Penguin68

Today (as on every Tuesday since the Covid pandemic hit), both sets of my bins have been collected and emptied. The gangs working on my road (Underhill) now start shifts at 5:00am or 6:00 am (split to enable more social distancing between crews) - each gang has been hit by illness or quarantine - so there have been gaps - but they've always arrived and collected. I know some others have not had such support from their bin men - but I'm really impressed by mine. Refuse collection is a really important local service - Veolia has managed generally very well (100% for me), and I think at a time of carping and criticism (often from me) about what's happening locally that should be acknowledged.

The papers today are also suggesting that it is the paucity of good quality (i.e. likely to be popular) new releases which is precipitating the announced closures - Tenet didn't do well for instance. Maybe the poor weather will encourage more attendance (if there's anything decent to watch) - but it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation - without good films audiences won't come - if audiences aren't coming there's no point in releasing good films.

.

It is increasingly clear that 'our' councillors are anything but ours - they are the spavined poodles of the Tooley St apparat. If we ever get the opportunity to vote again in London then we must beg independent individuals who are interested in representing Dulwich and East Dulwich residents to stand against the apparat. Otherwise our lives will become intolerable. A borough only for cyclists isn't acceptable.

I'm pretty sure that lead was removed from petrol for health reasons. No, it was removed because it wrecked catalytic converters (which were of course needed to remove unburnt hydrocarbons, which were a health issue) . In the 70s there was a huge campaign against it in petrol, certainly - mainly because its removal considerably reduced the efficiency of petrol - it had been added to remove 'knocking' which was a problem otherwise with cheaper types of petrol - by urging health benefits the industry wanted to 'hide' issues to do with the poor fuel efficiency of unleaded petrol. Lead is a very common element - but its very widespread nature (it ranks in the top third of commonest elements) was attributed to leaded petrol to prove a point. Whilst it is (slowly) water soluble, and was washed away into rovers and oceans off roads (eventually) its airborne 'life' is as paint dust, mainly. It is of course poisonous and is clearly and properly linked to developmental issues in children - but the general claims against leaded petrol are probably ill founded, certainly as regards inhaled lead.

Yeah, you're completely right! I remember the tang of the lead at the back of your throat when I used to walk to school as a child. I suppose we should be pleased that the days of lead poisoning are behind us. The majority of lead in the atmosphere came from flaking white (and red) lead paint extensively used both before and just after the war, and still forming part of the built environment many years later - tetraethyl lead (the anti-knock additive to 4* petrol) fell as (heavy, not air suspended) lead particulates in the carriage way and tended to be washed away into the drains. Not good, of course, but not breathed in either. I suspect the 'tang' at the back of your throat was coming from some of the many other air pollutants. Lead was removed from petrol not because it was itself a real pollutant problem (in the form it took) but because it destroyed (by coating them with lead!) catalytic converters, which were taking out the unburnt hydrocarbons which were and are a real health issue.

unfortunately it's the remaining 89% who are being displaced that cause the problems we are seeing across Dulwich as the council chases the displacement. And who may be unable or unwilling to move to non-car journeys - through issues of age, infirmity, length of journey, need to carry stuff with them (for instance work vans, people with very young children etc.). Having been a previous two-wheeler a series of accidents (when I was knocked off my bike by (a) a stolen car and (b) a swinging artic turning cross me - I was stationary at lights at the time - persuaded me, once my casts were off, that two wheels was no longer am enticing option. With public transport the joke locally that it is - particularly for those east west journeys apparently so hated by the apparat that they block roads to stop them - cars are the only option for many if their route isn't into town. Of course the apparat (and Southwark cyclists) mantra is that if you can't or won't cycle, then you shouldn't be living in London (or anywhere else for that matter, why don't you just die you old bast*rd and get out of our righteous lives?). And, eventually, we will. And then you'll get old.

Flu jabs can lose their efficacy over time However, they also take 1-2 weeks to become fully effective - so you do need to get the timing right. 'December to March' is seen as the season, although it can start as early as October.https://www.bupa.co.uk/health-information/childrens-health/flu#:~:text=Seasonal%20flu%20(influenza)%20is%20an,and%20as%20late%20as%20May. However it is to be hoped that mask wearing, social distancing and hand washing may reduce the incidence - so it's an ill wind...

Do you know why the council have consulted with so-called "Southwark Cyclists" on low traffic neighbourhoods, but haven't bothered to consult us, the people who live on the affected streets and who voted you in to represent us? Because you aren't worth spit, but Southwark cyclists (most of whom by definition don't live, or cycle, in ED) are God's Chosen. And have views which match those of Tooley St. Nobody is stupid enough to consult those who might disagree with you, when those are powerless to alter things.

The only remedy to this is through the ballot box (should we ever be allowed to vote again - clearly London Mayor is now a job for life). We must hope that occasional car users (and people who have to breathe on the new designated traffic jam roads) outnumber cyclists.

Boots normally offer them, but unprecedented take-up (can't think why) has led to shortages and suspension of their service. I suspect if you wait a bit they will become available again. Anyone in a vulnerable (age/ underlying condition/ caring responsibility) category should have been offered one through the NHS.

And no doubt your dentist does not form part of the state apparatus - and is acting properly and carefully, as are (most) of us. My issue was with the state apparatus which cannot be bothered to pay - well really even lip service - to acting properly. If other countries can take temperatures, and dress up in PPE (even masks), at their borders, why can't we? And what sort of a lesson is it giving to visitors to see state employees so lacking in interest?

But if commuting into town / traffic is much reduced as a result of changes in working patterns, then these changes make even more sense don't they? Blocking roads that used to be used by through commuters (but aren't now) and forcing local traffic onto fewer roads causing traffic hold-ups makes no sense. If we are saying that (some) local roads now should be reserved for their occupants and local traffic that used to use them should now be funnelled away from them (but, by the way, those people living in those protected local roads can still use other local roads for their needs) then we are creating pockets of privilege at the expense of their neighbours. Which I, for one, don't sign up to.

I haven't really heard however, anyone explaining how the first approach (sticking with the status quo) can possibly make anything better. But its fairly clear with the changing work-patterns - and the likely move even after Covid 19 is over to much more working from home, at least part-time - that we will never return to the status quo ante bellum. It would be far better to make changes once we know what the new normal in terms of traffic timing, densities and patterns is going to be. And what impact e.g. ULEZ will have to pollution levels. For instance through commuting to town is likely to be much reduced - although commuting to work in Dulwich may be maintained - but then, that's people working to our benefit.

Does English exceptionalism also encompass complaining on forums unlikely to be seen by the offender about actions/non-actions after the event instead of there and then? I?d say yes. Even reporting it to the offender a day or so later would help. To whom would I report the failure to test for temperature (or have any method of doing so) or for the lack of wearing or using PPE by government officials? There are simple things that the authorities could be doing to help the anti-Covid-19 cause. It seems easier to restrict individuals then to engage your own employees in 'doing the right thing'. If you want people to take Covid-10 seriously, you need to start by doing so yourself, in deeds, not words. I knew that the Spanish authorities were serious about Covid from the second I got off the plane - from the second I got of the plane in Gatwick it seemed clear that the paid officials couldn't give a toss, and that there was no attempt to check on the health of those arriving. Obviously not everyone who has Covid 10 has a temperature (and some who do have a temperature don't have Covid-19) but it would be a start and a marker that it's important. My point, posting here, is that we should be expecting more from the authorities, in terms of what they do, not what they say. After all, they want to judge us in terms of what we do.

I travelled to the Balearics recently - (with much lower infection rates than the UK now) - every passenger was temperature tested on arrival by nurses, full social distancing, masks etc. - on return to Gatwick - no temperature testing, half the forms weren't checked (although they would have been registered on the system) and many of the immigration staff were both unmasked and not behind screens. No gloves used when taking passports. (Most of the automatic readers were down!). If the impoverished Spanish Government can get it right, how come we can't? Oh, and mask wearing everywhere built-up - except when actually eating or drinking, or on beaches.

See an earlier post - Dog Kennel Hill north bound is closed following an accident. I presume this is knock on from that.

What I like about this conspiracy theory is that it requires adherents to believe that LTNs are covert class war waged by the Stalinist residents of Court Lane. No, you wholly misunderstand. The kulacks and oppressors of Court Lane want to create their scum free enclave as part of their capitalist desire to grind the faces of the poor - the Bolsheviks in Tooley St., working to a different agenda plan to use this both to achieve car free zones which will meet one of their agenda, and to allow righteous worker fury at the kulacks and oppressors to fuel the fires of revolution against the capitalist hegemony. Eventually a win: win. Or maybe the Tooley St apparat will simply grab any straw in their war against privately owned vehicles and the owners thereof.

If the goal is to reduce pollution, But it's not. The Tory aim was to get people out of cars and onto bikes or their feet (assuming therefore that most car journeys are unladen and local) because that is 'healthier'; and Southwark's aim is simply to force cars out of Southwark as they are owned by kulaks and oppressors of the poor. By making car usage impossible you nudge people into either (a) giving up their cars or (b) moving - and moving the kulaks and oppressors of the poor out of Southwark is clearly a win. In the short term, and ironically, it is the kulaks and oppressors of the poor who live in the gated communities now created (and they are in the more expensive parts locally) that are benefiting. But it's a long game the apparat is playing, no doubt.

I'm afraid this health crisis has given a whole new range of aggressive actions to the natural bullies around us. What is being reported here isn't just about thoughtlessness and stupidity. It is allowing the spiteful and aggressive a new portfolio of unpleasantness. Obviously in these instances of 'aggressive' non mask-wearing; but additionally I'm afraid in the opportunities for those who would have relished a life in East Germany with the Stasi to report others to the authorities for 'transgressions'. Covid-19 will help find the nastiest traits - sadly thus more than compensating for all the good that it also created (people shopping for others etc.)

Many of the schools around here have their own parking, good train stations local as mentioned And many don't. Additionally the public transport routes that serve us are optimised for those travelling from further south into town (north) - anyone living on an east:west axis and wanting to work in the Dulwich area will have a nightmare (and very long and 'round the houses' commute) on public transport - and that's if they want to risk that in Covid-19 land.

there are the schools and health centre nearby so the longer hours are much more suitable. Yes, whatever we do, let's make sure none of the teaching or medical scum can park up close to serve our needs, let the b**gars walk, preferably crawl on their hands and knees to serve us. Or maybe they'll get work where they can 'commute' more easily. And not bother us with their so called expertise and 'caring'.

You are most likely in this scenario to pick up the virus by touching something that has been contaminated by droplets - so it is key not to touch your face (or mask) until you have been able to either wash your hands thoroughly or use hand sanitiser - now much more available than at lock-down. You are less likely, frankly to be directly contaminated by aerosol spray, particularly if you are not that close to the one not wearing a mask. It is the one not wearing a mask that got off out of your seat the stop before you joined the bus that is your most likely contaminator.

Attenborough wants the world's population reduced by at least a third. The UKs contribution would need to be 20 million. Not even close.

Thanks for your reply. I looked at the Southwark website and noticed that the 12 month period runs from March to April. So you still pay the same amount for 1 month or 12 months. That is ludicrous. To be fair to Southwark (and I very rarely write that) in the first fiscal year of operation when they started very late they did reduce the fee pro rata. For most people, having signed up once, the council expected them to sign-up again at the start of the fiscal - so having just one price (for 12 months) made bureaucratic sense (they didn't have to build in software for a sliding scale - as logic would always start the 'year' at the beginning of the council's fiscal year). Remember any price changes are implemented then following council votes for the budget. I think paying pro-rata for months left to April would certainly be fairer - but might be overly complex for a council who are signally poor at their own CPZ charge management.