Penguin68

Penguin, the only way to get someone who is a danger to the public off the street is through the Police and courts into a secure mental health unit. This is simply not true. Within my own extended family one individual was sectioned at the behest and instigation of his parents - the police were not directly involved, and certainly not the courts. A patient presenting to a doctor and not prepared to accept treatment may, again, be sectioned if the doctor (with a colleague) believes that is in his or her best interests. Of course, when an individual is acting in a threatening manner, or attacking people, the police can be called and will act to their best capabilities, but they are not properly trained or resourced to be an NHS outreach service. 'Sectioning' an individual is something that happens instead of a court being involved.

So what are you suggesting? People should not bother calling the Police in case it's due to mental health issues? No, of course not, but what I am saying is that 'calling the police' does not simply solve the problem, except in terms of short term safety for the public. 'Calling the police' where a mentally ill patient is concerned, as it appears may be the case here, is the start of a long and difficult process - and one the police are ill equipped and resourced to deliver. '999' in and of itself is not a solution (as it may be for the simply criminal). Police are about dealing with crime, not mental health issues save where immediate safety (of the public or the mentally ill person) is concerned.

If he is displaying psychotic behaviour, a Police psychiatrist will section him. Then medical professionals will assess the risk, esp if he is not taking his medication, and go from there. You are making assumptions that doctors (you need two) are available to section him, and that there is space in a medium secure unit for him to be housed (his behaviour is clearly aggressive and simply putting him on a general psychiatric ward may well not be suitable). Frequently the only space - at least short term - where someone displaying psychotic behaviour to be held is a police cell, and the police are neither trained, nor are police cells suitable, for this. What you are describing is an ideal - I do know that waiting times for patients with mental problems which require psychiatric intervention are bad and getting worse.

All the descriptions here suggest the man is displaying clear signs of psychotic behaviour - the police are neither trained nor resourced to act as psychiatrists - all they can do is to lock him up, and we know that this is frequently a precursor to self-harm, or worse, injury caused by police attempts to restrain someone not criminal but mad. Ideally he should probably be sectioned and hospitalised, but there are woeful shortages of acute beds. The waiting list for tertiary (hospital) psychiatric care is many months if not longer. It may be that he has medication but is refusing to take it - and people cannot be obliged or compelled to take medicine unless sectioned. This is a problem which is not simply soluble by dialling '999'. Anything the police can do will only be very short term. And probably pretty useless (other than protecting individuals currently at risk).

I stand corrected.

Depending on who is going to buy the site (and for what) the disabled access costs could well be factored into the selling price (or makes it more saleable). I'm guessing Lloyd's probably owns that site, rather than is leasing it.

I am assuming that once the ULEZ is introduced inside the South Circular air quality should substantially improve - or otherwise why is it being done? So the current measures of air quality which are driving this will no longer be relevant. Nor will they continue to be relevant as electric cars (which can be charged in Townley, I note) become increasingly prevalent. No doubt all these anti-car measures will eventually be withdrawn, unless they are there not for 'healthy' streets but for unhealthy envy?

Remember that people can lose touch with (through e.g. divorce) or actually lose children or grandchildren and can be comforted by seeing others around them. Clearly some vigilance may be required, but to assume that all lone adults are necessarily going to be predators is a jump too far. Most assaults (I believe) are from people related to or previously known to the children concerned (often in positions of authority) - 'stranger danger' is certainly a thing, but not the primary type of molestation. Additionally it should be remembered that some adults (by age) may be suffering from developmental issues which mean that they are far closer to children in attitudes or thoughts than their appearances would suggest. Previously in institutions they are now more likely to be 'in the community' where they have sufficient ability to live only lightly supervised. Wariness is fine, in these circumstances, but be cautious of paranoia.

Townley Road to be closed during peak times except for cyclists There is a need to define 'peak times' here - the peak for Townley Road is at school start and end, and only during term. Standard commuting peak will miss the afternoon school end.

Eighteen years or so ago, in East Dulwich, my daughters (teen and primary) were both mugged, one of them twice. At the time the teen boys my teen daughter knew were mugged regularly, perhaps as often as every 3 months. There was a huge spate of this, which then quietened and started up a few years later. This long before any reduction in police numbers, and when the ED police station was fully operable. Mugging and attacks seem to go in waves, and are not really actively discouraged by any normal levels of police presence - you need to swamp the area, with many more patrols than would be locally normal to have any effect. This is mainly a societal, not a political issue, in my view.

Braizen - apologies for doubting your bona fides - clearly you aim to be a good (lucrative), not an exploitative, customer.

'Gentrification' frequently follows a similar trajectory - houses are built in an area for single occupancy. Over time this converts to multiple occupancy and later these houses are reconverted to single occupancy and the area is considered 'gentrified'. But in fact it's cyclical. What is 'gentrified' not infrequently was initially designed for the gentry. The shops and food outlets follow the residents. When I moved to ED over 30 years ago, LL was full of second hand pram shops - now it isn't.

I am assuming this must be ironic - what better explanation for the failure of a business (which can't afford its increased rent) than to hear of a 'couple of hours' table blocker. Cafes survive on fast throughput and multiple covers (where the trade isn't take-away). Unless you've been consuming multiple coffees and buns to 'pay' for your table occupancy.

In so many ways, 'our' is the wrong possessive here; they are 'their' (meaning Tooley St's) local councillors. Part of the one-party state we live in, they have no need to listen to us, and I'm sure will soon stop even bothering to go through the pretence that that are. We already see things happening around us with no semblance or nod towards 'consultation'. Which in many ways is a good thing, at least insult isn't now being piled onto injury.

In response to numbers of the posts above, can I remind people of the thread I initiated 9 or so months ago /forum/read.php?5,2015611,2015611#msg-2015611 I would still suggest that Tooley St is not to be trusted.

It seems a shame, since they are evidently such good breadmakers, that they didn't pursue an alternative business model of solely baking in a non-retail premise (potentially much cheaper to rent) and wholesaling their bread through retail outlets - clearly both Snapery and Paul Rhodes operate a wholesale model (if with a retail one), as they did. That would have given them operational space to find appropriate (cost/ location) retail outlets whist maintaining some demand.

If you are worried about mortise locks jamming in case of fire (not an unreasonable worry, however unlikely that actually would be, 'losing' the key is more possible) then physical barriers (chain or bolts) are a reasonable substitute to effectively 'double lock' a door - particularly when you aren't expecting any legitimate entrant with a key who might otherwise be barred from entry.

How exactly had the ivy "destroyed" the trees? Whilst ivy does not take nourishment from trees (it isn't, in that way, a parasite) it can damage trees in two ways - (1) it can compete with the tree's own leaves for sunlight - hence reducing nourishment and long-term tree health and (2) it can over-weigh trees such that they become unstable and may be brought down or damaged by winds. For deciduous trees, which might otherwise weather winter storms, such a weight of evergreen leaves may be sufficient to topple them entirely. Ivy just on the stems (trunks) of trees and cut away from the branches (and kept away) isn't a problem. The ivy flowers and berries are a useful source of food for insects and birds.

To-whit and to-who are 'call and answer' - to hear both requires two birds.

The council has just written to those who commented on the ED proposals (Amended to note this is a cross post with another thread reporting the same - Admin do you want to take this thread down?) In accordance with Regulation 13 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 the council has considered your representation and a decision has been taken by the relevant decision maker as set out in the Southwark Council?s constitution. Consideration of the representation Your representation was considered by The Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and the Climate Emergency on 23 December 2019. Summary of decision In consideration of any objections received, the council has: Determined each of the objections included in the correspondence, in line with the reasoning in Appendix 1 of the report http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s86236/Appendix%201%20Responses%20to%20objections.pdf Decided to make the traffic management order as originally proposed. Reasons for decision The reasons for the decision can be found here. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50021413&Opt=0 Traffic Orders: In view of the above, the council will make the following orders and a notice of making will be published: The London Borough of Southwark (Parking places) (Parking zone 'ED') (No. *) Order 202* The London Borough of Southwark (Free parking places) (No. *) Order 202* The London Borough of Southwark (Free parking places) (Solo motor cycles) (No. *) Order 202* The London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. *) Order 202* Further information For further details on the project including the latest programme information, please see the project webpage https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-projects/east-dulwich-parking-study-and-healthier-streets-consultation. Should you require any further information, please contact us via email at [email protected].

Whilst this does not wholly restore my faith in human nature it goes a long way towards that. So pleased that such a happy resolution was achieved.

I use GPS a lot (even on routes I know, as my system - similar to Waze - offers alternate routes based on traffic flow). I have noticed that the speed limit that the sat nav thinks is appropriate quite frequently doesn't match road markings (and not just for temporary limits around motorway road-works, or 'intelligent' speeds on e.g. the M25). So GPS limited speeds are only as good as the data inbuilt and updated to the system. That's particularly true on local roads where lower limits can be imposed on-the-fly. It took quite a time for the Southwark 20mph limits to appear in my system, and they are still not wholly accurate.

I suspect the ?150k will be the cost of buying the remainder of the lease, which clearly has inbuilt rent reviews. As the lease will be a capital cost it would be possible to borrow against this, so maybe no need to find ?150k in total immediately - but pay-back across the remaining years. So a business will have to clear ?83k net a year, plus the cost of capital repayments, before any profit can be taken (assuming that consumables and staff salaries will be costed into unit prices and thus wash their faces on-the-fly).

Well, that would be goodbye to birds in Dulwich. There is no way to train nest robbers to be species discriminate. Cats already take what they can catch. In the millions!

If you've got a drive you can park on, can I suggest this - (NB for illustration only, I am not recommending Amazon as a retailer) https://www.amazon.co.uk/slp/security-posts-for-driveways/k7373gkkknft4vy