Penguin68

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.

There is ONE thing that reduces pollution. Fewer cars (or fewer journeys, depending on how you phrase it). That is simplistic rubbish. The ULEZ assumes that fewer polluting vehicles (those with high emissions) will reduce pollution - if it didn't that would be a con. Which is not the same as fewer vehicles (or trips) Journeys using electric and hydrogen vehicles (and the same number as before) would very significantly reduce local street pollution. Why not head for the Attenborough 'what we need is far fewer people overall' remedy - where cousin Covid-19 might have helped, had not those pesky doctors and scientists got in its way. Fewer car journeys may be one way of reducing pollution, but it is only one out of many, it is not THE one and indeed by thinking that you avoid considering alternatives and indeed things that might work with that remedy, to increase its effectiveness. You might as well say that staying on your own, together with the rest of the population on their own, in locked rooms, indefinitely, is THE ONE way of beating Covid. It's a way, of course, but are you signing up for it?

I would love to know what are the success (and perhaps more importantly the failure) criteria for this traffic experiment. Of course, we never will know, and indeed I'd be prepared to bet that none have yet (perhaps will ever) be set. There will be no way, for instance, based on the timing, to differentiate reduction in pollution because of the Ulez, and because of this - each will no doubt claim 100% of any success in that area. But I doubt whether a figure has even been set for a forecast outcome. Probably of either. And indeed - what base-lines will be being used? And, based on Southwark's very fast and loose attitude to statistics and measurement - why would we ever believe a word they said?

Is it normal to close whole cemeteries for a single funeral? Yes, in Southwark following the Covid-19 lockdown. Initially Southwark closed all its cemeteries willy-nilly, but later opened them for socially distanced use, but determined to close them during any funeral so as to maintain safe numbers coming together. Other London boroughs chose similar, but not necessarily identical, schemes. This was, and is, probably unnecessarily cautious. In normal times cemeteries are open for funerals, as these are seen as 'public' events.

Oh, that would be the 'I'm postponing the election and I p*** on your parade' Mayor of London would it?

If you mean Camberwell New Cemetery I believe it is because it houses a working crematorium - which is continuously in operation - the other cemeteries are also closed during burials. Despite the new restrictions I believe it would be possible to open it again to those wishing to visit family graves etc. but since there is so much green space locally (including Brenchley Gardens and Camberwell Old Cemetery as well as Peckham Rye) I don't think those just wanting to access the cemetery for exercise etc. are left wanting for recreation areas. However, any opportunity to reduce our lives and freedoms shouldn't be (and isn't being) overlooked.

Our postie is back off holiday and delivering like fury - he was surprised to hear that there had been no cover for him whilst away. I'm guessing that if they're not providing cover then many of our recent woes may have been holiday related. Although clearly if they are operating 75% under-strength there may be walks permanently uncovered. Daily post deliveries are actually part of their regulated service requirements (as are around 93% of first class post delivered by the 'next working day'). If they are failing to staff at sufficient levels to provide that (outwith the short-term impact of local illness) then they are in breach of their regulated requirements. My guess is that taking one week with another the local service to us is in breach. This isn't really about an individual dispute with the Post Office. But about a general failure in a local area. Something an MP would be (and I suspect is) pursuing.

I would add a quote from Churchill 'Democracy is the worst form of government'. Actually the full Churchillian quote is ?democracy is the worst form of government ? except for all the others that have been tried.? - (my emphasis) so rather the opposite of the point you were making.

The virus is going to mutate if it hasn't already done so- then we are back to square one. It is not in the virus' best interest to kill its host - so many viruses mutate to become less lethal (as syphilis did, originally a killer over a few days it changed to something which offered its hosts a much longer life). So a mutating virus isn't necessarily a bad thing. Actually, the version which is asymptomatic to its host is ideal, in terms of spread and ubiquity. It is also worth noting that it is most unlikely that this virus will ever be wholly eradicated - its close cousins, those coronaviruses which carry the common cold, certainly haven't. Covid-20 may already be out there, and Covid-21 and Covid-22 lurking to make their New Year appearances. It may be up to the old and vulnerable to protect themselves from the young - stressing to those in multi-generational households the risks they present and even (where they can) social distancing from them. Despite 'bolshie teenager' images I believe the young will respond better to 'encouragement' from within their own families than heavy handed government moralising, sloganising or police enforcement.

Effectively no mail deliveries for us at all in the last 10 days (but packages are still being delivered). I'm guessing 'our' postie is on holiday, and his walk isn't being covered by anyone - which used not to be the case. If they are really working on 25% staffing levels that's a disgrace. Their monopoly comes at a service quality price (i.e. %age of first class deliveries made next day, 6 days of deliveries etc.) They are clearly failing.

It is worth saying (again) that levels of pollution generally in London have dropped dramatically over recent years, and would have dropped further with the extension of the ULEZ. This is based on better engineered petrol and diesel engines. Add to that the impact of hybrid and wholly electric vehicles and vehicle-created pollution (in normal times) is already reduced and will reduce much further. In the short term, however, forcing standing traffic into narrow suburban 'highways' - many not much wider than the roads closed - will add to local pollution. Southwark wishes to force 50% of cars out of their borough (they're on record for that) - which is fine for the flat, well served by public transport northern end (the original Southwark) - which is also closer to the centre of London for those wanting to walk or cycle - but fairly dreadful for the hilly, poorly served by public transport Old Camberwell end - also much further from places in Town you might want to get to. But does Tooley St. or their apparat care about those differences? - not when they can continue to soak us suckers for parking fees and so on. And now we don't even get a say (hijacking Tory legislation)... - well we do get a say - but only one day every 3 years (or longer when they can extend the vote because of a pandemic).

It should be noted that the 'extension' is at the restaurant's own expense - they are not receiving, in September, any government money.