Penguin68

Given the choice most children prefer walking, cycling, scootering to school. In my experience, rather depends on the weather. Also - the assumption is being made that parents face the task of getting a child to school. But many face getting two or more children to different schools, often in different directions (from their house), one child at least probably needing to be accompanied, however travelling, and then, very possibly, additionally getting to work themselves (getting to a station etc.). Once those logistics are in place, the simplicity of 'walking your child to school' somewhat evaporates. For many children 'getting to school' if on their own (secondary school) can mean running the gauntlet of other children on foot or on buses - many years ago teachers (in a school my children went to) used to travel on some buses to try to protect their pupils from those of a rival school. As gangs and mugging proliferate, travel by car seems a safer option to some. And I can't blame them. My cosy 1950s schooldays of cycling, walking or busing to school in relative safety are long gone.

Obviously you do not need to activate a new contacless card at an ATM with your card. - this I do not understand as it would solve the problem. You should have to use your PIN before the contactless on a new card works. My wife has just received a new bank card where that is explicitly stated. Some cards also require you to authorise them on receipt using web or phone. It may be that some cards do not require this (PIN use before contactless) but I don't know of them. However, I'm sure somebody with the right equipment and knowledge can bypass card security.

you believe that there should be absolutely no measures to control car use in residential areas? - I didn't say that at all. The 20mph restriction, ULEZ, pressures to move towards electric, hybrid and hydrogen powered vehicles all contribute to either safety or air quality. However removing parking spaces and hence potentially increasing (albeit illegal) speeds may actually add to dangers. Just as an example. Road closures such as this simply displace traffic to other roads, often thereby actually increasing traffic of those roads and increasing pollution and possibly decreasing road safety on those roads. Fine for those living in the newly 'protected' roads, not so for others. So my plea for all roads which are actually passable to be used is all about spreading discomfort which may actually decrease 'per household' dangers and pollution. Of course you can plot to make your household particularly safe and pollution free, but only at the expense of others. I'm more in favour of 'equal pain' than 'my gain'.

UK Cards are designed to be used with PINS - where they are contactless then that shouldn't work before they are used (once) with a PIN. These security measure are frequently over-ridden (as they can be with 'card not present' routines using the 3 figure code on the back of the card). The problem with biometric readers is not just the cost of installing biometrics on a card, but the flakiness (still) of the reader technology - which is also expensive. Retailers often don't care, so a card issued to a woman (whose name is obviously female) can be used by a man without challenge. Of course gender identity issues don't help here either.

...and a cyclists and emergency vehicles and if necessary busses free for all - yes.

Given that this morning's delays were the result of accidents (and there have always been accidents, as one would expect on a busy A road) they're irrelevant to the question of the CH closure, aren't they? Actually (and ignoring the spat above) no. The more roads are permanently closed or restricted, the fewer 'alternative' routes exist (for motorists, public conveyances or emergency vehicles) in the case of accident, or, more frequently around here, road closures following infrastructure failure. Every road closed is an 'in emergency' route blocked off. Which means that problems will inevitably be exacerbated. As a local I used to know many routes which allowed me to 'get through' incidents - these are fast disappearing. That can surely be to no one's benefit. I am generally always against reducing flexibility.

Sopers is definitely the best local outlet for wet fish, but I have bought from these guys before (as a one-off, not a regular order) and they're fine - they van down from the North East and their fish is fresh (although, if it's from deep sea trawlers it will already have been frozen on board, so re-freezing might not be a good idea). I found that I wanted to give them a decent order, which meant I over-bought. Also I have no idea how much say, half a kilo of cod actually is. More than I needed, as it turned out!

Not a credit card, but a number of years ago I had a cheque book stolen en route to me - luckily my bank spotted its fraudulent use and I lost nothing, but (although the bank could spot that it was stolen once it had reached (or was on its way to) Sylvester Road DO) - the Post Office did nothing to help, nor show any interest. There were temporary staff there then and a spate of thefts. Because, for some purposes, the law treats items posted 'as if' they had also been delivered (proof of postage being sufficient to argue proof of delivery in some circumstances) Royal Mail seems amazingly reluctant to help where items of value have gone missing. Mind you, that is part and parcel (sorry) with their sister organisation's (PO Counters) disgraceful treatment of sub postmasters, where for years they have been prosecuting individuals for fraud when their own internal electronic accounts system with sub-postmasters must use is known to be faulty.

A previous post of mine which was lounged brought up the issue that the old Borough of Camberwell (where we were before it was merged with the super borough of Southwark) would have been a better place to have stayed - and would at least have had some benefits of administrative scale which your suggestion, attractive as it is, would not. At least we all share an interest in having poor public transport (compared with the north of Southwark).

I have lived in East Dulwich for over 30 years, and in that time the quality of life has improved dramatically. Lordship Lane when I came here was, frankly, shabby, with few decent or interesting restaurants and shops, indeed a plethora of shops selling second hand prams is lodged in my mind (of course, even then, there were gems, and I particularly regret the loss of a decent haberdashers). In that time also public transport has improved (the Orange line, new bus routes). This has been marked by the steepest rise (from a low base) in house prices in London, as more people recognised the pleasures and benefits of living in East Dulwich, with its increasingly vibrant high street, and street market, parks and good (or reparable) housing stock offering quite a good mix of housing types. However in the last couple of years Southwark Council and TfL have been working to reduce that life quality. Reductions in bus frequencies (and routes) and the war against private vehicles are symptomatic of a series of attacks from Tooley St and County Hall which mark a complete disdain for those of us in the south of the borough. Decisions are being made ?against? us by people who probably never even come down South (well, no tubes, so no real access). Our councillors are now part of the apparat, keeping their new-boy noses clean as deselection comes into view. The creation of the super-borough of Southwark and the loss of the Borough of Camberwell looks increasingly a poor decision as regards those of us who would have been in that lost borough. At least the money being grabbed from us who are motorists might have been spent on our transport needs, rather than dissipated in the north. But Southwark has no requirement to spend our car blood money on us in the south. If we are to ?take back control? I know where I?d start. And it?s not on the UK?s borders.

If the side return extension is recently built your neighbour may be trying to soften its impact on his view. Ivy in general on walls (particularly relatively new walls, i.e. not ancient) has very little impact, indeed it tends to protect the wall throwing off rain etc. It is only when it reaches windows or roofs that it can become intrusive or indeed invasive. Where the wall is on a neighbour's boundary growing stuff up it is fair game for him. If the ivy does become invasive (gets under tiles etc.) then your neighbour should give you or your contractors access to cut it back. Growth from a neighbour's property actually into yours can be cut back (by you) to the boundary. Best to do it through agreement, just for good relations.

Some great points here, just to add has anyone heard or know of a homeopathic hospital? Sadly, yes https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/ourservices/ourhospitals/rlhim/pages/historyofrlhim.aspx I can't be bothered to go back over this interminable thread, but to note that homeopathy (which does nothing) was often safer than interventive medicine in the 19th century which did something, but often something bad (it is better to 'cure' syphilis with water than mercury). That all changed by the 1950s and certainly into the 21st century when medical interventions are genuinely beneficial. Homeopathy (still water, if beaten against a saddle) does no direct harm (save where it is preferred to actual medication). No does it do any good better than the placebo effect - which isn't in itself nothing - people genuinely do get better or at least improve through sugar pills or water, but then the body is an amazing self-healing mechanism - think how cuts and bruises get better without any intervention save to keep them (cuts) free of infection.

If you are local, your children are school age and have no disabilities If you have to walk more than 20-25 minutes, particularly if one child is in a push chair (even if another is school age) then you will not feel that much like 'enjoying' the park when you get there, particularly with the walk back ahead of you. Neither will your children. Mind you, as a policy it will keep out those awful extended families, people with dogs, the elderly, all those ghastly people who cannot afford to live nice and close (within easy walking distance from a park). Effectively keeping out the hoi polloi (anyone who can't readily afford the parking fee, even) is a wonderful policy for the council to pursue. It will be Dulwich parks for Dulwich people. It will make the parks so much more private for those with adjacent houses. And once the parks are unused enough, well we can get rid of them.

There are numbers of causative factors which might lead to apparent confusion and lapses of memory other than dementia (Alzheimer's and vascular dementia are the most common, but not the only 'senile dementia diseases'). These include some forms of depression, responses to acute or chronic pain, as well as, and probably most commonly 'having a lot on your mind' - i.e. simple distraction and, as above, forms of tiredness and exhaustion. Dementia is not contagious (some forms may be genetic however) - but I have noted that aberrant behaviours can be copied, possibly unconsciously. If these behaviours become annoyingly habitual it is worthwhile seeking professional help, but the very fact that they are being noticed by you at all is probably a good sign. 'Forgetting things' (names, why you walked upstairs) may be annoying but it is very often a sign-post to nothing important at all.

Much as I dislike the Mayor's ULEZ - this will do far more to achieving clean air than the CPZ - you can quickly show this by asking how much of a contribution to clean air will not allowing 'foreign' electric or hydrogen powered vehicles to park in ED make? Clearly none. Yet these are covered by the CPZ as are all other vehicles. When this is forced on us (the CPZ) I would bet a pound to a fly-button that any ensuing improvements in air quality will be credited to the CPZ by Southwark, and not the ULEZ.

countdown to August 12th commences That's grouse - Pheasant season is 1st October to 1st February. Where this one is, and being now at least a season old, he's actually pretty safe.

There are 3 ways of legally occupying a property - freehold, where you own the property and land outright and can sell or give away those rights, leasehold where you buy access to a property for a given term (normally over 70 years initially for domestic property, although I have known as little as 25 years, and frequently much less for commercial property). You can sell or give away your leasehold to a third party. A leaseholder will normally be required to pay for the upkeep of the property, and it is normal to pay up front for the leasehold (a full negotiated price, as for purchase of a property outright) and additionally pay the freeholder some form of annual rental for that freehold. Finally there is rental. As a renter you may have a fixed term (common in commercial agreements) or it may be open ended - but you cannot sell on or give away your rights and the rental agreement is with you alone. Rental agreements allow you, or your landlord, to terminate the rental agreement under certain, stipulated, circumstances. You will pay monthly (commercially often quarterly) rental and may additionally (often in commercial rentals) take on some repairing or maintenance liabilities. Commercial leases, (but they are not quite like domestic leasehold as such) may have break points or points where the rentals can be reviewed. Where the commercial lease has time-terminated the freeholder has no requirement to extend the lease or offer the leaseholder a new lease. A leaseholder can offer their property to tenants, so you could have a property where the freehold is owned by entity A, a lease by entity B and is being rented by B to entity C. 3 separate entities can thus have an interest in one property, with different obligations and rights. Unless it is covered by a specific agreement in the leasehold, a freeholder cannot interfere in the relationship between a leaseholder and their tenant - even where the freeholder and tenant are the same entity!

Argos is owned by Sainsbury's - with the Peckham branch more difficult to get to it makes sense to use space at Dog Kennel Hill, and it may bring customers in who would not otherwise come, and who will buy groceries. Parking is much better there as well. This is not the same as sub-letting to another brand, although actually Laura Ashley was in Homebase at a time it was successful, and moved out before the collapse. [And Sainsbury's used to own Homebase, but sold it off].

At the moment, if you are in the street and passed by BT (everyone is) you will be able to get service from all operators (who have a legal right to use BT Infrastructure) apart from NTL/ Virgin. If you are passed by Virgin you will also be able to get it from them. If you are 'passed' by Southark's chosen suppliers in an estate you will only be able to get service from them over their infrastructure - they are not obliged to wholesale their network to 3rd parties (BT Openreach is). So you may possibly have a monopoly provider with no alternatives.

Agree with cycling for short journeys when possible - I know you add 'when possible' but NB there are people who are old, people with poor sight, people with other motor disabilities, people who would have to cycle through quite substantial hills in the old borough of Camberwell often with substantial baggage of one sort or another - people who rely on powered transport not on 2 wheels. I suspect quite a few journeys could not, reasonably, be completed by cycle. By making life possible only for cyclists (or walkers) - clearly the aim with no nod towards even basic reliable public transport - many rely on buses when the roads are constantly blocked by different works - Southwark is excluding increasing numbers from participating in life outside the house. I use public transport a lot, but I have to drive to get on it in the first place (not even a bus goes to my 'best/ most useful' orange line station from where I am, and it's a hilly 20-25 minute walk for me). Not a good or relaxing start to an evening out.

There's a lot of issues I am getting in my broadband, You need to take these up with your retail broadband supplier. And probably be a little more specific when you contact them.

Also avoid walking along the edge of the pavement with a phone held in the 'outside' hand - that's making a drive by grab that much easier. If you have to walk and talk, use a headphone and microphone and keep your phone in your pocket. Google maps (etc.) can talk directions if you're using it as a walking sat nav.

Does anyone have any clues about when and why the management took a turn for the worse? Like all GP surgeries, this one has been plagued by losses in the senior partners, through retirement and very sadly long term illness and death. This has put huge pressures (because of inner city GP recruitment issues) on GP availability and appointments (as well as losing GP managerial direction); the surgery has tried out many schemes to address this, most have failed although currently the system they are working on (using telephone 'appointments' and GP based triage) seem to be working. Their use of outbound communications (to notify of prescriptions being available, to request routine telephone appointments for test results etc.) has also been a useful innovation, as has requests for routine measurements (such as BP) now that so many have, or have access to their own monitors. The recruitment of a practice pharmacist and better use of practice nurses has also taken the pressure off GPs (but must have taken time to achieve). Reminders about appointments are also helping. We all want to be seen immediately, but now the urgent cases are seen urgently, and the routine appointments have to wait. Which doesn't seem too bad. And there's always the Lister and SelDoc out of hours. I've been a patient there for 30 years; it's had its ups and downs, but my perception is 'up' (relatively) at the moment.

Just for clarity, I raised the mental health issue not as a speculation about this dreadful case, but as a reflection that we would often prefer to see mental health issues as a cause, rather than wickedness. Because you can't help being ill, but you can help being wicked. If something happens because of illness, you neither wish to lay blame, nor to consider that what happened is symptomatic of a locale or particularly group. If lightning strikes it is random and without blame. Of course the mentally ill are more frequently victims.

Theresa May is openly loathed by the rank and file police (and also by the higher ups though on the quiet) because she gutted them financially when she was Home Sec and now they have to carry the can for rising crime. I think you'll find she is hated because she stood up to the police unions and, more particularly, because she tried to stop indiscriminate stop and search. As Home Secretary she would have been bidding for more funds - it was Osborne and the Treasury taking them away. No spending Minister tries to reduce their spend unless forced. Their spend is how they judge their worth. It was the stop and search move which really rankled - which she did for the best reasons as that was still a practice where discrimination against minorities could be exercised by the Met. And was.