seenbeen

IlonaM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My experience on the P13 was similar - people > walking past driver with mask on properly, sitting > down and pulling mask down around chin to make > phonecalls. Unimpressed. Yes and the small space on the bus could then be filled with infection putting everyone at risk. I think it's ignorance because these people have not watched videos of what happens when you cough or sneeze or even breathe out and the air gets filled with virus particles...should have been shown on tv etc billboards, as soon as mask wearing was made compulsory.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd speak to local agents then, see what they > think, you might already have hit the ceiling for > your type of property in the area... Is there a ceiling any more? This 'development' is blocking sun from the south into the garden to the right!

Pubs might have to close early https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rule-six-pubs-could-face-22682609

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just spoke with my friend and she has told me > about gay conversion therapy, I absolutely agree > it should be banned. She has not heard of it in > this country, she said its used more in America. I > would imagine this is a private treatment. I remember reading a couple of years ago about a pastor trying to convert a gay man in the street in Norwood but I cannot find a reference, but I did find this https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/london-church-denies-so-called-gay-conversion-therapy-after-undercover-news-report

They are now imploring people not to have a 'blowout' this weekend....as happened last time.

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 12.50 on a Friday. Idling traffic all the way to > the medical > Centre Add to that the thick lorry and van drivers leaving engines idling- it is not cold out, your engine is modern - turn the bloody thing OFF

No- not since the Lib. Dem./ Tory days

Politics has always been like that...politicians get elected then do what they have basically promised to get in e.g. leaving the EU. Other than that they are pandering to the voters with a view to getting elected next time. Anyone who is pragmatic would not touch politics. Politics is corrupt and self-serving- always has been- I don't know why we put up with ANY of them. It is estimated that ?3.5 BILLION has been defrauded from the public purse in the furlough scheme....so when we get tax rises we know it is our own friends and neighbours who are responsible... The cladding thing is a prime example of the shenanigans going on in construction especially when public money is available. https://www.constructionmanagermagazine.com/grenfell-rydon-struggled-to-drum-up-interest-from-cladding-contractors/ JohnL Wrote "EU, Cladding, Climate etc. It's easy to get in the press and even arrange big marches. But all of them get nowhere - politics now is continue going as you are and b*gg*r the consequences. The pragmatic side to this country is gone (for the moment)." .....

There's a section on here called ED Businesses, Restaurants, Trades- you might want to have a look there

This could be a start of something. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8719399/Is-Sadiq-Khans-council-U-turn-33m-green-scheme.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ico=taboola_feed_desktop_news Lewisham is no better- side roads are closed off so that any traffic going from Blackheath Village to Ladywell then on to Dulwich is now forced onto the horrendous Lewisham one way system.

How on Earth can people go 'out on the pull' anymore?

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That sounds like a completely reliable and highly > relevant anecdote. > > When did the P4 run up Court Lane? I lived very > close by in 89-92 and only remember it going up > College Rd (as a "hail and ride" service). It's > totally possible that I am misremembering. When the speed humps were installed which was about 1988 or so because I remember taking my kids to school and one of them was petrified of dogs...he was about 10 at the time . A dog ran out of a front gate in Court Lane and he ran into the road in fear and I remember thinking if the speed humps hadn't been there he would have been killed. The speed humps were installed soon after a couple of schoolboys were hit by a car travelling at speed down Court Lane and overshot the bend near to the Village end, mounted the pavement and hit them both. One of them was taken to hospital but the other one was thrown into a bush in a front garden and was found later if I recall. I lived in Eynella and often got the P4 to shop in Lewisham as the 185 takes forever

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I love the idea that there's a shadowy cabal of > Court Lane residents that is secretly controlling > local and London government. Funny you should say that because years ago in the early 1990s, before they installed speed humps and the P4 was going up and down Court Lane between Lewisham and Brixton, the residents complained that ne'er-do-wells from Brixton and Lewisham were 'casing' the properties on Court Lane- (I heard that from a Southwark Councillor who lived in Court Lane!)

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The virus is going to mutate if it hasn't already > done so- then we are back to square one. > > It is not in the virus' best interest to kill its > host - so many viruses mutate to become less > lethal (as syphilis did, originally a killer over > a few days it changed to something which offered > its hosts a much longer life). > > So a mutating virus isn't necessarily a bad thing. > Actually, the version which is asymptomatic to its > host is ideal, in terms of spread and ubiquity. > > It is also worth noting that it is most unlikely > that this virus will ever be wholly eradicated - > its close cousins, those coronaviruses which carry > the common cold, certainly haven't. Covid-20 may > already be out there, and Covid-21 and Covid-22 > lurking to make their New Year appearances. > > It may be up to the old and vulnerable to protect > themselves from the young - stressing to those in > multi-generational households the risks they > present and even (where they can) social > distancing from them. Despite 'bolshie teenager' > images I believe the young will respond better to > 'encouragement' from within their own families > than heavy handed government moralising, > sloganising or police enforcement. Syphilis is a bacterium (not a virus) and only the less virulent strains got passed on because people infected with the virulent strains were covered in sores, they smelled, and they were physically disabled....hardly attractive to sexual partners. Most virus (any virus) carriers and spreaders are infectious before they know they are sick anyway so everyone needs to take precautions. I was in a large shopping centre today- signs up everywhere to wear a mask or face covering and about 30% were NOT wearing them or had them on under the chin(?) or not covering the nose. The vast majority were under 35 as myself and my companions noted.

Letting the young do what they want is fraught with problems 1) Many of them are symptomless but contagious 2) They will carry on as normal and congregate in crowds etc ( which many have been doing anyway) 3) They will pass the virus on to other young or other people who will go home to older parents or grandparents or sick people. People need to go to work. People need to go to school. A hard core of people - as witnessed at the Piers Corbyn rally etc. will do just as they like- regardless of what the government and its scientific advisers prescribe. The virus is going to mutate if it hasn't already done so- then we are back to square one. Also young people are not going to read the EDF- they are out doing what they want.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hancock blaming the young whereas you might have > expected him to say they were testing more > > https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/matt-hancock-co > ronavirus-cases-rise-social-distancing-a4541496.ht > ml Since most young people are symptomless would they go and get tested anyway? How many others have they infected? At the beginning of the lockdown I was taking exercise in Alleyn's Field where there were groups of teens- 6 or so- hiding in the memorial garden. I went to Greenwich Park one evening just after we were told we could travel- and there were helicopters flying over Blackheath on the lookout for groups I daresay- they should have sent people into the park because there were large groups of teens sitting under the trees as the branches almost reach the floor. Then you've got all the illegal demos.all the people crowding onto the beaches....

It could be a nursing chair. here's a mid-19th century one https://www.sellingantiques.co.uk/668346/a-mid-19th-century-walnut-nursing-chair-circa-1860/

Tony Abbott's sister is gay and slaps her type of journalism down in excellent style. Councillor Christine Forster fyi. Matt Hancock reminded me of a mischievious schoolboy in the head's study who does not give a stuff because he is so much cleverer than her!

Homophobes and misogynists are everywhere and plenty of them are closet cases. At least we know his views and as TheCat pointed out "As one of the articles below suggests many religious folk (Muslim, Catholic etc) hold similar views (again, which I personally disagree with)....but does that mean we should bar them all from any public office?" -especially the ones that are face to face with the public in their jobs? A friend had a bad experience in hospital here in SE London. She is admitted regularly as she has a GENETIC disease that makes her susceptible to serious problems. While she was in there a 'nurse' came to her and said that she should go to the nurse's church as it would make her well! Fortunately my friend is not desperate as she knows all about her disease so was not beguiled by this.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The airline industry wants us to be able to test > at airports to avoid quarantining so that they > (the airlines) can start to encourage more > passengers to fly. > > Obviously this isn't a tested strategy in this > country yet and there is a concern that rates will > increase as travelling increases. Just look at > countries where this sort of scheme is already in > place. > > In my opinion, the reason London and other major > airport hubs were the first to see high infection > rates was unintentionally down to mass transit of > the virus into the country via airlines. My > opinion but it's a fairly reasonable assumption. > > Should we move from the 14 day quarantine regime > to testing at the airports ? I agree about why London was so highly infected although London is not mentioned here- and neither is Italy https://www.voanews.com/science-health/coronavirus-outbreak/where-did-they-go-millions-left-wuhan-quarantine This report is scathing especially of the WHO. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/Whathappensif/how-china-locked-down-internally-for-covid-19-but-pushed-foreign-travel/ Testing at airports will not pick up people newly infected and you can't trust people to quarantine especially the asymptomatic. I'm just staying at home or going out into open spaces with few people around.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > slarti b Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > @bestnamesetc > > Which roads do your childern use to get to > school, > > The ones the councillors are diverting > traffic > > onto? > > > My kids walk to school. Anyone driving their kids > to school shouldn't be allowed to live in London. When you allow parents to send their children to any school of their choice then some- especially those going to faith primary schools- will have to drive them- just go and have a look around Francesca Cabrini school morning and afternoon. Unfortunately you cannot drop your kids at school and then get to work for a reasonable time by public transport given the poor service to some areas.

Thinking back to when my youngest went to school and I went back to work- my children were in the schools in the Village then I had to get to Bermondsey by 9.30 which is impossible without a car. At one point I was working in Greenwich -a 9am start- and had to leave the children with a paid minder at 8am and she took them to school and then I managed to get to work. I feel really sorry for anyone who has to do this type of juggling- single parents, women or men who have to drop children and get to work in places ill-served by public transport, low income families trying to do the right thing but cannot afford a wrap-around child minder. I think Southwark are ridiculous quite honestly, I have worked for them in the past and I know certain departments ARE ridiculous- and as for council meetings for crying out loud.....

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TE44, I just don't understand where you are coming > from - you've publicly supported (and, indeed, > doubled down on) a post that suggests that sex > education in schools increases the risk of > children suffering sexual abuse. I've explained > why that is totally wrong, and pointed you towards > two sets of materials that have been put together, > based on empirical evidence, which explain it > further if you read them . > > You've pointed me towards a spokesperson for a > pressure group who is against any of this material > being taught in schools (forgive me if I prefer > evidenced materials) and said that it's better in > your view not to teach any of this stuff in case > children are being abused at home and it makes > things worse. How does not teaching children > about consent in relationships and how important > it is help those children who are being abused? > How does ignoring it, not treating abuse as if it > exists and is wrong, help those children > understand that it's not their fault and needs to > be stopped? > > As I've said elsewhere on this thread, I'm > respectful of people who want their children to be > taught about sex and relationships in an age > appropriate way - debate away about that point - > but this horrible implication that teaching young > people about sex, particularly in same sex > relationships increases the risk of predatory > behaviour and child sex abuse or somehow makes it > worse for the child is so obviously wrong and > offensive that I'm going to keep calling it out > whenever I see it. It's based on prejudice and > scaremongering, plain and simple. Here, here. Within the teaching there is the opportunity to actually help abused children by finding out what makes them uncomfortable etc. and gives other children to share information that they have heard from an abused child. People who are abused, and children especially, sometimes grow up believing it is normal behaviour until they find out differently- what other experience could they have had? It all needs to come out into the open

If we had enforcement officers in the streets near newsagents they would make a killing because people just stroll out unwrapping the cellophane off their fags, wrapping off their ice lollies etc and dropping it on the ground despite the bins outside the shops. They would also catch plenty of people idling their car engines outside the same shops.

'spot the rave'?