El Presidente

JamesRixon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > El Presidente, > > You should perhaps continue the conversation and > possibly explaining that 'supply and demand' isn't > currently solving the issue with housing. > > What should be carefully understood as simple > business economics rather than a conspiracy is > that it is in the interest of landowners to > restrict the supply of housing to maximise profit. > This can be discussed at many different points in > the supply chain and from the macro to micro > scales of development. > > But maybe you are right that discussion and > understanding would be tiresome so maybe just win > the conversation from the beginning with an ill > informed sweeping statement. OK, i'll give you the long version. Prices are too high in London because supply exceeds demand. Increase supply, reduce price. Ends.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > None of these will be 'affordable', so it will do > nothing to help homelessness or affordability. http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp

Nice idea but we need houses more.

They probably closed it down because the presence of a police station has no impact on crime levels and it cost a lot of money that could be spent more effectively.

If they are on mopeds they can do what they like. It's the law.

Dear edphstaff Will the cinema be open on Saturday? And what kind of turnout are you expecting?

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lynsey - hope you're doing ok .Thank you for > explaining the nature of the robbery ,ie non > violent . I think that's helpful and honest . I am pleased no one was hurt and OP did the very sensible thing by handing over cash without argument. But there is no such thing as a non-violent mugging. The cash wouldn't have been handed over without the threat of violence.

If someone you don't know knocks on your door at 2.30 am asking for money it is ALWAYS a scam.

How is going to Peckhamplex because they are cheaper an ethical thing to do? There is no way they pay their staff LLW on ?5 a ticket! No, going there is actually embracing capitalism at it's finest. You are embracing a company which uses cheaper labour to provide a cheaper service. Which is fine. Competition is good and will keep the prices at Picturehouse in check. But it's not 'ethical'. Quite the opposite.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James Barber Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > If East Dulwich Picturehouse closed Curzon would > snap the lease up > So I don't see a risk of this boycott in > us losing such a valuable local resource. > > > Gawd help us. The most amazing cinema possibly to > be replaced by Curzon and the local Councillor > seems ok with that prospect. > There is a huge amount of capital expenditure in > the opening of any cinema. I doff my hat to > Picturehouse in the risk taken in creating such a > wonderful space and no doubt a good place to be > employed. > > I'm intending to ask the staff how they feel about > their employment there the next time I'm in there, > although I understand that they may feel > conflicted. > As someone else suggested, tipping helps > significantly. > Of course only people who use the cinema can tip, > those who don't cant and those who boycott cant > either. Crikey. I had missed this spectacularly ill informed complacency from James Barber. I despair sometimes. We have this great local facility paying way, way above minimum wage and people are calling for a boycott. And let's just flag the elephant in the room here. Cinema jobs are easy. You spend half your time watching movies, the other half selling snacks. Getting bored of watching the same movie is as tough as it gets. There are much tougher gigs on LL paying way less. Vacuous virtue signalling at it's worst.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > El Presidente Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why the focus on cinemas? Why not boycott all > ED > > businesses that don't pay the so called LLW? > The > > skill sets are broadly similar. Then we could > > completely wipe out all the good little > businesses > > in ED and feel really great about ourselves > > because we're such ethical consumers! > > You always need to start somewhere and once a > prominent local business starts paying LLW, others > will feel pressured to follow. > > And Picturehouse is a long long way from being a > small independent local business. Well why not start with the businesses James B say's aren't paying their staff? Or failing that, the ones that only pay the minimum wage? Why choose one that is paying over ?2 an hour above the minimum wage for a low skilled job.

Why the focus on cinemas? Why not boycott all ED businesses that don't pay the so called LLW? The skill sets are broadly similar. Then we could completely wipe out all the good little businesses in ED and feel really great about ourselves because we're such ethical consumers!

Working in a cinema is low skilled work. They do well to get above the minimum wage. Cinema's would be economically unviable if you had to pay everyone this made up London Living Wage.

seems like a sensible decision to close it

el_fed Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > well, the video shows him forcing his way in and > then internal videos shows a man in the same > outfit and the same appearance trashing my home. > But yes, El Presidente... as the admin said. but you havent published those

great stuff, though as admin says only a suspect and on face of it just pictures of a man ringing your doorbell. Hope police get to speak to him.

Bin police?! If they collected them more often so they werent always overflowing it would make things a lot easier.

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > well sadly that attitude of 'don't care' about > welfare standards is exactly what makes the meat > farming industry allowed to keep on with it's > awful practises. > > I suppose, what you don't see doesn't impact you - > right? LMAO Middle class problems.

you lot do like to moan. This place sounds good to me, but if it isn't so what. It's the food business - easy come, easy go. And I don't give a monkeys where the meat comes from as long as it tastes good.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually, it's a very good idea if it's taken up > by those who otherwise wouldn't exercise. This is exactly right. And even then the cost benefit of a programme like this is much more complex than simply saying it will reduce pressures on the NHS. Running or walking round the park would have the same effect. Making things free is good PR (as evident from the largely uncritical welcome here). But is not a sustainable policy at a time when councils have less money to spend. It's not to see it's not a nice idea with some value. But it's about priorities - ultimately I think it takes resources away from other services that are better value and more important.

waste of money

this junction is a nightmare to cross as there are ALWAYS large vans parked on the corner of the road. it would really benefit from something to help visibility.

Great post.

wow, this thread is riddled with pious, ill informed claptrap. Classic anti-war memes masquerading as wisdom. Judge each case on its merits, not through the prism of Iraq war failures. Bombing ISIS is frankly a rather restrained response to a movement that has no care for human life, no desire to negotiate, and seeks only to impose its warped view on the rest of humanity.

good job with the complaints. this service is just terrible at the moment.