Penguin68

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.

The scheme is ?30 for a full year, ?25 for the initial part year. They said that retained large brown bins would have a sticker to identify them as for legitimate garden waste (but no further paper bags would be collected with the brown bins). And yes, it probably will be a complete mess.

I managed to get in, register and pay my ?25 - I've got a confirmatory e-mail and I've seen the charge on my CC bill - but I've certainly been sent no stickers etc. Does anyone know when/ if they will actually fulfil their order? Clearly they have 3 weeks to go before they stop collecting garden waste except from those who have paid, but it would be nice to think they would be efficient highwaymen/ persons.

Take the blinkers off! What world do you live in? A world where there is a difference between theft (where the objective is gain) and personal attack. It is very easy to take theft personally, as if it is you, not your belongings, which are being targeted, but that is not normally so. You are targeted only as the owner/ holder of those belongings - if you didn't have them you wouldn't be targeted. That is very different from most of the knife crime in London, as it is reported, where it is the individual identity (sometimes mistaken) which is the trigger, and where violence, not the threat of violence, is the significant element. People involved as victims of crime (mugging, robbery and burglary) frequently add to their pain by considering that the crime is personal to them (targeted at them as individuals 'why me?') - and therefore becoming more fearful of future events than is necessary. That simply adds to a burden of trauma and that addition is not normally justified. Additionally some muggings in particular may be about 'showing off' to others - 'look how brave I am to mug someone' - but again (unlike the attack of a bully) that has little to do with the victim. The victim may be a 'trophy' but the actual persona of the victim is irrelevant to that.

It's about realising that they are not being targeted personally - of course it's terrible and scary, but it's not about them, but about their phone/ bike etc. That's a very different position for those targeted for knife crime, where who they are or what gang they belong to is an issue.

School-boy muggings have been a (sad) constant over the 30 years I have lived in ED - they seem to go in spates - maybe crime is as fashion conscious as other things. And mugging by gangs is also common. Which is not to say this shouldn't be reported and cracked down-on. Normally the police end up by targeting an area and forcing the crime elsewhere. The private schools around here, with boys (and girls) with good quality phones and bikes are of course an attractor. It is awful of course when we are in one of these spates, and huge sympathy to any victim. But they should be reminded of the 'Godfather' maxim - 'this is business, not personal' - however personal it feels at the time.

The 20 mph limit on Sydenham Hill is a bit unnecessary in my opinion. Agreed, it's not really in any way a suburban residential street comparable to others round ED and with its wide pavements, people (and children) are far less likely to be forced into the road. It is interesting that the speed camera there is sited at the bottom of a dip in the road, where a car's speed is being aided by gravity - a cynic might suggest that a revenue generating conscious council might find that appealing - although I know of only one person actually flashed and fined there.

The major problem with the 20mph limit is that modern cars sold in the UK are optimised to run at 30mph (that's just a matter of tuning) so that the car can appear to 'struggle' at a steady 20mph (if you are used to listening to the car to change up and down). But just get used to it. The difference in damage to human bodies that extra 10mph makes is significant.

What I'm looking for, but then I'm a bit chubby, is a zero waist shop!

Thought I'd bounce this one back - in the light of some element of contradiction about what exactly different parts of the council are saying e.g. about CPZs - what the actual responses were (in detail) and what they are going to do on the basis (or not) of those responses. Also in the light of the recent local elections where the two main parties have not done so well, and where protest vote parties have done significantly better. Shame, really, that all the wards in London come up for electoral scrutiny only once every 3 years - interesting to see what might have happened here if a third of Southwark's wards had been competed for this year, particularly in the south of the borough.

And so, Southwark council, your job is done, you have turned street against street, each now selfishly to demand their own parking and then, lo, finding the spaces available to park are severely truncated and lost forever, to everyone, through your imposition of double yellows.

You do all understand, I hope, that the objective of this exercise is to flood the area with 'concerns' about e.g. road safety to help justify ('public demand') whatever draconian and probably inappropriate 'traffic management' schemes they plan - more CPZs; more extended double yellows, less parking etc. etc. There will be no more buses, with no additional frequency (of course, as that's TfL not Southwark) let alone any improvements in the rail services. Every time you add a concern you add another nail in the coffin of cars in Southwark, the stated aim of the council.