Penguin68

Not sure how that will work ? Will they take the large Brown bins away and replace with small brown bins. My Kitchen caddie bin only holds one small food waste bags. I usually use 2/3 a week. There are also 'kerb-side' caddies which are about 3-4 times the cubic capacity of the kitchen caddy. I assume these will be the replacement. They are very vulnerable, when empty, to high winds so will be blown about often during collection days. Hey ho.

The council stated they wanted to stop 'commuters' parking up in ED - apparently at the request of (some) residents - we warned that many of the 'commuters' were in fact teaching, medical, shop keeping staff and tradespeople who were coming into ED to serve us in ED, not to pass through. Through commuters could have been deterred by a limited time (2 hour) CPZ - but not those coming to meet our local needs. So the council's intent to support a day-long CPZ - against the broad wishes of probably a majority (the figures are fudged here) - means (probably) that they realize that without that, any CPZ would be seen by those clamouring for one as not working - were through commuters the real issue. I just hope all those living in the (quite few) streets that were majority CPZ are relaxed about schools and clinics closing, or finding it difficult to recruit, about not being able to get local tradespeople to serve them and so on. Those if us who were against a CPZ at all will of course just have to go hang - but then no change there. If the CPZ 'zone' was smaller - not including roads that expressed a contrary opinion - and was for a 'through commuter deterrent' time slot I could be happier to believe that the council was responding to local opinion. But then, it's really not so responsive - this is part of its stated anti-car agenda. Let's see how far our local ward representatives get in any toning down of the proposals they seek on our behalf.

As the council actually sells the compost it makes from garden and other waste maybe, as a quid pro quo for charging those with gardens to take away the waste, it should also offer them a discount on buying the subsequent compost? Also - can anyone clarify whether garden waste in paper sacks will be taken free from those who do not choose to have the large brown bins and pay for collection? I suspect that either the sacks will be charged for, or will not be taken away from residences who have not paid the fee. Otherwise the policy makes no sense at all. In which case those who have brown bins and need additional sacks for any one collection will be paying twice - for the brown bin and for the sacks. They gets us coming and they gets us going... Southwark's topology of course means that it is mainly the leafy suburbs of the old borough of Camberwell which will be hardest hit by all this - but no surprises there. Unlike Millwall maybe it is only Tooley St. that hates us, and actually some of us do care!

Admin - this thread has become a vehicle solely for personal abuse and ad hominem attacks. Could it be closed? Or moved or locked? Maybe when Saucy is really going to re-open as a going concern it could announce so on a new thread, in the Business section? I wish it well (as apparently does everyone who has posted on this thread, even those more sanguine about culpability regarding its very extended 'almost opening').

Because they count for a small percentage of vehicles on the road And clearly Rolls Royce's and Bentley's should also be excluded for the same reasons.

it's a no confidence in the council officers who actually run the council Council officials operate as agents of the ruling party(s) and at the behest of elected officials and committees. Where malfeasance is alleged - it is either the responsibility of the elected councillors (if the officials are acting properly under instruction) or it is a disciplinary offence. In neither case is there any possibility of any formal 'no confidence' proceedings against officials. Where you believe an official has acted improperly your first point of call would be a local councillor (in your ward) to raise the issue with the executive on your behalf. Like civil servants, council officers (appointed officials, not elected members) act as instructed by elected members either directly or through the application of agreed rules. If they follow instructions they have no independent culpability for the impact of these (save where they run contrary to existing laws etc.). That rests with the elected members.

Two, how do we get a motion of no confidence ( or similar ) raised against the councils running of the borough ? There is an opportunity every three years. The only other remedy is judicial review if you believe the authority is acting outwith its statutory powers, or against the intent of these. These do not come cheap. Where a borough is more closely run electorally (i.e. there is a strong opposition, or a coalition running the council) council members may effectively challenge the apparat, but this is not an option in the People's Republic of Southwark. A choice we made last year. Electors (judicial review apart) only can express a legally binding view once every three years, as I have said.

Not to mention, but I have, education charges for those without children (or whose children do not use the state system)... The idea of graduated taxation is that everyone pays according to their means (or a proxy thereof like property values) and uses according to their need. Once you start distinguishing, and charging for, separate elements of a service (or indeed entire services) then people not using any service feel that they shouldn't then be paying towards it, particularly when they are being asked to pay separately for a service they do use.

but surely it's dangerous to public health everywhere? Young children aren't just found around schools! Whilst that's true, the Pareto Principle (80:20 Rule) would suggest that concentrating on areas around schools would have a greater impact on children than random sweeps - given any fixed resource. Poo around schools has a much higher chance of impacting children than just randomly in streets away from schools.

Picture House membership is useable across all Picture Houses, which opens the Ritzy in Brixton, the one in Greenwich and the new one in West Norwood to members - you can normally find a film and time to suit. And sometimes a price!

It is worth noting that whilst Picture House prices can be high, for some showings, there are numbers of cheaper options - Mondays are close to half price, Thursdays cheap for pensioners and all prices are reduced for 'members' - including a number of free seats to use through your membership year at will. There are also special reduced price showings for e.g people with babies, children etc. Having a cinema again in Lordship Lane I take as a bonus, and, whilst Peckham Plex is definitely cheaper, it is not, in my experience as comfortable and clean. It is a choice for us (where before there was none). As with all things, caveat emptor, at least as regards checking comparative prices, is a reasonable watchword. I am lucky that I can normally choose, within reason, when to go to see films, and thus choose my (economic) moment. I have no interest (other than being a 'founder' member of the ED Picture House).

But the majority of Southwark residents don't live in leafy suburbs with gardens - those who do should be paying even more for that privilege than they already do through their community charge. Maybe it will encourage them to pave over their gardens and have properly organised lives, without unnecessary greenery blighting the urban landscape. And it will get rid of those nasty flying insects, reduce the hayfever scourge, improving air quality - who wants to smell mown grass or lawn clippings? And we will certainly be paving any front gardens, so we can park our cars and vans. It's all to the good. Help stamp out nature by making it too expensive for the ordinary Joe. Who won't be able to get easily to the parks now if they are not prepared to walk. So that will keep the parks free of the elderly and those with young children. It's just a win win win for everyone!

the poorer you are the less likely you are to drive. A progressive society makes it easier for poor people to have good stuff, a regressive society makes it more difficult and fuels resentment between haves and have nots. And if cars aren't 'good stuff' - how come it's the wealthy with them and not the poor (except of course that many 'poor' people do have access to cars and vans, some for their work)? Actually the younger (adult) you are the less likely you are to drive, particularly in London. The young find it easier to get about (they are fitter) and car insurance for the young can be prohibitive. For many young people owning a car is an expense to far. As long as they have a friend with a car who can drive them when necessary! When they start families is when they start to become car owners (often).

Badly

...but most petrol cars will be unaffected. The CPZ is required to improve our air quality Catalytic converters are what 'clean' petrol exhaust of e.g. unburned hydrocarbons. The main 'pollutant' from petrol engines is CO2 - which is vital for the growth of plants and is not the cause of any 'air quality' issues. And a CPZ will 'keep out' electric and hydrogen powered vehicles as much as any other - is anyone suggesting that these (as vehicles) are polluters or impact air quality? - and we have no power stations locally which might be air pollutants as they generate electricity to power electric vehicles. The only reason for this is revenue generation (and penalising car owners) - IT WILL HAVE NO AIR QUALITY IMPACT in SE22. Anyone who is actually claiming (rather than repeating other's claims in good faith) a CPZ as an effective and measurable contributor to air quality (outwith the ULEZ impact) in SE22 is, well, a liar. It is being done for revenue and social/ political reasons.

Thank you

Does anyone know whether these charges actually have been introduced yet?

This thread's title offers more than it delivers!

They will be surveying for leaks, using I imagine metal detectors to identify exactly where pipes run into properties, and those long listening devices to detect water movement at pipe junctions. The markings may be to identify where pipes are running.

My main concern is that The Mayor of London Sadiq Khan will be involved. And in concert with Chris Grayling? - The mind boggles!

This is electioneering - TfL has real money problems at the moment and if Labour do get nationally in they will have far bigger nationalisation plans than train services for London only. If you want to vote for Sadiq as Mayor fine, but don't do it because of this bit of 'pie-in-the-sky'. And as has been pointed out the actual logistic problems (let alone the full costs) of doing this are huge.

Even where they have pedlars' licences the rules of caveat emptor apply. The goods they sell may well not be value for money, and the way they sell them may be aggressive and threatening. And the narrative they tell (i.e. being ex-offenders) may be a lie or distortion - as is the implication that the profits they make go anyway towards a 'good' cause. A Pedlar's licence is no different from any other - a driving licence after all guarantees only a minimal amount of capability - there are still bad drivers, who break the law, licenced or not.

Dog bites are filthy things - they should always be treated at an A&E where antibiotics are available - dogs mouths are vectors for a range of nasties (and if you're bitten through clothing that will push further unpleasantness into the blood stream). Puppies will nip, on occasion, and they can be forgiven for that, but adult dogs that bite, unless themselves attacked, should be considered for euthanasia. There is no excuse for having a biting dog in public (guard dogs and farm dogs may be a different case).

https://www.gla.gov.uk/

These boys are often run by a gangmaster who sends groups of them into a neighbourhood - you will find him with a van re-stocking them if necessary. They may well be ex-offenders, but they are no part of any formal recognised ex-offender programme - what they 'earn' goes straight to the gangmaster, from which they will be paid a pittance. Don't buy from them, (there are perfectly good and legal ex-offenders charities (Googling will bring up a list) if you want to support ex-offenders) and if they seem threatening, call the police.