Penguin68

Whilst I agree that the motorist should be made to pay for the damage to the bike (by the way, I'm not sure insurance will necessarily pay out for damage caused by the criminal intent of the insured) I believe that he should not be licensed to drive, if he cannot contain his rage for a 'slight' by another road user (as described to me by my daughter, I was not myself a witness). He is a danger on the road and shouldn't be allowed to drive.

My adult daughter was witness this afternoon to a car driver intentionally running into a cyclist (who had overtaken him in a queue of traffic at the lights) hitting him against a parked car several times and running over and destroying his bike. He then drove off. There were many witnesses, a number, including my daughter, photographed the event and his reg. number. My daughter phoned the police, but on learning that the cyclist wasn't severely injured (bruised and shaken I'm guessing, as it was all at low speed) they said this wasn't the sort of incident they would come out to - despite the fact that the cyclist had been assaulted by a man in a car, who had gone on to intentionally total his bike - which makes that assault leading to actual bodily harm and criminal damage in my book. Obviously terrible for the poor cyclist (but a lot of people gave support and e.g. shared their photographs and evidence of the event) - but what sort of service is the Met giving us? Too busy chasing up year-old office parties to bother with trivia like this no doubt (and yes, I know those are different branches of the Met, but really!).

That makes sense, but how are new builds allocated to bands? At actual value or at an adjusted 1991 type rate? This may help https://www.gov.uk/guidance/understand-how-council-tax-bands-are-assessed

Maybe this is the problem? Council tax bands have been static since 1991???!!! So, a property in Dulwich which now on avg goes for upwards of a million pounds might still be banded as what the value was in 1991? The council's fiscal needs are identified and then a rate is set pro-rata by tax band. It is the relationship of tax bands (and the number of premises in each band) and not their actual value at any one time which is key. Each band is allocated a %age of the needed revenue, taking account the number of properties in each band. There is an issue about whether there need to be some additional bands, certainly - but the changes in house prices over time are not an issue per se. You can imagine scenarios where, for instance, the price of one bed flats was static, but of 5 bed detached houses increased by 200% so that an imbalance emerged, but so long as prices are moving generally in line with each other this shouldn't be a problem. Imagine that the 'price' bands were colour codes - so that some premises are 'white' some 'yellow' some 'red' some 'green' some 'purple' and so on. Purple houses pay tax at 4 times the rate of white houses (say) and that's always true, however much a purple house now costs (or a white one). Effectively the 1991 valuations are (treated as) colours.

Has anyone had any post (letters etc.) today ? Yes, my postie is back from his 10 days leave. I suspect (I don't know) that leave has been discouraged in the last weeks before Christmas, which means many took leave owing earlier which may explain poor service just around now. As there is no slack at all for cover. Where rules only allow 5 days carry-over for leave, and if the leave-year ends at the year end (but it used for the Post Office I know to end at the end of March, but may have been changed more recently) you may understand while people may be taking time off. Hopefully things will get back to normal (even for those walks where 'normal' hasn't been acceptable in the last months with no regular postie).

2) Streets don't seem clean anymore and dog mess is everywhere I don't think the council can really be blamed for this, under current legislation - it is dog owners (or walkers) with a complete disregard for their fellow citizens - possibly lock-down dogs bought by people who don't know (or care) how to look after them in a suburban context. If I was to look for 'wasted' expenditure it would be on council dog wardens policing poo. I agree that there is more about, of course. In Iceland (Reykjav?k) dogs can only be owned if the all the neighbours agree - and they can only be walked in one area alone (as regards pooing). I'm not sure we are communitaire enough for that here.

( unrelated to traffic, also on the agenda is for Southwark to set up its own in house construction company to build council housing). I lived in Lambeth during Red Ted Knight's rule. They had an in-house building business - notorious for corruption. This bodes extremely badly. Housing construction is a non-trivial business. Many councils (in the 1920s and 1930s) had quite good in-house firms - but post-war there is little experience or understanding within councils of what qualifies as 'good'.

How very unlucky to have had such a lot of problems in two trips. I gave up taking the 176 into the West End - it always terminated (in the evenings) on Waterloo Bridge, wherever it said it was going when I got on.

Southwark has one of the lowest rates of car ownership anywhere in the country. Most households don't have a car. It's about 0.4 cars per house, maybe less now. That is a borough wide figure - and the comparatively populous north of the borough is well supplied with bus, tube and rail routes. The south of the borough, and particularly the deep south (here) is vey much less well supplied, and I believe car ownership in our neck of the woods is much closer to e.g. the Bromley figures - not surprisingly as our exposure to public transport provision is similar.

The post box local to me seems to be regularly collected. The problems we have in ED are to do with the Delivery Offices - the PO box collections (and the work of the London Sorting Office) seem to be operating relatively smoothly. I suspect delivery failures are to do with understaffing in Delivery offices and on the Post Peoples' Walks. Certainly that's true for ED. My regular postie is on a 10 day holiday - and we've seen no deliveries in several days since we went on leave, although the PO guy delivering parcels today said we might get a mail delivery tomorrow. But there is no slack for cover (holidays/ sick) at all, and some rounds have no one permanent on them.

I can't see these new rules sticking if they are not policed and enforced If you are referring to the latest regulations which came into force this (Tuesday, 30th November) morning - then they only apply to mask wearing in shops and on public transport - not the NHS. The Tessa Jowell centre (the site owned by the Department of Health) is very much a mixed economy - with community services, hospital services and GP services - and (I'm guessing) their cleaning staff are not directly employed by the NHS at all (as they wouldn't be in a normal GP Surgery, for instance). The Centre will have 'rules' for staff (carrying no legal weight) - but whatever they are doing they will not be in breach (or in compliance, for that matter) with the new 'legal' rules announced.

There are clearly differences of opinion about the utility of mask wearing - although it is commonly believed that the most risky behaviour (which therefore calls for mask wearing) is to stay within 2 metres of someone else for over 10 minutes in an unventilated space. The amount of infection that can be shown to result from contact with a contaminated surface is far less than was first thought - most infections seem to arise from aerosol spray. The cleaners (presumably working on their own and not within 2 metres of others on a continuous basis) were probably acting relatively safely - as were the reception staff processing through the building, which is, as I recall, quite well ventilated and open plan - and presumably again not within two metres of others for an extended period. They may anyway be required to take a lateral flow test before coming into work (as many in health care do). I am not sure that anyone would normally claim that it was 'safer' not to wear a mask (unless clinically exempt) - although to rely on mask wearing (rather than normal hygiene, social distancing, being in ventilated spaces and vaccination) would clearly be foolish. Generally mask wearing will make more sense when the traffic (people about) is higher or when you are in closely confined, unventilated spaces. Most of Tessa Jowell, particularly first thing when the cleaners are still about, probably doesn't qualify. You can argue that mask wearing is about social signalling - and hence a form of courtesy - but that (may) be a different issue.

The front section is the car park, isn't it? I believe so

Renata - that's been really useful - did Veolia give any indication whether, when or if they are going to introduce anaerobic digesters (for kitchen waste) into the system? - rather than just combining kitchen and garden waste for composting? At the moment the separation we are obliged to undertake is not actually matched by Veolia, who treat both types together. I know Veolia do operate digesters in some areas. Also, I'm assuming that when you write 'even the darker almost black ones are now recyclable' you mean that the actual black ones still can't be recycled.

TJHC is indeed, I believe, an NHS Community Care (GP Consortium) site for Covid vaccinations so wouldn't be on any general NHS vaccination list. It is used just for the GP practices in the consortium, to consolidate Covid vaccinations in one place for that Group of surgeries. Nominally I believe only patients of those practices are called up there.

Are you therefore in favour of Southwark being a private property developer using council land and money to build luxury flats? Actually, and I'm not saying this is the case here, but if Southwark was using income from the 'luxury' flat owners to pay for the costs of building the social housing (i.e. Southwark gets appreciable amounts of social housing for no net cost to the council tax payer) I would be relatively relaxed. Increasing social housing availability at (effectively) no cost seems a win:win. Particularly at a time when economic constraints are significant on councils. Of course there needs to be a balance here - commercial property developers, when they are obliged to include social housing within new developments tend to include the minimum they can get away with, whereas I would expect a council to be looking for no additional profits from the private housing over and above meeting the costs of the social housing.

I drove past the site opposite the Harvester which has been referenced a couple of times on this thread yesterday ... and there were no trees. Actually, they are behind a green fence (behind where the tree trunks are lit up by lights). They are not in the front section where they used to be last year.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The idea that we all > become locked into our own locales, traveling no > more than we can walk or cycle...which 70 years and more of real > life have told me is not something to be wished > for. You are criticising an idea that you yourself have invented and that no-one (Swedish or otherwise) is proposing. By carefully excising the words between 'cycle' and 'which' - you remove my subsidiary argument that with the existing poor (and threatened worse) TfL provision locally the opportunities (without car usage) of people to get about become very limited - to walking or cycling, unless you happen to live close to a station (I am a 20 minutes, hilly, walk from one). Our own dear Greta would love us all just to walk or cycle - as would numbers of those who are being allowed to influence road planning decisions locally (from another thread Health professionals aren't). And if you think that no one is proposing such an idea - how does this square with the Southwark Labour Party's avowed objective to drive (sic) private car ownership out of Southwark? - With poor and getting worse local public transport provision (and rising costs of taxis, and decreasing availability) walking and cycling is increasingly where it's (hoped) to be at. Throwing e-scooters into the equation gets us nowhere (other than A&E).

Imagine using the same measure for cars. Indeed, I would advocate a 'whole life costs/ whole life benefits' analysis in general - as I would a 'whole life costs, whole life revenues' analysis in determining product or customer profitability. We need to reduce the cars on the road Why? As a matter of principle or faith? We also (see Attenborough et al) 'need' to reduce the number of people - but I haven't seem him volunteering to start the trend. The right cars (as to propulsion fuel, size, weight etc.) are entirely acceptable to me. There may be types of vehicle which I would choose not to support. But cars and the ability to travel without let or hinderance (within reason) seems a reasonable freedom to want to retain. The idea that we all become locked into our own locales, traveling no more than we can walk or cycle (with TfL's funding complaints and where we are here almost the only alternative now open to us), accepting that age and disability will restrict those freedoms, is to launch ourselves back into Middle Ages primitivism which I'm sure Swedish teenagers long for, knowing no better, but which 70 years and more of real life have told me is not something to be wished for.

Health wise, no they are not a form of exercise but they do get people out of cars And into A&E, not infrequently. The energy they consume has to be generated, with a climate cost associated with that, and they have to be built and transported to where they are sold - that also has climate cost implications (and an existing car doesn't incur further build and transport climate costs). As for finance, so for climate issues - you need to examine whole life costs and whole life benefits. Once cars are built and sold their initial climate costs are sunk - whereas a new scooter incurs new climate costs. ULEZ has substantially removed the most polluting vehicles from our locale (it would seem). I suspect as 'toys' these scooters will actually generate usage as a substitute for walking or public transport, or just for fun, so they may create net additions to 'the problem'. Outwith their safety aspects.

I buy from a seller who is local and who sells plants etc. 52 weeks in the year. That means that I chose my tree from him (and pay for it), but he keeps it for me until a couple of weeks before Christmas in outside (cold) storage - so I only take it into the house just before Christmas. Buying too early and bringing a (cut) tree indoors will dramatically shorten its 'life', even for the non-shedders. If you have to buy early then ideally keep your tree outside (if you have anywhere) until you need it. Trees will be being cut and delivered over the next week or so, so buying a tree late doesn't mean that it's been more recently cut and is fresher. However, keeping it outside, particularly if there is a cold snap, will preserve its utility longer.

Not sure what you mean by raw data. The raw data would be hundreds of thousands of individual instances of a vehicle driving over a traffic counter - I don't think this would be very useful to anyone! As for being "massaged" I don't know what this means either, are you suggesting it has been fabricated in some way? Nice try, but no coconut. Raw data would be a list of sample sites, the actual dates when samples were taken (i.e. when the sampling was working - the one outside my house had one link untethered for a number of days) and the 'hole count' of 'hits'. If the sampling allows it by time slot (i.e to distinguish rush hour from midnight). It's what is often called a 'hole count'. The 'raw data' isn't each individual log but a count. If you see what data is actually there (site 'x' has 2043 vehicles passing on (date/ time slot)) then you can start to understand what valid conclusions can, and cannot, be drawn. Data is collected (stage 1) and then analysed (stage 2) and then interpreted (stage 3). We get at best a wild summary of stage 3 - with no knowledge what, from stage 2, is being suppressed or focused on. We want the stage 1 data.

Let me see if I have got it right: No - I don't think you have. You can leave the UK without any testing etc., or certificates, so far as the UK authorities are concerned. However you must meet the entry requirements of any country you travel to, most likely some valid certification of vaccination but may also include tests results, most probably PCR. Although the UK places no restrictions on leaving, your airline may well not accept you for travel unless you can show you have the necessary proofs for entry at your destination. You need to check soon before you leave what the entry requirements are for your destination. These may be different for different destinations and may change suddenly. For entry back into the UK from most destinations you will now need only complete a UK entry form (to have for your return) and to take a lateral flow test within 2 days of your return to the UK - but I believe you must pay for these, not use the free NHS provided kits: Eligible travellers will be able to order cheaper lateral flow tests from private testing providers as an alternative to a PCR, offering faster results. The list of approved private providers will go live on GOV.UK on 22 October. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/lateral-flow-tests-to-be-introduced-for-vaccinated-international-arrivals Hope this helps.

That's a non story, just speculation and no mention of covid which has been devastating to tfl fare box As the story was about a shortfall in anticipated revenues from the extended ULEZ the reduction in TfL fares because of low public transport travel through Covid is hardly relevant. The suggestion is that the ULEZ charges were anticipated to act as a (part) replacement for these lost revenues. Of course Covid has massively reduced travel revenues (and indeed increased, through more cleaning) TfL costs. It's rather more journalism than speculation, and I suspect the figures were sourced by bona fide journalistic methods rather than just invented. The story:- TfL said ?early indications? were that the Ulez ? which expanded to the suburbs on October 25 ? would not generate as much cash as it hoped due to ?greater compliance? with the rules. TfL had predicted that about 135,000 cars and vans a day would pay the ?12.50 levy as a result of their exhaust emissions breaching the new rules, while about 2,000 HGVs would face the higher ?100 charge. This would have generated up to ?2m a day, in a mixture of levies and ?130 fines for motorists who failed to pay. This is in spite of the fact that the Ulez was set up to reduce toxic air, not to generate cash. has too many hard figures in it (easily disputed if invented) not to stand up. Or are you arguing that the ULEZ wasn't set up to reduce toxic air (which it apparently doesn't (yet) seem to have done either - or not much).

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TfL services may be cut due to funding gap, mayor > warns > > Apparently the ULEZ expansion has not led to the > money bonanza hoped for - as too many Londoners > have chosen to get ULEZ compliant vehicles or not > come in - which means that the expansion, for > which the Mayor prayed-in-aid reduction of > pollution and improvement of air quality was > actually (anything sound familiar here?) about > revenue raising. The Mayor was hoping for a > continued influx of polluting vehicles, which he > could charge, not for what has happened. > > How unlike the home life of our own dear Council - > or not? Any evidence for this (e.g. tfl minutes) or are you just making it up? This story from the Evening Standard https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ulez-expansion-compliance-less-money-fines-tfl-b966901.html