alex_b

I went for a run today and everything other than the bridge itself it open. To try to answer your question about where the diversion comes out: Coming down the steps from Sydenham hill there is a gate into the woods at the South-Eastern end of the footbridge. The main path runs parallel to Sydenham Woods and exits above the railway tunnel on Crescent Wood Road. There are two paths down to the North-West (Dulwich) side of the woods. A steep path drops down the side of the footbridge to join the path along the old rail bed, it?s then probably 100m to turn right and right again to get back to the other side of the footbridge. If you?re less mobile then there is a gentler path that branches off at the folly and gets you back to the main path through to Dulwich woods.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I didn't mean immediately on the right, KK. I > didn't mean just the footbridge, which yes is at > the top of Cox's Walk. > > According to the map at the entrance to Cox's > Walk, that whole side of the woods which would > have been reached by the footbridge is now fenced > off 😭 > > So yes, it's the part of the woods on the right if > you are coming from the Wood House. > > I was in another part of the woods. I'm assuming > the path which used to run from the far side of > the footbridge (ie not the Cox's Walk end) is no > longer usable in either direction. > > Apologies if I'm wrong. Last time I ran that way you could still enter Cox?s Walk at the top on Sydenham Hill and there was a diversion path before the footbridge that took you along and down to cross the old railway line and head back to the other side of the footbridge. I don?t believe that?s closed off unless it?s a recent change.

trinidad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have had candidate information from the Labor > Party for the Goose Green Ward. Strange, as my > ward is rye lane Me too, doesn?t bode well for their local knowledge!

ken78 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > if your not happy with your meal on just eat YOU > WILL GET A FULL REFUND as i have on more then 3 > times .its a no brainer, Just be warned after GBK in East Dulwich screwed up our orders repeatedly (usually forgetting fries or substituting items)we started having refunds denied and were told our account had been marked for fraud. We closed our account at that point.

If they?re storing materials or rubbish on the road, email Southwark highways department and they?ll get it sorted.

I know this is well meaning, but give money not stuff. It allows charities to buy what they actually need locally with none of the logistic overhead of sorting a load of often unsuitable cast-offs.

I?ve completed the consultation asking a similar question about permits. I?m particularly concerned about who is eligible for permits as I live a few houses up from the start of the restriction but regularly have to park in the restricted area due to a lack of spaces outside my house. The wording isn?t clear about if I?d be eligible or not. Also the only electric car charger in the surrounding streets is in the restriction.

We just received one for St John?s and St Clement?s which would close parts of Adys, Ondine and Amott. Given how terrible traffic is in the morning with aggressive drivers smacking their horns I?m in favour. Having a camera filter is better than a hard barrier like they have for Bellenden Primary.

The first thing I?d try is to get a really long Ethernet cable and see if the issue continues to occur on a wired connection. If so it?s a fault with Virgin (good luck with that?), if not then it?s a Wi-Fi issue which might be fixable with a mesh setup. Again if you?re going for mesh I?d really recommend hard wiring the access points.

I?ve worked in technology for 20 years and never heard a VPN called a VPL. What are you trying to use a VPN for? Generally I?d be wary of a lot of the cheaper ones.

A few additional tips: Definitely connect the mesh access points via Ethernet cable, it will make it faster and more reliable. As others have said use the same mesh extender in the garden studio too. Finally disable Wi-Fi on the Three router, that will mean you only have one Wi-Fi network that devices are trying to connect to. Also try to get everything possible off Wi-Fi and onto hardwired connections, smart tvs, computers used at desks etc. One other thing to consider is not just the headline bandwidth but also the contention and latency from your provider. For instance I got better real world performance from an A&A 70Mbps VDSL line than from Virgin?s 200Mbps line. I?ve now switched to A&A?s FTTP 160Mbps service and it?s brilliant. It?s twice as much as what Three are charging butI think you get what you pay for.

I?m trialing at work and really like it. It?s not massively different but it feels ?cleaner?, the changes are helpful and I?ve not encountered any issues. The biggest benefit I?ve seen is in window layout management, you can have multiple desktops and can snap windows to more layouts (halves, thirds, quarters and a few other options). If you hate the start button in the middle you can put it back on the left too.

I?ll believe this is going to happen when it?s actually done. PR Station was supposed to be getting step free access back in 2016/2017 and now there are ?proposals? for it to possibly happen almost ten years later. I won?t hold my breath.

Your friend might want to read her company handbook to ensure she fully understands any company policies around disciplinary processes, grievances etc. Generally she will be entitled to have someone accompany her to any formal disciplinary process and also be informed of the meeting in advance. She may also consider filing a complaint in writing setting out any discriminatory practices to protect her position in advance of any disciplinary if she thinks it?s heading that way. In the end it really depends how she wants to play it, if she thinks they?re going to escalate then she might want to seek legal advice (I can suggest someone if your friend would like). ACAS also has good guidance https://www.acas.org.uk/

One of the Rye Lane ward councillors came round in November or possibly early December. I guess they feel they ought to engage with electors once every four years. Never answer emails though.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whatever the judge directs or the evidence is the > Jury still have an right to acquit for whatever > reason they see fit. > > Do people feel we should change that ? Realistically how would one do that? It seems you?d be bound to wind up substantially undermining the jury process. That said I would be supportive of juries publishing their reasons for the verdict, even just ticks or crosses against the judge?s directions. I?d also like to see more transparency and research into jury decisions which is currently illegal.

The jury directions have been published and make very instructive reading. It appears that none of the defendants admitted the statue was damaged and that was a decision for the jury to make. https://barristerblogger.com/2022/01/09/colston-summing-up-those-legal-directions-in-full/

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pure speculation, having read the discussion > above.... > > The defendents admitted to damaging the > statue...so they basically 'plead guilty' to > damaging it. > > BUT, what they were charged with was was 'criminal > damage', so the question the jury may have been > asked to consider is the extent to which the > damage was 'criminal'...? > > maybe some form of lesser/civil charge related to > the damage might have gone a different way? > > As I say, thats just me thinking out loud I don?t know if they precisely admitted damage. They didn?t deny the statue was pulled down by them and others, but did the prosecution prove this caused damage (it?s now on display in a museum). Then as you rightly say the prosecution needed to prove the damage was criminal and that various defences didn?t apply. That?s why without the jury directions and all of the evidence it?s hard to know much about why the jury reached the verdict they did.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not whether the jury is sure, it's "beyond > reasonable doubt"... > > But in any case a jury has always had a right not > to convict. Jury nullification is a check on the > law and prosecutorial discretion. There's no way > the jury didn't think the elements of the offence > weren't proven - they just didn't want to convict > the defendants. This verdict has zero precedential > value. It's just the latest example. > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification It?s generally ?sure? in jury directions not ?beyond a reasonable doubt? which is not longer the standard direction. https://barristerblogger.com/2020/04/29/the-standard-of-proof-in-criminal-trials-peter-hitchens-is-right-and-lord-goddard-was-wrong/?fdx_switcher=true

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We may not be in a position to know the minutiae > of the jury's deliberations. What we do know is > they were asked to consider the arguments of both > the prosecution and defence. They went with the > defence. > The summary of the defence's case is brief and > widely available. > > From The Guardian: > > 'In closing statements following the nine-day > trial, the defence had urged jurors to ?be on the > right side of history?, saying the statue, which > stood over the city for 125 years, was so indecent > and potentially abusive that it constituted a > crime.' > > The defendants did not contest that they damaged > the statue. > > The jury deliberated for just over three hours. So > it seems reasonably straightforward - albeit > unusual. > > What is very difficult though, near impossible, is > trying to second-guess what this might mean for > other real or imaginary cases. Quite obviously, if > you damaged a statue of Churchill, Maggie > Thatcher, Nelson Mandela or whoever - or throw a > living person into Bristol Dock, this verdict > would have little or no bearing. This isn?t correct. First in criminal law it isn?t whether the jury prefers the prosecution or defence case, it?s whether they are SURE the defendants are guilty based on the law that?s been given to them by the judge and the facts presented by both sides. They could have decided the defence was mostly talking nonsense but still weren?t sure the prosecution proved their case. Second, the paragraph from the Guardian is only part of the defence?s case. It appears that the defendants ran multiple defences and there were at least four routes to an acquittal. We simply cannot know the reason for the decision of the jury, certainly not from a short paragraph from a newspaper.

The difficulty here is we don?t actually know what the jury decided beyond the verdict. They may have decided that the prosecution didn?t prove the statue was actually damaged (it?s now displayed in a museum in Bristol). Or they may have decided the prosecution didn?t prove that the defendants didn?t have an honest belief that the people of Bristol and Bristol council wouldn?t have objected - there had been votes in favour of removing the statue. Or perhaps they decided that the prosecution didn?t prove the defendants didn?t have an honest belief that the display of the statue wasn?t itself a public order offence. Or perhaps they didn?t agree that the prosecution had proved that a conviction would have been proportionate in light of the defendants rights under the Human Rights Act /ECHR. This is my problem with the criticism of the verdict: the jury actually heard the evidence and the law, had multiple routes to acquittal and it was for the prosecution to make the case which they failed to do. I don?t think I or any other commentator has sufficient insight in what actually happened to determine whether the outcome was perverse or not. I feel similarly about the acquittals of various Sun journalists for phone hacking, I think they ought to have been convicted but don?t have enough information to know why they weren?t.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James - one very simple and easily achieved action > would be to require the sweepers to place plastic > sacks of rubbish on bins rather than at the side. > Some do, some don't and it seems silly not to make > it a requirement because it stops foxes from > ripping them apart and spreading contents all over > the pavement. I can't understand why it is not > part of the job description. Maybe it is and some > don't bother. (There is nothing from stopping > anyone from doing that themselves, of course.) The foxes on Adys Rd and Bellenden Rd seem perfectly capable of knocking rubbish off the top of bins and strewing it all over the street. The bin by St Johns seems to be a particular problem.

There were FX machines at London Bridge Tube and Blackfriars Tube that will do conversion or donate to charity (or there were pre-pandemic.

I think it?s very dependent on where his job is based. For instance West London is a pain if you work in Canary Wharf. Also does he know people in London already? Moving near friends is always a good plan.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Someone in my road has had a large bag of sand > standing in the road outside their house for weeks > (possibly months, I can't remember when it first > appeared). > > At first I assumed this was to save a space for > the arrival of a skip, or for builders' vehicles > etc, but the bag of sand is never moved, so > vehicles delivering or collecting materials from > the house have to park alongside the bag of sand, > blocking the road. > > Meanwhile, nobody can park there. > > Is that a) allowed and b) reasonable? Report it to Southwark highways department and they?ll deal with it. We had a builder taking up over three parking spaces with a couple of skips and building material stored on the road. Southwark dealt with it really quickly.