Sue

The drinking issue is irrelevant. It is a very dangerous crossing. End of. (If that's still an expression).

So. If somebody is injured, or worse, by something falling from this building, who is responsible? The owner? Or the council, who cannot claim that they were not aware? Or somebody else?

Somebody has just been killed on Albert embankment by a window falling on them from a building

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > According to person at drop in everyone was sent a > letter in Barry rd Well maybe, but the post hasn't exactly been reliable lately, has it?!

I've just heard that the strike is over and that The Ivy House will be open tonight. Good news!

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The speed with which social media took the > strikers side appalled me as there?s no way a lot > of those people could know all the facts. And me.

The Ivy House has arranged a shareholders' meeting on 17 October (I believe 14 days notice is required) so that community shareholders can ask questions directly. Obviously there will be emailed updates before then.

NewWave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've been 8 months battling to move gp's the NHS > is a mess at the moment I moved GPs last year with no problems at all. All I had to do was to register with another GP and provide proof of ID and my address. I didn't have to inform my old GP. Obviously you have to be in the catchment area of the GP you want to change to. I can't understand why it would take so long or be a battle (unless the new GP wasn't accepting new patients for some reason?)

Thank you for that number. I shall be phoning it!

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have to say that so far the Ivy House seems to > be the more credible of the two sides in this. > > The striking workers haven?t publically put > forward anything to explain the details of their > complaints, which I think they should; if nothing > else they have the right to be heard, and they > obviously feel strongly about their cause. If > they?re reading this I would encourage them to do > so. > > I personally abhor zero-hours contracts, and any > establishment that seeks to avoid them has my > support. I?d like to know why the workers and > management are unable to come to an agreement on > this. I find it a bit odd, because I had always understood that the Ivy House bar staff were in favour of zero hour contracts because they enabled them to fit their Ivy House work flexibly around their other work, projects and commitments.

peckman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich fox/sue > > May I suggest a charity boxing match between you > too or something. Please let's focus on the matter > at hand and if DFOR if you don't leave east > Dulwich and go to the IHead it's literally nothing > to do with you Yes, I agree and I have already apologised for posting on here in error.

You posted saying I was banned from Franklins, which was totally untrue. I have never been banned from anywhere in my life. I asked you to delete the post. You didn't. I asked you to apologise. You haven't. I have had the owner of Franklins asking me who you are, because he saw the post in question. And you have made frequent posts on the EDF suggesting that people should not buy community shares in The Ivy House because they would get little or no financial return on their investment. ETA: Oh God sorry people that was supposed to be a private message, really sorry but now it's here I will leave it. Profuse apologies for derailing an important thread. DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rendelharris Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Thanks for the info BNG, clearly more nuanced > > than > > > some have assumed and good to see that IH are > > > recognising unions and offering fixed-hours > > > contracts (and always have). Perhaps a > certain > > > poster above would like to withdraw their > > > unfounded, ill-informed and malicious > > accusations? > > > > > > Well that certain poster, aka Dulwich Fox, has > > never withdrawn unfounded statements about me > he > > posted on this forum, nor apologised, despite > > requests, so I wouldn't hold your breath. > > > > As noted above, he has always appeared to wish > The > > Ivy House to fail, right from the time the > > community shares were offered. > > Sue.. You have often remarked that Quote.. Your > memory is 'Crap' > > It was You that made unfounded statements about me > when you suggested I had fallen out with Jaflong > over a conflict with Dulwich Tandoori. 2 or so > years back. > > At the time Jaflong had been scammed by a fake > reporter claiming they would be putting a full > page ad in a local paper. At the same time Dul Tan > had a full page ad in the same paper. > > Although the two restaurants had a bit of Argy > Bargy between them, I was not involved and I > certainly did not > have any conflict at the time with either > restaurant. > > That was the incident that you are wrongly > remembering. > > > I have never 'Wished' the Ivy House to fail. > I don't have much interest in any venue that is > not in East Dulwich. > I seldom venture out of the area in the evening. > I support my LOCAL establishments and businesses. > > My recent comments were based on the input from > the initial posts about sacked people and my > concern for them. > Sue, you need to stop this personal vendetta with > me when ever I post. > > > DulwichFox. > > P.S. Thats all I will say on the matter.

I will continue this by private message. It is you who is referring to the wrong incident, but I have no wish to inflict a lengthy post on anybody else.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for the info BNG, clearly more nuanced than > some have assumed and good to see that IH are > recognising unions and offering fixed-hours > contracts (and always have). Perhaps a certain > poster above would like to withdraw their > unfounded, ill-informed and malicious accusations? Well that certain poster, aka Dulwich Fox, has never withdrawn unfounded statements about me he posted on this forum, nor apologised, despite requests, so I wouldn't hold your breath. As noted above, he has always appeared to wish The Ivy House to fail, right from the time the community shares were offered.

Please nobody jump to any conclusions until we know all sides of this. I write as an Ivy House shareholder and a lover of the pub. ETA: Community shareholder, to clarify.

sandyman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fed Ex, DHL etc leave parcels with neighbours if > nobody is in. I don't think Royal Mail does this > but why not? > > I presume they would argue that it might add to > their posties' workload but not as much as their > workload will increase if everyone asks for > re-deliveries because they can't bear to go to the > Peckham office. I have had Royal Mail items left with neighbours, and theirs with me, but I have no idea if that is official policy.

I was at the meeting too, and my recollection is the same as Kiera's. The union rep gave a very weird speech, and Helen Hayes' eyes and mine met during it, as it was quite clear that he and his members were not in fact generally opposed to the move. Some individual posties may have been of course, and probably more are opposed now they have realised the reality of the situation, but Royal Mail's consultation would have been with the union, not with individual posties.

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The posties were very much against the move Where do you get that info from?

EastDulwicher Wrote: > even the postmen and staff are saying it?s a > complete joke and totally unfair on all.... Well, they shouldn't have agreed to it then. Sorry to be harsh.

Proof of delivery: https://business.help.royalmail.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/895/~/proof-of-delivery

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/sectio > n/7 Not sure whether that is referring solely to the serving of "documents" required by an "Act"? I'm sure a lawyer would be able to tell us!

That's crap. Changing at the Elephant (or Camberwell Green, for the 35) is just a pain :( Although having a direct bus to Clerkenwell could be handy, come to think of it .....

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- legally proof of posting was also deemed to be proof of delivery. Surely it depends on the circumstances for requiring the proof? If proof of posting was in the past deemed to be proof of delivery, why would there have been a need for registered post (as it used to be called) or recorded delivery (as it used to be called)?

jimbo1964 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wrote to Helen Hayes and Harriet Harman a week > ago. No response or acknowledgement from either. > It is Labour conference week so they may be extra > busy. But I hope they get on with something soon. > I imagine that most if not all of their office staff will be at the conference as well. If you had emailed (assuming you didn't?) you would probably have got an out-of-office message to that effect. But in any case, Helen Hayes has been on the case since well before the move.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A replacement bank card has not arrived but the > PIN did. Post arrives at odd times of the day. Is > this the new normal? In my neck of the woods, post has been arriving at odd times of the day for months, if not years! ETA: But for security reasons, you wouldn't expect the PIN to arrive at the same time as the bank card, would you?