Sue

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > primadonut Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Hiya Keef - what road are you on? Do you fancy > > hosting the market? Without even being asked > your > > opinion? > > > > Hartvl - can I ask if you received the original > > consultation? Thanks! > > > But you're not hosting anything. A market happens > on the public highway outside o your house. You > have no ownership over that. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx We're talking about residents' roads being wholly closed off (so they can't get in or out) or closed off at one end, apparently with virtually no formal publicity or consultation to/with all those affected.

So let me ask again, all you enthusiastic people - which of you is going to organise it? Cos it surely aint going to happen by itself :)) And "a time of national celebration"? It's clear just from this thread that a lot of people won't be celebrating, including me. If only I could afford to, I'd be out of the country :)) Two people getting married. Hooray for them. So what?

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not one of these people, pro or anti, knew about > the Council meetings, James Barber. It does look > like Southwark's set on pushing this through on > the QT. xxxxxxx That's what it looks like to me as well. A minute's walk from the market, living in one of the roads affected, and I'd never have known a thing if I hadn't read the posts on this thread.

I get notification of new posts to this thread sent to me by email, so even if I look only every five or six new posts that's still a considerable number of views just for me.

trizza Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > done sooner rather than later but the more I think > about it, it may be a better idea getting the > whole lot done before we sell when we are ready to > leave. > xxxxxx Just a thought - someone might prefer to buy the house as it is and get the work done to their own taste, so unless you'd actually make money on making the changes yourself, or unless an estate agent recommends otherwise, why bother having all that upheaval?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Sue, > They will all have received the council formal > markets consultation. of the 2,000 questinoairres > 89 were sent back. > > Clear that this tiny reponse didn't catch the mood > - especially as it didn't ask about closing any > roads. > So local councillors plan to leaflet everyone > including those roads and knock on all doors on > Northcross, Nutfield, Archdale and Lacon and the > NCR end of Fellbrigg. > > Would you like to help? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I am happy to deliver leaflets down my own road, Ulverscroft Road, which for some reason does not appear to have been mentioned although it will be affected. I don't have time to do more than that, I'm afraid.

It is the road closure aspect in particular that I am concerned about. What is being done to consult residents in roads which run off North Cross Road eg Fellbrigg, Lacon and Ulverscroft Roads?

And I ask again - all you people who so want this street party, are you going to organise it? Including liaising with the council re road closure, doing risk assessments, arranging first aid provision, publicising it, providing entertainment and everything else that would be involved? Because if not, how do you think it is going to happen?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The problem with holding a public street party is > that it looks as though you are speaking on behalf > of the community... when in fact the relevance of > the royal family is a divisive issue. By all means > celebrate if you want, but do it in your home, or > hire a hall. > > From my point of view - best of luck to them, but > I've no intention of celebrating the wedding of > two people I don't know. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I completely agree with all of that. If there was a "Not the Royal Wedding" party I might go to it, but otherwise no way. Which is why I suggested above, if people want a street party, why not have one with the rest of the country on the day of the Big Lunch. The weather is likely to be better, as well (was a lovely sunny day last year).

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The changes to North Cross Road Market will be > discussed in details with recommendations drawn by > the Dulwich Community Council on 9 February 7pm at > Christchurch hall (263 Barry Road). > > If you have a view do come along to help us reach > sensible conclusions. > Equally tell local East Dulwich councillors what > you think: > Cllr [email protected] > Cllr [email protected] > Cllr [email protected] > > Our recommendations I will then take to the next > Licensing Committee. xxxxxxx So are those people living in the affected roads going to receive a formal invitation to give their views, or are you just assuming that they will look at this thread on an internet forum which they may not even know exists? Sorry if that sounds rude, but if there is no intention to formally consult then I think that's really bad.

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- we had a Big Lunch last year > on Crystal Palace Road - see > http://www.flickr.com/photos/jermynphotography/480 > 8123956/ - and on a number of other roads in East > Dulwich and Peckham. > > The date of this year's Big Lunch has already been > set. > It's Sunday 5 June - see > http://www.thebiglunch.com/map/find-a-big-lunch.ph > p - and we'll certainly be trying to organise a > Crystal Palace Road Big Lunch again this year. xxxxxxxx A street party does of course rely on a group of dedicated people to make it happen, and in particular somebody to co-ordinate the whole thing. I don't know if it's done to mention real names on here, but you know who you are .... you were a star, CPR resident (and the rest of you). All very well saying "oooh, a street party", but are you willing to take on the hard work involved? It's fun, mind you :)

If people want a street party, why not arrange something this year for The Big Lunch ? Crystal Palace Road and other roads in East Dulwich took part last year, and it was a great success. Personally I have no interest whatsoever in the Royal Wedding, and no wish to celebrate it on the day in any way whatsoever :))

Point taken Sean, but my other thread was about not being able to connect at all, so it's a different issue. Fair enough, next time I will send a PM if that's what you would prefer. The trouble with that is that if there's a more general problem, admin won't know because probably most people having difficulty won't be arsed to send a PM. So therefore the problem won't be addressed because admin will think only one person is affected. I never used to have problems and it does seem to me there is an issue, as it doesn't happen on other sites. If you feel admin already notices when the server is slow, then I will just stfu in future :))

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I expect starting another thread will sort it out xxxxxxxx You find out a lot about other people's nature on this forum, don't you. I don't exclude myself from that comment. ETA: I started the thread because I thought other people might be having the same problem, and if so it was something that maybe admin needed to look at.

I'm getting onto other sites OK but have almost given up on this one - taking forever to open anything :-S

Suzanne Vega - have another go, I've got to go out :))

belladonna Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Another point, the people who shop in Iceland are > in a different economic bracket from those > ordering their weekly shop from Ocado. Those > agitating for a Waitrose may forget not everyone > from East Dulwich is looking for Ciabatta and > Walnut Oil... xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Eh? I use Walnut Oil, sometimes shop in Waitrose and also shop in Iceland. I didn't realise I was only supposed to frequent certain shops depending on which "economic bracket" I was in. Must do better. ETA: I don't want a Waitrose here, however.

emc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was on my Christmas list but unfortunately > didn't get it. xxxxxx Same here. My sister appeared to think I'd rather have a set of bongo drums :)) ETA: I really enjoyed The Corrections

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A bit rich of you to ask a thread/ debate you > started to be locked. If you can't deal with other > views (no matter how insane they may be) then > don't start controversial debate. xxxxxxxxx The post is potentially libellous. So were some of yours (where you accused the police of corruption and attempting to lay blame on the McCanns, and also where you said I had said that the McCanns killed Madeleine, when I had said nothing of the sort). The difference is, the police are hardly likely to sue you when they had worse from the gutter press over the last three years, and I am hardly likely to sue you because I think you are - well, never mind. If you can't see that difference, then you are even more - well, never mind.

I have reported the post about Operation Ore and asked for it to be removed. I have also requested that the thread be locked.

juandan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Another explanation. the McCann?s are being > Protected, is connected to Operation ORE, the > investigation in to people who paid to access > pedophile sites on the internet, operation ORE > netted all walks of life, Tony Blair, then prime > minister at the time slapped a D-notice on > operation ORE to stop the reporting on the case, > Jim Gamble of the CEOP, he was head of operation > ORE at the time, > > He knows pedophile government ministers, Judges, > senior police officers who where not prosecuted, > allot of high ranking people owe Jim Gamble big > time, Jim Bates once recognized as one of the > country?s leading computer forensic experts, has > made the extraordinary claim that senior police > officers in Avon & Somerset and in the Met have > miss lead the public > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/10/ore_case/ > > http://www.propagandamatrix.com/blair_protection.h > tml xxxxxx Unless you have facts to back this up I suggest you don't advance this kind of "explanation". Edited to add: And it is at this point that I am going to ask for this thread to be locked. I don't want to be associated with rubbish like this.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Such is the countless convictions made by such > thinking only to be later overturned when forensic > techniques caught up....so there's a very good > reason why unsubstantiated (whether substantial or > not) evidence is no longer admissable...and quite > right too. xxxxxxx Yes, you're right about that DJKQ. I don't believe you'll find anything in the thread where anybody is suggesting otherwise. Or maybe you can point us to something? Let me refer you to your posts where you put forward the theory that an organised gang abducted Madeleine, leaving no trace, and that an incompetent and corrupt police investigation (presumably including the British police who were involved) covered up their incompetence by trying to lay blame on the McCanns. Anything more you'd like to share with us about that? Your sole rationale for this theory - which is the only one you have advanced so far - appeared to be that there are gangs in Portugal. There is fire in Portugal, and there are dogs, as well. So, going by your argument, may we infer that you would also support theories whereby Madeleine was spontaneously combusted, leaving no trace, or eaten by dogs, leaving no trace? They are equally as (non) logical, and there is just as much evidence to support either of them (ie none). So far as this new poster is concerned - whatever their background is or whatever they have said elsewhere may discredit their own posts, but it does not affect other salient facts (and they are facts) put forward in the rest of the thread.

DJKQ - reading previous posts properly is not your strong point, is it? Nor it seems is logic.

The honest truth is that I don't want the thread to end on vague generalisations, plus misrepresentation of what has been said on the thread. I know that anybody reading the thread from start to finish will see the full picture of who has said what, but most people coming to it will just read parts of it. I think it is unfortunate that the person who has restarted the discussion has brought in additional things which I would personally not have raised, but I can't help that.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > "Time to let this thread sink" - well, unlike > you, I tried! > > You've got to be joking. xxxxxx DJKQ said pages and pages back that she wasn't going to post again - which admin commended - and then continued to post a large number of posts. I said on NYE that I was trying to let the thread die, and didn't post again for 6 days. The thread had slipped well down, and was off the first page. I expected that that would be the end of it. I only posted again today because I felt that Louisiana's post was inaccurate (and because by then the thread had gone back to the top, so my post made no difference) and then DJKQ started again.