Penguin68

Do you have a link?

I'm at the south end of Underhill - post has been picking-up - pretty well daily in the week before and after Christmas (excluding bank holidays) - and looks up to date. Nothing now that I know I'm missing. And Christmas cards actually all seemed to arrive before Christmas - if a bit slow to start. Mostly deliveries before 12.00 as well, and not late into the afternoon.

The Sunday Times reported that Michael Gove intends to bring in legislation obliging local councils to notify 'close' residents of any intention to remove urban and suburban street trees, and if sufficient (50% of those notified) objections are raised to undertake a full public consultation. I assume that diseased and damaged trees removed for H&S grounds would probably be exempt - I'd also guess this was stimulated by the actions of Sheffield council over the last couple of years, but many London trees seem arbitrarily to be removed as well. Southwark has a better record than some, but, if enacted, this should be good news. The S Times had noted that (under a FoI request), 110,000 trees had been removed by local councils over the last 3 years!

And report your passport stolen as a matter of urgency https://www.gov.uk/government/news/report-your-lost-or-stolen-passport Amended to add - there is real danger of identity theft if you don't, or the passports being sold on and used for criminal purposes.

That looks as if it has been pollarded, probably to remove the danger of limbs being brought down in storms. It will be much safer now, and less likely to cause damage to other trees or itself. Mature trees can become very vulnerable to storm damage.

It sounds like the tree was "pollarded", which is usually only done for structural/health and safety reasons or else for long term maintenance issues. Pollarding (like any crown reduction) is also used to constrain root growth - roots grow as long as a tree is high, roughly - so is a good strategy in urban street environments where you don't want roots being too intrusive or damaging, as well as avoiding growth of large boughs which can be intrusive and may be vulnerable to high winds, often exacerbated in built up areas by a wind tunnel effect.

https://www.google.com/search?q=oddbins+dulwich&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB753GB753&oq=odbins+dulwich&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l4.11941j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

whether a restaurant has good hygiene standards or not A lot of the inspection is actually about process and documentation - clearly higher standards are likely to be matched with proper processes, but not necessarily. A small establishment may well have just one person (rather than a succession) cleaning so keeping a written record of when things are done may be unnecessary - the person doing it will remember - but for the inspector if it isn't recorded it isn't done. An establishment can be completely hygienic, but if the records aren't there it is treated as not being so. Inspectors don't normally e.g take swabs - unless they are thinking of prosecuting for obvious breaches. So their score is based on a visual inspection and on checking records. The scores are an indicator of how an establishment goes about things, as an indicator of good processes which normally lead to a clean establishment - but they are really a secondary measure of any actual dirt or contamination. You probably have good hygiene standards in your own home - but when did you last record when you had cleaned, or what date food in your fridge or larder was stored? Of course a home is not a commercial establishment, but it's not always true that a poor score does equal poor hygiene standards. Although of course it can, and probably more frequently does than not.

Just remember, when Southwark proposes introducing a CPZ it has nothing to do with benefits to local residents - it's about revenue generation and about working to make car ownership as uncomfortable as they can for residents. They believe (I am sure sincerely) that life would be better if private cars were removed from the borough and we all relied on walking, cycling or public transport to get places. I am all in favour of people who are fit and well and fearless to cycle up and down our hills, or walk up and down, but if the whole population (those with children, who are elderly or infirm or risk averse (cycling) or who have loads to carry are to be catered for, then public transport has to be better, more frequent, go to places we need to go to, run through the night... the apparat in the flat north of the borough, very well served by public transport (they have tubes, for goodness sake) sometime forget what it's like in hilly Old Camberwell (or, more likely, frankly don't care).

I was there when the car was being towed away - it's quite genuine - or at least the pictures are, and the car was there. I suppose it is possible that it was placed there in that condition e.g. for a film, although the down pipe was definitely crushed. It may have been a relatively low impact piece of vandalism - i.e. not accidental.

The impact appears to have crushed a down pipe. However only the front (engine) box was crumpled - it looked like the passenger compartment wasn't - so hopefully injuries will have been light. I can't imagine it would be possible to drive through that narrow gap at any speed anyway. Cars are now built to crumple easily as a safety factor, so perhaps the impact speed was low.

Love how apparently it takes an hour to get to Peckham though . . I think this is just typical Guardian poor subbing, as earlier in the piece it refers to '30 minutes walk' - I think the piece should have read an hour-long round trip by bus - which would make more sense - with waiting times it may well be from many parts of ED.

This week I have received deliveries (so far) each day (Monday to Friday) and I know of nothing now outstanding. I have also received communication from the office of 'The Chairman and Chief Executive' which indicates that the problem is known about at that level, and that they believe (hope?) it is being addressed. Of course, promises of improvement have still to be met by delivery of same, but I am slightly more hopeful than I have been. Hopes and expectations can always be dashed of course.

James Barber had nothing to do with establishing the East Dulwich Picturehouse. He is on record as being one of several who have argued for the re-opening of a cinema somewhere in Lordship Lane, by someone - but I agree that I don't think that particular site and business figured strongly in his proposals, but fortuitously became the answer to his prayers...

As long as the constraints placed on them, including post-event actions, are clear and are delivered on, there shouldn't be any problems. We might anticipate next year bizarre weather conditions as this year, such that e.g. proper tracking should be in place to avoid damage to the ground which may not be easy to remedy if there is another drought. Each year's event should be able to build on and make use of previous years' experiences.

Yes, that is powered by data from O2.

A nationwide problem with O2 data is being reported. Voice seems OK. It's on the BBC news ap.

I don't know if I find that sad or outrageous. They're criminals - it comes with the job description. Low-lifes choose the vulnerable and easy to steal from - and it's not embezzlement, it's theft. Embezzlement would be where the organisers diverted funds. Passing forged currency used to be punishable by death. It's seen not simply as theft, but as undermining the economic status of the country. Which is why the Nazis, famously, tried to flood the UK with forged white fivers.

Stand by for your parking life to become unbelievably better soon. That will only be true if in your street, the average number of cars per household is less than the number of houses outside which you can park (once reductions in parking space always associated with CPZs are taken into account). For some streets that will be beneficial (certainly mainly those ones without multiple occupancy). For others it will not! It will also depend how big your CPZ zone is - a large zone will bring those not your immediate neighbours into your street (potentially) - a small zone when you are surrounded by other small zones means that if you cannot park in your street you may have to go some considerable way before you find somewhere you can park. I noticed in Ondine Road, for instance, quite close to ED station that daytime parking was relatively easy - it was at night when everyone was back at home that I couldn't park up to visit a friend. There (and then) the average car per household was over 1. I don't know what it now is.

CPZs have never been about benefiting the people who live in them ? they have always been about traffic manipulation ? and in particular and overtly in Southwark?s case ? a desire to substantially reduce car ownership and car usage within Southwark (for which there are some arguments, particularly for older, and dirtier, vehicles). Additionally CPZs are seen as revenue generators ostensibly to improve public transport ? although we know that this has actually been worsened in our neck of the woods, with reduced bus frequencies, re-routing buses away from where we want to go, a refusal to extend the tube into the old Camberwell Borough etc. ?Benefit? to local people is prayed-in-aid merely to get sign-up ? the fact that all new CPZs reduce the amount of parking within the zone should surely be enough to bell that particular cat? Southwark is relying on individuals ?voting? (and in a street of a 100 houses if 2 residents vote for and only one against that is enough) because they believe they will be able always to park outside their house. Generally (and with some exceptions) ?in your dreams?.

But there is no issue about sent mail, just received. And we have no control over the choice of carrier when we are the recipient. That's our problem.

Today a lot of missing mail and parcels were all delivered (2 van deliveries and a postie). I had written to complain, copied to Ms Hayes. They're in a mess and without a real plan to get them out of it, fire-fighting only when it comes to complaints. This closure and move had never been properly planned - and the button to do this should only have been pressed when senior management knew everything was in place to make it happen properly. Change management is non-trivial; I suspect proper change managers were never deployed, and a change plan never fully adumbrated or signed-off. I am quite happy to accept that Silvester Road was no longer fit-for-purpose or offered a quality work-place. However, its convenience (regards location etc.) to SE22 residents was part of its 'delivery' - and replacing that should have been planned for as much as anything else. The managers clearly forgot (although they were reminded by Helen Hayes) what the totality of their service was all about. At this stage all that can remedy this is additional resources (a proper plan would have come much cheaper) - but Royal Mail is in a royal mess financially...Hey ho and roll on Christmas!

but why does the theft all seems to be concentrated in those routes too? If it is, it may reflect the use of new and temporary posties (who may not have been fully vetted) on the new routes, with the old routes still being covered by existing Peckham post-people. It may also just be anecdotal.

On another thread there have been reported links to cat killings in the area. I think the 'link' was to secondary predation on cats already killed or severely injured following (car) accidents. There has been no suggestion that foxes are primary predators of cats (kittens, possibly). The reason why we have urban foxes is that there is ample food for them, without them needing to attack large domestic animals such as cats or dogs. Injured cats (not involved in car accidents) are more likely to have been injured by other cats or by large dogs.

Why not write a polite letter and copy to all the houses you think might be the problem. Say that the light is being regularly triggered and points into your windows. I'd guess the sensor might be picking up fox or other animal movement (which the user probably doesn't really want) and it may not be lighting up their property properly (it should be directed into their garden, not against houses). If you are polite and helpful (even suggest they might want to come and see the effect from your windows) then maybe they'll cooperate. Better to start friendly. A friend recently had a break-in and was severely traumatised by it. That may have happened to them too.