Penguin68

The blue bin crew on my run this morning were all new (to this route) and only one person on the brown bin lorry was part of the regular crew on my run. Crews and routes are clearly being changed (and Southwark said as much in their circular) although my collection dates haven't changed, just the people doing the collection. Hopefully this will all settle down soon and proper collections will resume, but, with the new system starting next week (but most of the necessary impedimenta - new bins and stickers - not yet having been issued) don't hold your breath. My brown bin man says take-up of paid for garden collections has been low across the borough, but of course many residents are not blessed with gardens in the north. He didn't know what the take-up was specifically in the Dulwichs. My fear is that we will see a lot more dumping and hijacking of legitimate large brown bins by those choosing not to pay.

I provided police with (quite good) pictures of a burglary next door. Several clear shots of the look-out, one of the inside man handing the look-out their loot, taken whilst I was waiting for the police to arrive (I was on the phone to the 999 call centre giving a running commentary on what they were doing). The police turned up 20 minutes later (5 minutes after the the thieves had run away to their waiting car (the details of which had been taken down by another neighbour). Arrests? No of course not, even though they traced the car and the people. 'Not enough evidence'. So clear camera shots, two witnesses insufficient. Don't hold your breath for a 'result'.

They have been changing some of the routes and the teams on existing routes, so I suspect cock-up rather than conspiracy. New crews are still learning their routes and roads.

In general the market sorts this sort of thing out. If 'people' want another pizza place (despite what some posters think about pizza) it may thrive; if there are sufficient pizza places already, then, if this is better than an incumbent, that will fail and this will succeed, and if not, not. Food can often be fashionable - and fashions change - back in the day, Cantonese and Bangladeshi (mainly) food was the rage - now less so and other more specialist eastern cuisines - either other cuisines from the far East and China, or from elsewhere on the Indian subcontinent. But still good Bangladeshi and good Cantonese restaurants will do well. Quite a few different 'takes' on meeting customer eating-out needs have opened, thrived and failed (or not, and after different timescales) in LL. We did have at least one and (partly) two joints doing some take on Tex Mex once, I recall. Tastes changed. And will keep on changing. Most people choose to eat somewhere which provides food at the price, and taste, they want. They probably (most) don't care about the economic model (chain, franchise, stand alone) underlying the operation. LL now has a wider variety of model (and food) than ever. The people in the area will decide (over time) which succeeds or continues to succeed, and which fail. That will be based on making an offer that people are interested in taking up, at a price they are prepared to pay. Right product (for the time) - right price. And any restaurateur worth their salt will recognise that tastes, and customers, change, and that they need to change with them.

No surprise there.

Well if FHRGP actually provided a service to its patients and helped rather than hindered patients it wouldn't be in the mess it is in right now and patients would not be leaving to go to other practices. And they do not appear to like it being highlighted that problems exist, but rather blame the Government for budget issues. The doctor said they'd had difficulty filling a vacancy. In what way is this a valid response to that? We know that those doctors who are in training are no longer as interested in joining the private world of GP practices, but prefer to stay in the tertiary National Health as hospital doctors with the opportunities of much more lucrative private practice than is offered the already privately practicing GPs. We know that GP work is increasingly stressful, and not well rewarded unless you are a practice partner. This is a training and recruitment issue, not necessarily anything to do with government budgets, neither did the doctor claim that it was. FHRGP has difficulties offering appointments because it doesn't have enough GPs working there, although it is trying to remedy this through recruitment. In so far as it can, it does offer a service to patients, and actually not that bad a one, as regards the medical staff there. The issue is (and typically is for most practices) one of booking and resource allocation. You will find that a very small %age of patients are making a very large demand on staff time (that's true of most inner city practices). Those of us with only occasional needs feel frustrated (and not without reason) but we shouldn't necessarily extrapolate our poor personal experiences across the whole practice and all patients.

...So, the jury is still out. However I think there are no doubts that impacts on pedestrians or cyclists at 20mph are likely to be less severe than at 30mph. Physics alone demonstrates that. [Older vehicles with less forgiving construction - less 'crumple zone' - will of course always be more injurious than modern vehicles, at any given speed.] Additionally a slower moving vehicle logically must give greater decision time to others using the road. So I have no problems in believing that a 20mph limit is likely (everything else being equal, which it rarely is) and if adhered to to be making a positive contribution to road safety, if measured in the severity and possibly frequency of accidents.

Do they do the same procedure to cyclists or are they exempt? Cyclists carry no marks of identity to allow any follow-up. Perhaps more relevant - do they also follow up on buses which speed - I have certainly seen some on Barry managing quite a lick, considering that they have lights and stops to hold them up.

I?m the first to ask how to stop other people from using a stickered bin that isn't in their garden. But not, I'm guessing the first to think it. Or actually to consider the commercial opportunities of 'letting' your bin to third parties. If it's already full of 'paid for' waste from neighbours there will be no room for fly-tipping!

I think it was, Franklin's moved into the pub, kept the front half as a pub and moved the back half (and downstairs) into a restaurant. Rodney Franklin had previously run a restaurant (with his late wife, a fine actress) as part of his Antiques Market in the Walworth Road, which I think was closed for redevelopment. Franklin's was always, with him and his partners, a pub and a restaurant, not a 'gastro-pub'.

I also find it hard to believe that a person travelling by motorbike causes the same amount of pollution as one driving by car, but perhaps I'm wrong? Does anyone suggest they do? I'm sure an elderly diesel lorry puts out more pollution than a car, but that doesn't exempt the car (if it doesn't meet the criteria) from paying the charge. You could argue that the charge should be based on the time taken on the road - a car might drive in the zone for 20 minutes in a day, a motor cycle courier the whole working day - so then the courier should be paying more than the car?... Things like this have to be simply administered. If your vehicle doesn't meet the standard set out, you pay. If it does, you don't.

Modern bikes are clean As are modern cars, by similar standards. The argument is about those vehicles (however many wheels they have) which don't meet the standards. * There have been demonstrations to stop bikers getting charged And if there were demonstrations to excuse anyone from legislation, does that make this right? Do we now rule and exercise the rule of law on the basis of demonstrations?

Do the ULEZ standards take account of the quantity of emissions per person on board? I doubt it, and why should they? It is the absolute amount that is emitted, not the proportional amount per passenger, which is the driver here, surely? - my asthma is no less because the particles I breathed in came from a bus with 60 passengers, rather than a car with one. At the same percentage, the actual amounts of any exhaust component will be greater for a larger engine. It is not just the engine capacity, but whether the vehicle is fitted with exhaust cleaning technology (i.e. catalytic converter). Most bikes are too small (and the costs too high) for this to happen. So most bike engines (as regards the particulates that the CAT captures) are inherently 'dirtier' than car engines using the same fuel.

Clearly improving air etc. quality is a good thing, but we should not consider that that has not already been happening. From a weekly magazine this week:- the Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs has been keeping comparable statistics since 1970. Sulphur dioxide pollution in Britain has since declined by 97 per cent. That, perhaps, is not surprising, given that the main source of it was coal-burning ? something which largely disappeared after the Clean Air Acts. But progress on other forms of pollution has been pretty drastic, too. Nitrogen oxide pollution is down 72 per cent, non-methane volatile organic compounds down 66 per cent, PM10s (large diameter particles of soot and other matter) down 73 per cent and PM2.5s (small diameter particles) down 79 per cent. London's air pollution has been at 'illegal levels' since 2010 because a new target was then introduced - not because it had worsened since the previous year. Recently increased NO2 is a direct consequence of Labour (for perfectly good anti-CO2 reasons) encouraging the use of diesel without thinking through the unintended consequences. And the recent increase in PM2.5 pollution may be directly attributable to the increase in wood-burners, against consequent on government action (in this case Tory) to reduce CO2. However, and in general, air quality even in London has been improving - I am old enough to remember London pre The Clean Air Act of 1956 - and even many years after newly cleaned indoor window sills would be black with greasy dirt within days (before the 1956 Act it was that day!). Which is not to deny that any engine which does not burn sufficiently clean should be discouraged, through pricing if not outright ban, from being used in cities. In particular, although motorbikes are more efficient than cars in some areas (for instance producing less CO2) they are far worse in others (you cannot fit Catalytic converters on most motorcycles save the very largest) and tests have shown them to be far more polluting comparatively in many areas https://www2.greencarreports.com/news/1067907_motorcycles-are-more-polluting-than-cars-new-device-shows If the ULEZ hits cars, it certainly should hit motorcycles too, for those not meeting the same standards as for cars.

I rang up yesterday but the reception was closed to all but urgent calls for training. Thursday afternoons (if that was when it was) are their regular staff training slot - they are back on line by 4:30. They do need to train, clearly, and within work hours. I assume they think that Thursday afternoons are a relatively slack time otherwise. It would be most efficient if they could switch their 'reminders' during calls waiting to be answered to notifications that all appointments are now allocated - then at least people wouldn't be holding for an hour waiting to be answered. Does anyone know whether their on-line appointment system actually works? And it is worth noting that they are quite good about contacting you when there is any urgency about test results - if you have been contacted and still can't arrange an appointment then that is really poor and worthy of a formal complaint.

Unless you believe the new tenants were a direct party to the 'doing down' of the Palmerston tenants then you damage an I innocent party by your proposed boycott without impacting the presumed 'guilty'.

Lee, do you have evidence that there are plans long-term to hand over chunks of park to Harris or is this a hunch? This is a genuine question and not intended to undermine your point - just curious? It's a real conundrum - Harris were clearly allowed to build their academy on the clear understanding that they would not then use the Rye as a sports etc. area for the school, and yet we know that having outdoor sports areas associated with schools is massively important for the long-term health and well-being of the pupils - sporting habits gained at school can be a positive influence over their lifetimes. So the pressures, outwith the assurances given at the time of build, to allow the Harris children to use the Rye are understandably large. It's a matter of competing 'greater goods' and I would not like to be the one to call it. But I believe, with Les, that there probably is a hidden agenda here (the councils and Harris' together or separately) - and I can't believe that Harris will not have organised sports on the Rye within the next 20 years. Whether the land is then alienated and becomes the school's, or whether Harris is just allowed to use, with others, existing facilities and space, is a mooter point.

Why have they not got on top of it yet? I suspect that they have to completely close and seal a ward to deep clean and fumigate it (probably a 48 hour or more job) - and there is too much maternity demand to allow the ward to be closed. Bed bugs are notoriously difficult to eradicate - they are a plague in New York, even at some of the best hotels. Gap year and back-packer travellers have done a lot to spread these little critters around.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/11/nhs-hospital-first-fined-false-imprisonment-refusing-allow-vulnerable/

I can't bare this argument. It is often deployed for student fees as well. It's basically an argument for total dismantling the state. I think that was the ironic intent of this. But as soon as you start to list those 'additional' things you should pay for, 'as not everybody needs them', you open up to exactly this type of argument meant intentionally. The community charge is levied on the basis of rateable value - so it takes into account (some) differences in ability to pay - associated with the types of demand you might be making of the local authority, inherent in the types of property you live in. Once you start taking charges 'off the rates' you open up entirely unintended (by central government) opportunities for local authorities to (perhaps massively, eventually) increase their scope for revenue generation - knowing that the majority of their electorate will remain unaffected - and thus keep them in power.

can you please let us know if there has been an environmental impact assessment carried out on this, given (a) the increased use of plastics through the production of separate food waste caddies and (b) the presumable separate collection and associated environmental impact of more vehicles on the road? How many lorries will it now take to empty the brown bins and food caddies? gumshoe and singalto The Veolia people on the ground believe that the same lorries will be collecting Garden and Kitchen waste, as now, at the same time, together. They may be wrong. Additionally, if you choose to use paid-for brown paper bags for garden waste these must now be collected on request (like bulky items) - with another diesel lorry making a trip. Potentially, therefore, any street may be getting 3 heavy lorries visiting in a week (if there's a requested paper bag collection) up from the one visit a week currently. Forgetting the additional costs that that would require, just how serious is Southwark in its plaintive cries to reduce emissions and create healthier streets (it's claims for CPZs and other measures)? If there was a real business case (the sort a commercial company might require) I'd love to see it, and particularly see the environmental impact and cost assumptions implicit in that case. Not that we ever will of course. A councillor could of course try to see it...

If we can?t put food waste in the big brown bins, are they going to send ANOTHER lorry to collect it separately? The binmen on Veolia lorries believe that they will be collecting both types of waste together (as they do now) - without any separation. They may be wrong, of course. However, if you don't have a licenced large brown garden bin but instead use the paper sacks, these will be collected (on demand!) by different lorries (same type as arrangement as for bulky items, I assume). And of course I suppose there could be separate collecting lorries for garden and for kitchen waste, despite what the Veolia people on the ground believe. All running on diesel. So, and if so, great call, Southwark - and I really believe your maunderings about healthier streets. Not.

But we are in the south of the borough and Tooley St only cares about the North, where the bulk of their support lies. Those in the old Borough of Camberwell can go hang, jointly or severally. They will use (i.e. sell off, alienate) 'our' land to line their coffers in support of the bits of their borough they prefer - we are a cash cow to be raided. It's about time (don't hold your breathes) that the councilors we voted for did something to protect their electorate/ those they represent. But they're part of the same aparat, so I wouldn't expect to hear much from them. No chance of cabinet preferment if they rock the boat.

Stopping the brown bag collection is stupid. I believe (yes, I know, it's madness) that the brown bag collection has only been stopped for those paying for brown bin collection. But instead of issuing bags free they will now be charged for, so that those without the need for brown bins, in the main, will pay for their brown bags to be collected via that charge. Why they won't take additional brown bags (which will also have been paid for) from brown bin people, god only knows. But then, I gather this simply from what's been communicated, which doesn't mean it's right (see also my thread on trusting Tooley St.) The Veolia folks 'on the ground' (who actually have to do this) are confused as well.

The original model for 7:11 (which preceded Londis) was to operate 4 deliveries a day (triggered by real time analysis of purchases in 4 hour segments so that the right food etc. against demand was on the shelves) - that way all stock was out for purchase and not in stock rooms, maximising display space. This was a just-in-time stocking model. Similarly (in intent) Iceland maximised its display space utilisation by stocking in freezers in the shop. Both excellent models for getting quarts into retail display space pint pots.