Penguin68

I don't understand this statement, what help does someone who's prepared to go out and stab someone need? Although this seems to be part of a series of criminal offences, and hence probably not relevant, random violence I'm afraid can be symptomatic of those suffering some mental health disorders (although self-harm is tragically far more common). This can be particularly so with people suffering paranoid delusions (sometimes chemically induced or exacerbated). In these cases 'help' is far more appropriate than punishment.

As this could be a long run thing, using one (or several) 'not suitable for HGV' signs with the diversion would be sensible - with an HGV route designated. Barry Road is a numbered road, and hence generally suitable for all traffic - but the side roads clearly aren't. Maybe a councillor (or more than one as a number of wards are being impacted) could make representation to Southwark/ Highways agency.

Any chance you could stand for PM ? I'm not sure that 'even handed' or with 'a factual background' is a qualification (at least looking at incumbents and aspirants) for this post.

Surprised it hasnt made the news though, its a bit of a sad indictment of how common this thing probably is in South London. Whether something is reported or not depends very much on (a) the actual severity of the incident (we believe there was an attack and stabbing from kjet2's post, we do not know the severity of the injury); (b) what else was happening at the time which might have eclipsed this incident and © whether any reporter could get sufficient information to stand the story up so that it was newsworthy. Often reports of attacks/ muggings are only reported on later, after briefing etc. from the police. It is quite wrong to assume that no immediate media pick-up implies that such events are either trivial or too common to bother about locally. I have lived in South London since 1975 - and in ED for the last 30 years+ - and my impression is that casual street violence (with peaks and troughs over that time) is considerably less than it used to be - although as an old person I feel less threatened anyway (and am far less likely to be). Nevertheless the growing trope of the 'blood-soaked streets of ED and Peckham' (certainly as a growing or unchanging phenomenon) needs challenging.

The first area you wait is counted for their "Admitted into A&E" stat, the second area you wait you're counted as admitted so it doesn't affect their stats. But as the count-down to the magical 4 hour target wait is triggered from the 'admitted to A&E' time this actually does them no favours. Indeed forcing people to wait a longer time for first triage (which starts the clock) would be a better bet, if they wanted to fiddle their figures.

I believe that when you are triaged in the first room you may be sent to a number of different second staging posts. If you were in one with a long waiting time that suggests that your problem was (probably) - (1) not life threatening and (2) would not lead to rapid deterioration (however bad it was it wasn't likely to get much worse). A simple break for instance, however painful, will be as treatable in 4 or 7 hours as it would be immediately. That makes it no better for you, of course, particularly if in pain, but at least you won't be with people who will be treated before you because of the severity of their problem. This may be a better way to allocate ER resources, where clearly the acutely ill (those whose lives may be at risk, or whose condition is likely to deteriorate quickly) should be being treated first. The downside is that you can enter the first room of the ER system thinking that it looks like there will be only a few ahead of you, only to enter a crowded 'second stage' room, which is dispiriting.

Don't we already pay for brown bins in our council tax? You pay for the collection of kitchen waste in your council tax (that's a statutory obligation) - for which the council now provides a mid-size brown bin (kerb-side caddy). Up till June 2019 you were also paying for the collection of garden waste as part of general council tax, but that's not s statutory obligation and that inclusive service was then withdrawn by the council and replaced by a separate charge for garden waste collection - for which the large brown bins (mainly) already provided were earmarked. do we brush these back out onto the streets & clog up the drains because this is council responsibility? Yes - that's going to be one of the (I'm sure) unintended consequences of this change in council policy.

Yes, there is a completely weird phenomenon in the Insurance industry. If you have subsidence properly put right (with structural engineers certificates etc.) you will be charged far higher future premiums, even though your property is now in far better condition (and with less risk) than that of your neighbours. You may even find the property uninsurable except with your existing insurer, who is obliged to offer cover (I believe). And yet the actual risk of further damage is far smaller, once it's been underpinned or whatever. You are not really being charged for risk at all, but the insurer is trying to get back their costs through higher premiums. Which entirely negates the concept of shared risk through insurance (where those not claiming 'pay' for those who have to). It's a disgrace, Mr Growser (which will only make sense to pensioners who remember Toytown in Children's Hour on the Home Service).

There are several key differences between the old Enduring and the new Lasting Powers. 1. Lasting Powers are now registered, from the start, and for a fee, with the Court of Protection. However, the fee is low and a single fee can cover multiple Attorneys, if they are registered together. Once the principal loses the power of independent decision on a permanent basis this will have to be notified to the Court of Protection, but a temporary loss of capacity (e.g. an illness, operation etc.) does not, I think have to be notified. Nor would something like 'being abroad' if decisions needed to be made in absentia, or forms signed. And nor would a choice when an (elderly?) person wanted to hand over the running of their finances to someone else, when when they retained a decision making capacity. The old Enduring Powers were much more expensive to register, and were only registered when capacity was permanently lost (e.g. through dementia). Then there was a lot of rigmarole, including ensuring that all relatives agreed to the Power being granted. This took time and, as I say, was expensive. 2. The Powers cover separately Financial and Medical Powers, so for full cover you will need one of each. 3. Overly complex requirements written into the Powers may not be accepted by the Court of Protection so having a solicitor help you may be useful. A solicitor can also keep copies of everything which may be helpful if you set up a Power long before you may need it (which is a really good idea - you cannot tell when the worst might happen!) You will also need to decide whether your attorneys have joint or several decision making powers (must they all agree of can one take the lead, if there is more than one?) Both LPAs and EPAs have the problem that banks etc. can be bloody awkward and unhelpful when it comes to accepting their (legal) registration. However much you have got everything 'right'.

So that would be ?1.3m for the full run? Makes more sense than just ?350k, considering what will have to be spent on them - and should offer a developer a tidy but not wholly exorbitant profit, considering the likely development time and cost of funding a loan. And remembering that this will be a taxable profit, (on what basis, capital gain or trading profit) depending on how the purchasing company is structured.

In the last couple of weeks, and possibly for another couple, deliveries have been by odd posties and at odd times because of holiday cover - if it hasn't happened to you yet it probably will. But things are getting delivered, and in the main on days expected, in my experience.

Unless you think that the tenant is in breach of their lease - and quiet and cooperative behaviour isn't a normal lease condition - although e.g. sub-letting or occupancy levels might be - then there is very little a landlord could do. Tenants are (quite properly) protected from the capricious actions of landlords. Action through the council's officers is far more likely to achieve results. A landlord cannot themselves determine 'anti-social' behaviour. If you believe that the lease is up for renewal you could write to the landlord explaining your problems, but if the landlord isn't having problems (the property is being treated well and the rent is being paid) I wouldn't hold your breathe.

In near to Peckham A Tree has been cut to half now a stump You do need to find out why this happened. Trees, particularly in parkland, will be removed if they are diseased/ damaged such that they pose a risk to park users. Equally tree management means that trees can be pollarded - which looks brutal but where certain trees (suitable for this treatment) will come back invigorated but with a much smaller spread of branches, which can often be necessary in streets/ where there are power lines etc. Removing trees is expensive, so councils will not normally do so without good reason. You say 'near to Peckham' - is this on public land? If not the removal may be nothing to do with the council. Sometimes a tree are removed where it can be shown, or believed, to be damaging buildings.

Oh, and this is all terribly off-topic - it's the trees in Sydenham Woods which are the issue for this thread...

Just for information - the Diocese has no rights over tree clearance in non Church graveyards at all. It's rights concern how land which has been consecrated (much of the cemeteries are not consecrated ground) may be re-used (either mounding up or disinterring) for further burials and regarding the disposal or re-use of grave markers, and over the creation of new paths within consecrated areas - that because it is use of previously consecrated ground for non burial (i.e. pathway) purposes. Tree preservation (or not) within municipal cemeteries is the purview of the local council. What Southwark council has done is to clear some areas where the graves are old, uncared for and in some cases inaccessible so that additional burials can be made - the numbers of new burials in the cemeteries are a clear indication of how welcome this in fact is. If you do visit these cemeteries (I live within 2 minutes walk of one of them) you will still find a huge and extended planting of trees still extant. The 'protesters' mistook church rules about trees in church cemeteries/ graveyards (on church land) as applying also to consecrated areas in municipal cemeteries. They don't.

It?s ?25 not ?35 ?25 for the part year (the scheme didn't start until well after April) - it was meant to be pro-rata for ?30 for a full year. Whether they stick to ?30 when they set the fee for next year is a moot point, of course! Don't hold your breathe on this would be my advise. If so few people are taking the scheme up, they'll probably want to up the fee to get their expected returns for next year, as their revenues will be nowhere near their costs of implementation this year, I'm guessing.

Of course Southwark are also cutting down every tree in the cemeteries they use that are owned by the Diocese of Southwark - who don't care, incidentally. That is simply put, a complete lie. The cemeteries are municipally owned - they contain consecrated areas which are part administered by the Diocese (because of the consecration) but they form NO PART of Church land. Neither is 'every' tree being cut down. Some scrub trees (and trees growing through graves) have been removed to allow full utilisation of the graveyards for interments - equally, numbers of new trees have been planted. And the the Diocese has considered applications from pressure groups and have dismissed them - that is not the same as saying they don't care, as they undertook due process. Southwark undertakes no work on graveyards associated with churches, which are owned by the Church. This is a revival of an old (and I would have hoped now exploded) set of tropes by a pressure group. Amended to say, apologies for my harshness if you are repeating something you have read/ heard elsewhere, rather than propagating this myth afresh (but it's still not true!).

If there are images of the event, it may be that the police might wish to see these, unredacted, to ensure that there wasn't a moving vehicle offence committed? Maybe that could be your approach?

Technically this is vile, but it's not blackmail (blackmail would be where the owner of the video images contacted the lorry driver/ firm offering to suppress the information for money). It's an attempt to gain value from an image which is owned by the individual (although in fact the OP's insurer would have more interest in paying for it as it is in their interest to off-set the cost of repair to the lorry's insurer (ensuring they are not also covering that!)). If there has been a traffic offence (as opposed to a civil offence) then there may also be an issue of not providing police with images of that offence - and it would certainly be worthwhile contacting the police to see if there has been such an offence. If the lorry has been in an accident where damage has been caused, the driver or owner company does have a duty to report this to their insurer (but probably not to the police where there was no personal injury). Vehicle damage is a civil issue. Doesn't stop this being quite sickening to read about. Particularly where the image owner has apparently been misrepresenting his position in the matter.

landlord increased the rent by ?30k Based on an earlier post which suggested the rent would now be ?43500 a year, an annual rental of only ?1350 (?30k less) seem derisory.

With lids they are really useful for (a) storing screws, thread, components etc. - You will need labels or (b) making up single servings for posh picnics etc. Handing those out with a meal/ course inside them rather than having lots of different serving dishes can be a boon. They don't have to be single-use in your household.

I was taking the clean plastic trays from my dishwasher when I had a thought that if all the restaurants in the local area would accept and reuse take away boxes it would have quite an impact on the volume of plastic waste in the area. In order to re-use them commercially they would have to be sterilised. Most local establishments won't have commercial sterilisers to achieve this (it's not just like washing plates, plastics can retain residues that ceramics don't). the costs of sorting, packing, transporting etc. these containers to a central sterilising unit will be higher than the costs of making and shipping new ones, I would guess.

If he does get 'life' on average he will serve 15 years before being eligible for parole, based on his behaviour and reports in prison. He will always then be 'on licence' and could be returned to prison if he breaches his parole terms. Judges can set higher minimum terms before he would become eligible for parole.

It's being sold with a free of tie lease - so it very much depends (a) how much longer the lease has to run and (b) what the rental is. The ?150k is not a freehold price, and the length of the lease on offer will be key to the valuation.

For thirty seconds Anything you can jog through in 30 seconds is not, and never has been, a Wood. It is a copse or thicket. Dog Kennel Hill has never been woodland (which does have a specific meaning), although I am sure there are now parts which are bosky. I am happy to stand corrected but I don't think you will find any references, in any old maps, to that area now being called Dog Kennel Hill ever having had the name 'Wood' attached to it, in whole or in part. You can, of course, call it what you want, but don't then write about it as if you were intending to preserve some ancient bit of nature. It's (in so far as it isn't accidental scrub) a recent, and very small, plantation - no less pleasant for all that, but not, in any meaningful way, a Wood.