However, neither the logistics (of combining two DOs under one roof), nor Highshore Road itself was fit for purpose. And this has been broadly known by everyone. Even the ploy of much reducing the quality of service before the move (by running down the operation in Sylvester Road early) couldn't hide the immediate and continuing failure of the move. If they had employed sufficient staff then it is possible that this could have worked - but they never recruited sufficiently and managing everything not as walks from the DO (as was the case) but as van trips out to Dulwich from Peckham much reduced their staffing flexibility, making it more difficult for staff to cover sickness, leave and rest days. Helen Hayes (and others) argued for a new, fit-for-purpose DO locally in Dulwich/ East Dulwich, but the costs and effort of creating a new DO was unpalatable - I suspect that local management probably argued against it as well, claiming they could provide an effective service in the way they have now established they couldn't. Probably encouraged by views of meeting or excelling their local targets (which could have happened in a non-privatised environment as well, depending on remuneration policies). Finding the space for, and building a new, DO is non-trivial - and I doubt very much whether Royal Mail will ever go down that route now.

The only eventual remedy may be either judicial review or reference to one of the bodies with oversight of Councils (such as the Public Accounts Committee). On that basis an audit trail of what the council says and does may still be of value, even if and when the council in question determines to ignore its own electors. So continuing to ask questions and seek evidence, even where this seems to be wasted effort as far as getting the council to rethink its position is concerned, may still have an eventual payback if used to challenge the council's overall actions in what might be seen as a 'higher' court.

Legally if you have an accident you are required to stop and give your details. This is true about accidents on the Public Highway - I am not sure it is about accidents on private property - which the car park is. Most motoring legislation refers only to what happens 'in public'. As an absurd example, imagine having to stop and exchange details for a prang at Silverstone.

The government has pledged 7,000 air filters for over 300,000 classrooms which is simply ridiculous. I suspect that a large number of classrooms will have windows that can be opened - so that the numbers of classrooms that can thus have improved air quality will be rather higher than 7000. And at no energy cost. Of course, the ones that have windows that open over roads which have increased and stationary traffic because of LTNs is a mooter point. Perhaps Southwark could find the money out of their fines to pay for filters in these.

It was on a news feed a few days ago - can't access it as of now - sorry

Royal Mail is forced to publish lists of those areas with demonstrably poor service - their lists refer out to old postal DO districts - recently East Dulwich (SE22), Herne Hill, Croydon and Sydenham are 4 out of the 13 worst! Across the county. Two at least are of course 'former' areas where their DO has actually been closed and forced into another. Once again, as in Transport, SE London is a comparative loser.

It was interesting during the run up to Christmas to see the parcels side to the Royal Mail were working flat out. I wonder if there is more profit in parcels delivery rather than cards and letters. These is the small package element of Royal Mail (large packages are Parcelforce). I imagine they thought that just before Christmas, parcels (which would have presents in them, or which would then be given as presents) and, in particular, Lateral Flow Covid test kits were of higher priority than Christmas Cards and bills, if a choice had to be made. I wouldn't, personally, disagree with this prioritisation. Clearly Covid itself has eaten into their available workforce, but this position is exacerbated by not filling quite many (I believe) vacancies at Peckham. Once items have been posted, whenever delivered, the revenue has already been received, so probably profitability isn't an issue here. And all items will eventually have to be delivered. The overall staffing position clearly may be an issue of profitability - but this would be outwith any prioritisation between delivery item types.

Without (I hope) getting this lounged - both sets of advocates write as if 'truth' in this context, is both an absolute and something which can be objectively assessed. It isn't and it can't. As regards statistical analysis - the data simply doesn't exist to allow a 'scientific' approach - measurements were not consistent for location, timing or time - nor have raw data (hole counts) ever been fully published. And much of the 'analysis' and 'argument' (and I may be using those terms quite wrongly) has been based on qualitative and not quantitative data. The 'experiment' of the LTNs was never an experiment which fitted any scientific description of what a 'true' experiment could be like - there has not been, for instance, any predeclared and planned (and matched) control area against which the experiment could be judged; and an experiment in road adjustment - in part at least to achieve lower pollution levels - was started during an abnormal pandemic and took place at the same time as a major other adjustment (ULEZ expansion) designed to achieve the same end (except both were maybe more about revenue generation than was admitted at the time). It is thus, and always was, impossible to judge the air quality impact of the LTNs objectively. These hundreds of pages thus mainly reflect irreconcilable views where posters pray-in-aid those elements of analysis which fit their preconceptions, dismissing those that don't as irrelevant or 'wrong'. Both groups are equally as right, or as wrong, as the other. There are precious few posters (who have gone this distance) who can be described (old, traditional meaning) as disinterested. And many who have very clear axes to grind.

They are conservative because they don't know what condition your circuit is in i.e. old cable with poor insulation, water ingress, corroded connections, how much is alu/copper wire etc ... lots of variables There is very little aluminium in the whole local network (it was an experiment that didn't really work), I'm not sure there's any locally to ED. The enhanced copper of G Fast only works over very short runs from the cabinet. If offering ADSL they'd (Openreach) normally wipe up any corroded connections. For the FTTC service it is only copper from the last flexibility point (normally a local cabinet). The remainder (back haul to the exchange) will be fibre where 'condition' won't be an issue.

East Dulwich (SE22) was today identified as one of the DO hotspots for poor delivery by the Royal Mail - of course the ED DO is now in Peckham. This is the first time I've seen it in the acknowledged lists of poor delivery performance. My postie is still delivering, but I know I'm missing one weekly journal which hitherto has been delivered at least by Monday (should be the previous Friday).

BT has 3 main broadband offerings, the slowest of which is ADSL - which is an end-to-end copper based technology and the slowest. BT also offers a FTTC (Fibre to the Cabinet) service - the last leg of this is copper - which runs up to about 70Mgb - badged as (I think) Fibre 1 or 2 - these are the ones shown as Fibre on your chart - and (in some exchanges, but not I think available in ED) full Fibre to the Premise (end-to-end fibre). I suspect that the determinant is which BT exchange you are served by (you can no longer tell that just by the numbering range). As the underlying service is delivered by BT Openreach you are right that if BT cannot supply the speed you want, in this area it is only Virgin (actually the US Cable company consortium formerly known as NTL) that could - all other suppliers are virtual network operators relying on the underlying BT Openreach network.

So if TFL commissions independent academic research it?s automatically compromised? What are you talking about? You don?t want them to fund research into transport in London? The researcher is clearly independent of TfL - but is a participating advocate for a particular set of views and is therefore not, I would argue, 'an independent researcher; as regards the topic being researched. If the NHS commissioned the Chair of Forest to undertake research on the impact of smoking policy would you be happy?

I assume they must be doing Moderna, as they were giving Pfizer, certainly earlier on, when people were having first and second jabs TJ is giving Pfizer, or at least they were - and they gave 1st and 2nd jabs as AZ for those over 50. (First hand, or first arm, knowledge of both.) There is no requirement to mix vaccines between initial vaccination and booster - but it was felt that MRNA vaccines might be better for boosters - and those are Pfizer and Moderna. So anyone who had AZ initially would get a mix, those who had Pfizer wouldn't (necessarily).

As I've said before, most (but not all) walks in ED are covered by permanent staff, but some rely on overtime and 'cover' staff. When permanent staff are ill, on holiday or taking rest days their walks are frequently not covered - as the Peckham DO has absolutely no slack. With Covid sickness levels are high(er) than normal, so walks are more frequently uncovered. Hence some residents get occasional poor service, and some (on uncovered walks) regular poor service. With more DOs (before a number including 'our own' were closed) there was more slack to be taken up when staffing cover was down.

What is driving your doubt? Is it just stuff you read, you hear, or is it evidence-based? I reported a break-in next door (to which the police did attend) - I provided the police with photographs of the young men actually breaking in, and taking stuff away - a neighbour took photographs of the get-away vehicle - all were provided to the police who in fact did trace the vehicle, but didn't then pursue the case - my photographs and my neighbours being 'insufficient' for them to make the case. The value of the stolen goods was in fact low, so it wasn't worth their effort. In this road rage case the police did not ask for any ID of the victim, or the car, relying on the victim, at some later stage, to report the case. They certainly have never followed up with my daughter, who was a witness and who provided her contact details to the police. This does suggest a certain lack of interest.

I may be wrong but I don?t think we readers have got any idea if the Foresthill rd cyclist has contacted the police. My daughter, who pointlessly, as it turned out, reported the attack 'in real time' as it were, to the police certainly doesn't know - she provided her pictures (off her phone) to the victim. I suspect he may have been too shocked to do so. Even with pictures of the incident and the registration number I very much doubt (other than some boiler plate from 'victim support') that much, if anything, will be done about it.

Just to clarify, my daughter reported this incident to the police, who, as soon as they ascertained that the victim was not seriously injured advised that he could report the attack using an on-line form. As the victim was a stranger to my daughter, who knew neither his name, address or telephone number (and therefore did not give these to the police) I would be interested to know how they might have proactively pursued (or investigated) this. The scene of crime (and it was a crime) at the time had bicycle parts strewn over the road. Now dispersed and not available for evidence. And the people who viewed the crime (and might have stayed around to give evidence had the police deigned to turn up) are also dispersed. I don't know all the facts, of course, but as my daughter was the contact who called the police, as she was a witness (a rather shocked witness) to the whole attack I believe I am quite close to 'the facts' - close enough anyway to have drawn a conclusion about the marked lack of police involvement or interest in such an attack.