Penguin68

I paid. Not received a label yet. This morning they took my bin away! No contact details on southwark website. WTF am I supposed to do now!! Contact your local councillor. This is clearly just an administrative error, but no the less irksome for that.

Petition against this https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-the-cox-s-walk-footbridge-oak-trees?bucket&source=facebook-share-button&time=1565107690&utm_campaign&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1Mvw9o2MHDm3gmo1jMs0lDsYSQe5XF7dBWeNSLsuvUGghoebULdxBFJ-8

Tree Preservation Orders are issued by the local council who can also over rule them. What are your guesses about what will happen?

You have to consider the circulation space around an obstruction to calculate the effective area taken up by a scooter. Particularly if lying prone on the ground in an aisle.

According to my Veolia mole, the lorry collecting the large brown bins has a maximum capacity of 260. They are then taken to Colchester for containerisation and recycling. So only 260 bins taken at a time. I don't think Southwark was expecting the low uptake they have got on this scheme.

Be interesting to see what he'd of done if the person had left/dropped a large quantity of cash in the store, somehow i doubt he'd of put it outside after 10 mins. Unless the large wedge of cash occupied a couple of square feet I'd guess he'd have had ample space to store it - hence my original comment that it would have been different for a bag, wallet, purse, keys etc. Nobody 'dumps' cash, people do dump unwanted or needed children's toys. Granted this wasn't unwanted, but the store owner didn't necessarily know that. Equally, leaving a scooter outside a store (many people do, or bikes) isn't quite the same thing as leaving a heap of cash!

Yeah a child?s scooter, which in my experience is often very precious to a child Yes it was a mistake that it was left behind, but things get forgotten sometimes I think that giving it a day or two would?ve been reasonable and kind Giving it 30 min is very likely to get end up with an upset child, so seems a bit mean The point I was making is that it was a scooter - these (even for small children) are not trivial in size - their footprint is significant, and small traders judge their effectiveness (as do large ones) on sales per sq ft. A scooter takes up at least a couple of square feet, effectively, more if it is lying on the ground. Giving it 30 minutes for a forgetful mum to return to collect it seems more than fair. After that it is causing trouble and costing money. And small traders have far less manoeuvre room than large traders. Granted we are plagued by thieving toe rags but putting it outside the shop (not, for goodness sake, throwing it away) seems a reasonable action. And (if the shop had shut before the owner returned, assuming it wasn't the 24 hour Londis) a potentially helpful one.

The decent thing to do would be to put it behind the counter. Why could the shop owner not do that? IT WAS A SCOOTER! Not a purse or a wallet or a handbag or some keys - it was a scooter. Just how much room do you think the average small shop has 'behind the counter'? Or in their aisles? This was causing an obstruction (just by what it was and where it was). Frankly leaving it in the shop would have been to cause a hazard (how easy would it be for someone elderly or infirm, or with a push chair, to navigate round it?) And shops like this do not have infinite storage space behind the counter or in their very limited stock rooms. Without any idea when it might be called for. The shop keeper gave it 30 minutes for the OP to return and collect it - not unreasonable I would suggest. For all he knew it was being dumped. After that he put it outside for collection. Not his fault if we are plagued by thieves.

...and once again I ask, can you trust the council? And once again a thread gives the obvious answer...

I don't think anybody is "blaming the council" ? Well, I haven't been (not posted before on this thread) - but simple (a) training and (b) rules and © enforcement of these rules are up to the council, and as described (for the time claimed by the OP) there can be no 'excuse' for the actions apparently taken (or innaction allowed) by the council-employed driver of the vehicle in question. Of course, the action is the 'failure', strictly, of just one individual, and there may be (though if the timing is right it's difficult to see what) a reasonable explanation, but the council necessarily takes management responsibility for the actions of its agents, and is ultimately to blame here, even if other council employees may have been unaware at the time of what was happening. That is what corporate responsibility is about. If no council rules were broken, for instance, that is a failure of council rule-setting.

Contact BG (the distributor) immediately and make sure any gas appliance is turned off.

The entire point of the CPZ was deter commuters No, the entire point of the CPZ was to raise revenue for Southwark and was a formal part of Southwark's declared plan to massively reduce car usage (ideally stop it) within the borough, without regard to who is using the vehicles. There has never been clear evidence that the 'commuters' to be deterred are not those coming to work and serve the ED community, and certainly little evidence as to the scale and scope of the dreaded 'through' commuter. This was all hearsay and guesswork. Many people who 'voted' for the CPZ may have thought they were detering commuters, but this was a supposition only.

I found out a few years ago that the frame was attached to the build structure with only half the number of bolts required and a shoulder charge would take the frame out. For an internal, upstairs, door, that sort of construction makes sense in case of fire - when you absolutely want a fireman to be able to gain access. That's the problem with some conversions (if yours is) - what makes safety sense doesn't necessarily make security sense. You have to find your balance.

i really cant see how this system is going to work ! It'll work for the council all right - they'll get their 'off the books' money - and if you don't get the service, or other people 'steal' it from you - well your problem to sort out, not theirs. This isn't all about you, you know, indeed it isn't at all about you, It's about them.

as I understand it the waste is treated in different ways. Garden waste will continue to be composted, I believe, but over time kitchen waste will be anaerobically digested - this allows for the gasses (I think methane) to be collected and used for power. Things like fresh grass cuttings can also be anaerobically digested but woody cuttings etc. can't be so readily. The residue of anaerobically digested material can also be used as soil improvers. I do not know, however, what time scale Veolia is working to, to cut over waste treatment and separately treat their different sources of organic waste. This change in collection method had been implemented, I would guess, as a consequence of charging for garden waste collection. They have to force unstickered large bins out of the borough (and force kerb-side caddies in) to ensure that unpaid for garden waste isn't collected. Somebody not a cynic would argue, of course, that this is just giving folks a long lead time to learn the new ways of recycling, to be ready for the new methods of disposal when (and if) implemented for Southwark collections. I'm a cynic.

This links to Veolia's pages on their recycling services in London https://www.veolia.co.uk/london/ for those interested in what happens to our waste. This is the link to their Southwark service https://www.veolia.co.uk/southwark/

Christopher Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Scabies - played in a (great) Punk Band - The Damned.

Do people steal plants out of window boxes? Absolutely. Certain people will steal anything not locked down (and will bring bolt cutters and angle grinders for those, if the prize if right). They will also steal window boxes themselves! Sorry for your loss, of course.

If the fault lies in the local network (between you and an exchange) then it is BT Openreach and not BT Retail that has an issue - BT Openreach is obliged to act at arms length to the rest of BT Group. If it is network supplying a third party (another thread suggested a problem with Skye Broadband) then your point of complaint needs to be with your service provider who liaises with BT Openreach and not with BT as a company. The fault (if it impacts 500 lines) may be with the exchange equipment (your 'retail' provider looks after that). Do remember that this is not like a fault with electricity or water or gas supply - every customer has unique equipment which connects (through interconnect points) their 'lines' directly to dedicated equipment in an exchange. It's not just like repairing a leaking water or gas pipe, where one repair can then give back supply to everyone 'on route'. If a multi-pair cable is cut (which can happen) every pair within that cable has to be reconnected to the correct other end. Although clearly having no service is very frustrating, it's often not that simple to identify and then correct a problem. Intermittent electrical faults (which seems like what you are describing) are a complete pain to locate and clear.

And Asif Khan is an East Dulwich boy, born and brought up here.

https://www.petrolprices.com/news/councils-pocket-more-than-320m-pcn-fines-one-year/ 'Nuff said.... (Southwark is not the worst London offender - but clearly the motorist is the council milch cow de nos jours.)

'strong support from residents in the section south of East Dulwich Grove but north of Ashbourne Grove or Chesterfield Grove for it to be extended slightly.' And so the zone creeps on and on...

Dos anyone know why they are excluding these roads from the proposals? Because the people who lived in those roads (in their 'survey') were clear that they were not in favour of a CPZ. The apparat will of course hope that the parking pressure that will be put on them will force them to acquiesce 'down the line' and so eventually the pervasive stench of paid for parking on all our roads will be achieved. And then watch the annual fees hike!. If they cared about pollution, of course they would either exempt electric cars from their system, or significantly reduce their fees, but of course this is primarily about revenue generation (and always has been) and nothing about congestion and pollution. And of course a left-wing view that car ownership, in and of itself, is wicked, and should be stamped out. Without any attempts actually to increase or indeed stand against the diminution of local public transport services.

We can't start banning dogs from all green spaces because a few ignorant people are irresponsible. And I wouldn't want to do that, but Goose Green is so small (and such a valuable green plot just there) that maybe banning dogs on the Green itself might help. Or fining anyone allowing their dog to soil the Green at all (as the idea of a whole family, with dog, picnicking is attractive). The green space is so limited around there that allowing it to be just another dog toilet (like the Rye, and Dulwich Park etc. etc.) may be becoming too much.

Goose Green is a (very small) amenity used by many people, and in particular people with children. Dog poo (whether deposited by dogs in the care of their owners or in the care of commercial dog walkers (however well qualified to look after dogs)) is unacceptable if not immediately collected and disposed of appropriately. If those walking dogs cannot or will not collect their dog's poo (even if it's only a small minority of those walking dogs) they should reasonably expect that their use of Goose Green should be curtailed. I'm sorry, I have no agenda to 'ban' dogs as such, but if those taking responsibility for dogs don't act responsibly, then I don't see why the health and enjoyment of others not choosing to cover the amenity with sh1t doesn't deserve a great deal more respect. If those walking dogs don't want to be banned then they should (all) act as responsible citizens - and huge credit to those who tidy-up after their less responsible peers. But they shouldn't have to.