Sue

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- or cover the whole lot with > something that matches the facade of the building > (which clearly could be done and would be the most > aesthetically pleasing outcome IMHO) xxxxxxx Yes agreed, they do that with houses on the Grand Canal in Venice, not that Lordship Lane is quite in the same league :)) I have just sent the following email to Fennel Mason, copying in as suggested by James. Incidentally, I notice there are only three responses from residents given in the documentation - I would have thought they would have had more objections than that! Dear Fennel Due to a prior commitment I am unfortunately unable to attend the Dulwich Community Council Planning Committee meeting on Thursday 24 November. I would like to object to the proposal to erect a large advertisement on the side of the Bishop pub in Lordship Lane during renovation works. As Southwark's Core Strategy states, Lordship Lane is a very attractive place to visit and shop. It also says "We will continue to protect the interesting character of this popular street." Lordship Lane is presently relatively free of large-scale advertising, which is part of what gives it this "interesting character". Such a large and intrusive hoarding, in such a prominent location on Lordship Lane, will in my view considerably detract from that character, as well as being a distraction to drivers (particularly those coming down East Dulwich Grove, as the pub is virtually opposite its junction with Lordship Lane). I recognise that the advertisement will no longer be illuminated (though rather puzzled that the documentation still includes a description of lighting) but am still of the opinion that an advertisement of this size is detrimental to the character of the area. I also recognise that the proposal is for a temporary 12-month period, but am concerned that this could be the thin end of the wedge to the advertisement becoming a permanent fixture after the 12 months have elapsed. I am also concerned that it could set a precedent for similar large advertisements elsewhere on Lordship Lane, again to the considerable detriment of the area's character. I have owned a house in East Dulwich for twenty years, and my address is xxxxxxxxxxxxx should you need to check that I am a genuine resident. Yours sincerely Sue xxxxxxxxxx ETA: Those last crosses are where my surname was, not kisses :))

I have just scanned through those documents, and I see that the application is recommended for approval, as follows: "The proposed non-illuminated advertisement will be for a temporary 12 month period only, and is not considered to create material harm to the amenity of the host building or the wider streetscene. It is considered that the amended scheme has overcome the previous reason for refusal. The proposal would therefore not be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area and accordingly the application is recommended for approval on this basis." I don't understand, if it is not to be illuminated, why the documents contain a description of and pictures of proposed lighting, nor why there is a reference to "no moving components or flashing lights?

Thanks James, I will do that now.

curlykaren Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps Sue could post a link to the episode of > 'Love the House You're In' that her house was > featured on so we can judge for ourselves? As at > the moment the situation is pretty much as > described by the OP. xxxxxxx The programme did not cover these issues, the makers obviously became aware of them but it was not that kind of programme. I don't have a link to it - so far as I know there were only ever a few extracts put online, to advertise the programme, and it was first aired over two years ago so I doubt they are still there as I believe there has been another series made since. I don't want to say anything else and I am genuinely sorry if I have caused Admin so much trouble by recently posting about it again on here - old wounds were reopened by the OP on the other thread but I should have restricted myself to PMs to the OP :-$ That's all I intend to say. Edited to say: By "the other thread" I mean the thread which was locked and then deleted.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Planning Application for a "temporary" 10m x > 7m (32.5' x 22.75') advertising hoarding (for 1 > year) comes before the Dulwich Community Council > Planning committee this Thursday 24 November at > 7pm - which will be at St.Barnabas Church (The > Lounge), 40 Calton Avenue, SE21 7DG. > xxxxxxx I would have liked to have come to this meeting (and objected to the hoarding) but unfortunately I've got a prior commitment. Is there any way I can put my views to the planning committee by email?

Otta you win your tenner. You can claim it from me - PM me and I'll give it to you over a pint. DJKQ is a liar. Full stop. And that's my last word on the matter too. If she posts again on here I'm not replying.

I have just seen this thread. As DJKQ's posts have not been deleted from it, I want this opportunity to publicly reiterate that everything I said on the thread was true and that I have photos and documentary evidence dating back to the start of DJKQ's work on my house. DJKQ is welcome to take me to court, where perhaps she can explain her refusal to accept my offer to abide by the decision of an objective independent mediator. DJKQ, can I also request that you do not post untruths about me on a public forum. In particular, the TV company made it quite clear to me, at the time you threatened to take me to court, that they would back me in any case you might bring. ETA: Admin, I am leaving this here. I will leave DJKQ to do whatever she wants. I hope she thinks very carefully before spreading more lies about me and her work. ETA: I have posted on a number of threads about people who have done excellent work on my house - Richard Tindall, Graham (loft ladder fitter), Malcolm (shelves) just to name three recent ones.

WTF?? :))

I love Ganapati too, eaten there many times but not recently (less money these days!), have occasionally had a less-good-than-usual meal but very rarely. It is quite expensive but I agree with Saila, it's worth it. I don't recall the portions being particularly small. The service is lovely - they once made me a dish which wasn't on the menu, because I had mentioned when ordering how much I liked it and that I was sorry it wasn't on the current menu - they brought me a little portion of it when my main course arrived. I was really touched :) They have good ale as well - eg local-ish brewery Meantime. Edited for embarrassing typo :)

Very sorry indeed to hear this, he was my dentist too and I always felt in safe hands with him. My condolences to the family too.

Administrator Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't take sides between bickering forum users. > If they break the rules then I act, but please > leave me out of it, don't make up stuff about me > and just sort it out yourselves. Like grown ups. > > I may introduce a rule, something like "the forum, > especially the ED issues section, shall not be > used to air personal gripes about others." xxxxxxxx Apologies then, another untruth from the person in question, I guess.

More good news, we've just heard that The No Frills Band are up for it too. Anybody who came to the Aquarius Festival in the Summer, they played the last spot on our indoor stage (before the jazz started) and are absolutely absolutely amazing. I think we're almost there with the music side of it now :) :)-D

Anybody else seen the blue bin on the front cover of this week's Southwark News? Maybe just in the Dulwich edition. With the headline "Bins too blue for Dulwich?" !!! I was just wheeling my shopping out of Sainsbury's when I was stopped in my tracks! My name is in it as well :-$ so I had to buy one :-$ I know that's very very sad :-$ James, did you give them the story?

They're clones. This is the beginning of the end. The tables have a cunning plan to take over the world. It's like something out of a John Wyndham book.

Ellie78 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi folks > Not posting more about this, as I still want to > resolve the situation through communication with > DJKQ. > I doubt she's reading this but, if you know her, > can you please encourage her to contact us. We > want to sort everything out cleanly and simply. > And put it behind us. xxxxxxx Ellie, I have PMed you the info you wanted (in case you see this first).

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agreed. I thought this was funny at first, but Sue > has been a bit like a dog who found a lovely bone, > and it has become a bit uncomfortable. xxxxxx Yes you're right, the OP brought back bad memories and I got carried away. I can see why you might think it was funny, but I can assure you spending thousands of pounds to be stressed out is not at all funny. I'm not going to post any more about what actually happened, as I can see I have let it get to me more than I should have, even though it was all two years ago now. If something similar had happened to you, maybe you might empathise with where I'm coming from.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > my opinion is now that it (the thread) ought to go > - at least until the other party makes an > appearance. xxxxxxxxx Well the other party is conspicuous by their absence, despite having posted on their football thread relatively recently. Perhaps in due course the OP may expand further on their experience of the trader in question. All I would say is, there are always two sides to every issue. Which is why I said that I would abide by the decision of an independent objective mediator. DJKQ refused mediation. Why?

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the-e-dealer Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Well then it WAS partly their fault they should > > have kicked someone incompetent out NOT > encouraged > > you to keep them on. > > Yes, but would it have made good television? xxxxxxx Actually they didn't cover the problems with DJKQ at all because it wasn't that kind of programme. She appeared extremely briefly in one part of it (IIRC) demonstrating how to put paint on a wall :)) I thought that was quite funny because her painting technique was idiosyncratic to say the least, she didn't seem to have heard of cutting in. > > . > . > . > > Sent by Osmosis.

theasidonio Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > perhaps the OP can shed some light on her > experience with Djkillaqueen? xxxxxx She has done, in the "about the forum" section, in "ask admin"

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > New program? victims of Makeover shows? xxxxxxx It was nothing to do with the people from the show. They left me to employ my own tradespeople, so I can only take full responsibility for my rubbish judgement (the plasterer and plumber were fine though - though sadly DJKQ took it upon herself to do some of the plastering and plumbing, and guess what ...... (6)). My only gripe with the TV people is that at one point I had a massive row with DJKQ because of poor workmanship and the TV people smoothed it all over and persuaded me to keep her on because they had already invested loads of money in filming etc and they wanted the programme finished. I tried to get some compensation from them to help pay for all the work that had to be redone or finished, and they offered ?100, which I thought was such an insult after the thousands of pounds I had shelled out that I didn't even bother to answer the email.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Failing that consider legal action...no one should > emlpoy anyone without a detailed and itemised > quote of what the work entails and how much it > will cost and the time it will take...employing > someone on an hourly rate is asking for trouble, > where's the incentive for them to finish?.. xxxxxxx Yes. You're absolutely right, and I was very very stupid. But if you had been in my position, you would realise what a very plausible first impression she gives - extremely self-confident etc etc. She did give me schedules, she just never got anywhere near completing them. And yes, I felt as if I was pouring money into a bottomless pit, which is what I said when I emailed her asking her to come round to discuss progress. The people from the TV programme were also taken in, particularly as she apparently told them at great length how I "kept on changing my mind", in order to explain her slowness. But I didn't find this out until much later. On the day of the reveal, apparently (according to the producer) she didn't seem to know how to put on the cupboard doors (which she had promised them would be completed by the previous day, incidentally, but hadn't started) and spent an hour and a half making one pencil mark on one door (I'm sure that must be an exaggeration, but IIRC that's what they said). Then one of the production assistants, with just a glancing knowledge of DIY, apparently put up three blinds in the time it took DJKQ to do one. And that one is so stiff it is really hard to roll up and down. Then she apparently used a 7" masonry drill to hang a picture in my living room, causing a huge lump to fall off the newly plastered hall wall. She blamed the plasterer!!! (Who was one of the really good people I've had working on my house, extremely competent). I could go on - and on - and on. ETA: I did consider taking her to court, and as I said the TV people said they would give evidence in my favour, but I was so extremely stressed out I just couldn't face it. I had photos and documentary evidence eg email correspondence etc, but the thought of putting it all together to make a case and trying to work out what amount I should claim was just too much for me at the time.

Probably in the process of changing her forum name again. Last time it was pointed out on here that she had two names, although she vehemently denied it (which let's face it she had to as she had been slagging off somebody else for having more than one forum name, and she's not a hypocrite, is she?) she immediately deleted all her Angetastic posts and then deleted the name. Sadly for her, there was still a quote in somebody else's post linking Angetastic to the person we know as DJKQ. Anyway, riveting/rivetting as all this is, I've got to stop wasting time on here and get on with my To Do list :))

Ellie78 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was told by this person that you were > their 'friend' and that's why previous criticisms > (from a so called 'difficult client') were > removed from the EDF admin. xxxxxx Is this true, admin? I thought you were well aware of the situation regarding this person. Is it true that you have chosen to perceive me (I presume it's me who is being referred to) as a "difficult client" rather than the person in question as an unreliable, slow, rubbish, untruthful tradesperson? This tradesperson refused my offer to abide by the outcome of mediation by an independent objective mediator. I think that says it all, don't you?

I could do, I don't think there is any forum policy preventing this, but I think she is very unstable and I don't want to make things worse than they already are. Although I really don't know why I should care, as I have also found out that for two years she has apparently been telling everybody she knows what a horrible person I am. And because my forum name is my real name and I am "out" because of running www.thegooseisout.com gigs with Nyge, people here can easily find out who I am in "real life." And - pre-empting anything she may say - after she had been working on my house already for some time, I emailed her (because I wanted it in writing) saying I was not happy with progress and asking her to come round to discuss things. The next thing I knew, she emailed back to say that she couldn't discuss anything because she had just found out something which was a personal crisis, which I won't go into here obviously. This was very unfortunate, because I didn't feel I could then ask her to stop work on the house, although I was hoping she might say she didn't want to continue, but she said it would take her mind off things.:-S She did come round, but spent the whole evening talking about the crisis. The only reason I am saying this is that I suspect that she has used this crisis - which came halfway through the job - to explain away her poor workmanship to others, and I also suspect that she has told people that I was unsympathetic to her, whereas in fact I bent over backwards to be nice to her. I'd also like to add, to be fair, that she built some very nice floating shelves in my living room - it just took her weeks to do them :-S and I could have paid the same money and had a proper professional carpenter do them in far less time. ETA: However other work she did was nowhere near the same standard, unfortunately. Edited again because I can't actually remember (over two years on) how many weeks the shelves took and I don't want to say anything inaccurate. I just know it seemed like a very very long time.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was only making mischeif with the "bird" comment > :-$ xxxxxxx Oh sorry, sometimes I take things too literally :-$