Frisco

"Do you think gentrification in Dulwich has been a good thing or a bad thing?" I'm not sure that gentrification applies. There have been demographic changes and it's ceased to be quite as socially as mixed as it used to be, say 20 years ago. Plus, the type of people who came to live in ED 20-25 years ago were professional people and public servants, such as teachers, social workers, journalists, etc. very of whom could afford to buy here now. BARA is quite right about the previous state of housing, and there are probably still quite a few examples of that around. However, it wasn't that different then to places like Clapham, Fulham and Camden Town. The generally dilapidated state of the older housing stock was what led to the type of houses now being refurbished being demolished, and the occupants being rehoused in high rise flats and barrier blocks. I always remember watching a documentary about high rise flats in Hackney, and one of the elderly residents (who loved her flat, with its fitted kitchen and bathroom) pitying the people who had to live in the then half a million pound Victorian houses below. ED was lucky in that 60s and 70s development didn't reach here, and I'm not sure why. I can only suggest that it wasn't quite as bad as the areas that were demolished, some of which had much superior, and formerly up-market, housing than ED. I think that generally the changes have been good, and it will mean that the Victorian housing stock in ED (an example of an unspoilt Victorian suburb) is being improved. However, the improvements have been inevitable really, given they it is only 11 minutes to London Bridge by train, and it would have happened ten years earlier if it hadn't been for the 80s/90s recession and the fact that the proposed tube line never came. "Has it gone too far?" Not quite yet, but the coming of Foxton's wasn't good news for the area. As a friend who lives in Bellenden Road )who was once an ED resident) says, it is in danger of getting too far up itself. "Where do u think it will end?" Not sure really, but probably as an enclave for highly paid city workers, for whom West London and places like Clapham are out of their reach, living cheek by jowl with their Peckham neighbours.

"A good friend of mine who works with the Police Services once told me far from being homophobic, the services adore the gay and lesbian community. That's because they tend to 'party' inside, take drugs/drink that make them loved up instead of anti-social, and don't look for trouble. He added the new GBH phenomenon requiring ambulances is changing that, to be fair." "It makes one wonder what the situation is in Vauxhall of a weekend evening. It has certainly 'come up' (no pun intended). Is there a similar clash to LL and Blackheath?" Translation: I don't know any gays or lesbians, but some random guy who allegedly works for the police told that they don't get any trouble with the gays and lesbians, even though they all go out clubbing every week to party inside, drunk, take drugs and get loved up. He said that this is changing though, because they're all now taking GBH, getting ill and being hauled away in ambulances. They're all taking it in Vauxhall on weekends, where they've livened up (nervous giggle), and gentrified a previously blighted area with all their pink pounds and flamboyant pubs and clubs, etc. The locals don't like them.

"But Maggie bought in 1985 and sold in 1987, when she had about another 3 years in office still to go. And she bought in a gated community as an investment, greatly enriching herself courtesy of Barratt Homes, who were rewarded in turn." I'm afraid this is wrong, the Thatchers didn't sell in 1987. They still owned the house in Hambledon Place, the Barrat development on the South Circular Road, when she left office in 1990: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/28/newsid_2527000/2527953.stm They lived there for some months, before deciding that it was too much of a trek into Central London, and they then moved into a house in Belgravia that was loaned to them.

"But Frisco, can you just clarify, you believe Network Rail is doing this just because it is bored and wants to deal misery? Honestly. You believe there is absolutely no rational thought devoted to this? I don't disagree but it just seems a bit farfetched." No Maurice, don't be ridiculous. I haven't said that at all, and I don't know how you've possibly arrived at that silly conclusion from what I've written. My view is that it's probably taking a silo view of the issue (not unknown), and is proposing something regarding a route that will, hopefully, be very soon be out of its sphere of control.

"A few more points - it's Network Rail not National Rail (which is a wholly different body); they are undertaking the consultation because they have a statutory obligation to do so, to ensure that the limited supply of taxpayers money is spent on those parts of the network where it can really do benefit rather than simply to maintain services because they have always been there." A few more responses: The name matters not; it was the principle involved and flamboyant correction is usually the territory of nerds who prefer love detail and pointing out irrelevant errors. "As a regular user of the Victoria - London Bridge service in rush hour, even with just two carriages it is clear that on most days there are seats available suggesting that it is not the most heavily used service. By comparison the Dartford service, which also stops at Denmark Hill, is invariably packed to bursting despite having 8 carriages (or more) suggesting that this service is of more use to the wider community - hence the reason that there is no plan to curtail this service in the consultation." As I said, I see no reason at all for there to be a consultation exercise on the closure of the route when in a matter of a couple of years it will pass to the control of the Mayor. Also, rather than planning route closures they ought to be closely working with TfL and the Mayor to ensure that the route can play its part in a fully integrated transport system. The fact that Network Rail doesn't seem to recognise that, in my view, illustrates its inability to be a constructive part of integrated transport systems. I hope the public consultation manages to convince them otherwise. Perhaps you could now think about constructively responding to JesusCappuccino's informed posting, which seems to indicate a far better understanding of the workings of the route than yours.

"Maybe they're just c**ts." Quite, and, in my experience, being one of those is a pretty classless activity.

"I love Chav's clever way of describing anti-social behaviour of the working classes at its very worst - then blaming it all on the middle classes and excusing those who misbehave." But where did she do those things? And is this a Daily Mail reader's critique? It's a myth that all violence is committed by the 'working classes' and that the middle classes don't engage in violence or other anti-social behaviour. However it is a fact that people use the term 'working classes' when they actually mean something else, usually involving those that don't work. What she said was: "I think divided societies, marginalisation and not enough positive outlets for adrenaline junkies combined with a dog eat dog world all contribute to this phenomenon." And this can have an effect on every strata of society, particularly if there are no positive outlets and there is a dog eat dog mentality - which is what we've had for nearly 30 years.

"According to that article Lewisham is either tea-toller central or a refuge for pacifists." I've felt threatened in Lewisham when I've been there during the day, and always assumed that would be what it's like at night. However, maybe the presence of that huge police station where the department store used to be makes a difference.

"1. ED doesn't have any nightclubs (so is less of a friday/saturday "destination" for boozed up yoofs)" This is true, and fortunately LL doesn't have the ex-cinema/bingo halls or the other larger premises, like Co-op Hall and closed down department stores that would make these very likely in the future.

"Then again, they are all British I guess" Or the descendants of the really bad ones!

"Whereas if there was a Weatherspoons on the Lane you might actually see a real increase in 'undersirables'." No, don't even suggest it! I used to have friends who lived in Ruskin House, opposite the Fox on the Hill, and I wouldn't want that replicated in LL. I used to occasionally go in there too and it was a really coarse boozers pub.

"don't the pubs have an obligation as part of their licence to stop serving the severely pissed?" Yes, that's how it's supposed to work. I went to Budgens (it will always be Seven/11 to me) at about 1am on Friday after driving back from Highgate and Lordship Lane seemed busy, but quietly so. While I was in the shop, a group of youngish guys came in, two of who were obviously be worse for wear and loud. While I didn't perceive them as threatening (the only seemed interested in drunkenly comparing how many phone numbers they'd managed to acquire during the evening - and I bet a few were false), I wondered if they were likely to become targets for others with more malevolent intentions as they flashed their mobile phones around. I think they fell into the demographic of those most likely to be involved in or to become the victims of violence and crime. On the issue of Lordship Lane, it's changed beyond recognition in the last 5 years and 10 years ago it was almost a wasteland, with only the ED comedy club to attract people here. However, I do know that it could be a violent place even then, and I don't see that much has changed in that respect. It may just be that it affects different people now, and there is the internet on which to highlight incidents and theorise about them (just like I'm doing). Oh, and when I came to live in ED (exactly 20 years ago on 30th September), I was warned by someone I worked with who lived on Barry Road that ED was a hotbed of knife crime. I never really saw it myself.

"they rang me at four in the morning to tell me they'd seen him!" When my cat went missing I was awake at 4am until he came back. I hope it was a positive sighting. I like harmless eccentrics, especially in a time when we're all expected to comply or join in with the cult of celebrity.

"But I still think you see this issue with rose tinted optical ware. Although I do accept many of your point on this. Nice of me huh?" Fine. Discussion over, as I see no point in engaging with you any further on this issue. In fact I've thought that from when you started referring to me as 'that posh bloke'.

"err - doesn't holding a full public consultation, which outlines various options and the reasons for or against each count as 'constructive'? or at least as 'constructive' as comments like "stopping the trains from London Bridge to Victoria (via Denmark Hill) would be stupid"" Just accept it as as a very brief summary of my contribution to the public consultation. Yes, it would be very stupid indeed to remove a very convenient semi-circular rail transport route, and it's quite constructive to say so, however succinctly. Also, my experience of public consultations is that they are often wheeled out to confirm decisions that have been all but formally taken. My view is that National Rail should be working to promote integrated public transport, rather than engaging in consultations on a proposal to withdraw what could be considered to be a key local service, hence the other part of my sentence (not quoted) which was that "it probably illustrates National Rail's inability to be a constructive part of integrated transport systems". Hopefully, the Mayor will take responsibility for this line, as is the case with the North London Line, and other local rail services, soon and it will become part of a fully integrated London-wide transport. system. Anyway, thanks for your constructive observation, and I enjoyed reading your other contributions on the issue.

_Forgive me if this post is just repeating what others have said - I don't have time to read ten pages of the thread, just wanted to state my viewpoint, because I was still fuming on Saturday when I got on the bus !!_ Good for you. On the syringes being strewn around the streets issue, it appears that many can't grasp the meaning of the word 'exchange' or how it works in terms of a needle exchange. I loathe NIMBYism.

I hope they're caught quickly lilolil, and I'll certainly keep my eyes open when I'm out and about driving in the area.

"Police are not social workers but are they there to prosecute crime." That's a rather old fashioned view of the police, and one which doesn't accurately reflect the role of the police today. The police catch criminals, but it's the CPS that prosecute crime. Also, while the police may not be social workers, they do sometimes work with them, and a key role that they are required to undertake is one of crime prevention, which may well include participating in activities to put young people back onto the straight and narrow, or to prevent them becoming involved in crime in the first place. I want an effective community police service, not just a quasi-paramilitary hit squad. I don't know why the police didn't prosecute on that occasion, but it's possibly because the CPS didn't think they'd stand a very good chance of a successful prosecution. Perhaps it's unfortunate, but these things have to be managed and it's been reported only this week that the courts are being clogged up by cases brought (sometimes needlessly) against teenagers.

"But for the latter I blamed myself because I ordered at 7pm - so couldn't really expect much..." Is this the typical British response to poor quality and service? My view is that you're entitled to expect the same constant standard of quality in food and service for the whole period that they advertise themselves as being open for service and say they are serving the menu items mentioned. After all, a real restaurant (or gastro pub) wouldn't survive very long if it got a reputation for only having food worth eating up to a particular point in the day or evening.

Oh and reggie, as a suburan pirate, you (or Clare's daughter) might like to consider volunteering to become one of these: http://www.treecouncil.org.uk/tws/tws.htm

"Good points but I think you have a higher opinion of Victorian Dulwich than me." No, I seem to have more knowledge of what the Victorians did and planned in terms of urban and suburban developments. As I said previously, do some reading and research on the subject rather than speculating without knowledge and information. "The reason we are still using all those things is because it's too expensive to replace them." We are using them because they were so well built/over-engineered, and relatively future proof, that government (both national and local) took the view that they didn't needed to be replaced until the fabric began to crumble. In the case of sewers, this began obvious as a major problem after almost 150 years. As I've said, read up on it. Also, a programme of planned gradual renewal is much cheaper, and far less disruptive, than complete renewal. The problem is that there has been no such gradual renewal or upgrading policies and plans until relatively recently. "A tree only genuinely needs to be cut down if diseased or dangerous" I think I covered this when I mentioned genuine reasons. "or, and this is my point, if it is in a place that is genuinely inappropriate to its surroundings." This, of course is hard to determine, and I haven't seen you satisfactorily explain 'inappropriate to its surroundings', or why your view of what that is (or the self interested and risk averse views of insurance companies) should hold sway in terms of tree management in ED.

"you won't seem to accept my point that the Victorians/Edwardians would not have given a toss what happened later they might have taken a 15-20 year view but not a 130 year one." No, I'm afraid I won't because it's wrong. The Victorians took at long term view and over-engineered almost everything so that it would last. That's why we're still using their railway infrastructure, sewer system and most of us, at least until very recently, their water mains. "Educated people such as yourself however, can take a longer term view and think about what might b good for East Dulwich and how we can plant and improve for the future without despoiling the streetscape by thoughtless planting and, dare I say it, thoughtless retention of inappropriate, to their surroundings, trees." This makes no sense. I have not advocated thoughtless new planting, or keeping trees that genuinely need to be cut down. What I have said is that they shouldn't be cut down needlessly, or without extremely good reason, and certainly not at the behest of insurance companies overreacting to assessed risks. Personally, I'd prefer to navigate around a tree than around cars parked on the pavement (such as is the case on the other side of Melbourne Grove) or badly designed and mostly useless faux Victorian street furniture.

I used that site for ages, it's good for keeping track on voting patterns etc. "Well we know that Tessa's been posting on the East Dulwich Forum" Has she? She's masquerading as an ED oldie is she? I have seen HH in Sainsburys, but not for quite a while.

"Christ, I've really wound the posh bloke up! Sorry mate, but just think 250-260 years ago it was all fields around here." I know exactly what was around here 250-260 years ago thanks, most of it was a managed manorial estate. Almost certainly, none of the trees on the streets of East Dulwich are more than 130 years old, so what 250-260 has to do with anything is anyone's guess. As far having no idea goes, the building lands for development were sold off in plots that roughly cover what were previously fields. There's no need to idly speculate about what was an wasn't here before, and you too could can research and read up on it and look at the contemporary and historical maps (if that's not too posh for you). PS I'm not your 'mate'.

"Do you really think our dear East Dulwich forefathers, as they planted trees, worried about what size they would be in 2007?" It seems that you don't appear to know very much about 18th and 19th century landscaping, where the projected size of trees were taken into account fully. It may also be that you don't know very much about the history of the development of the Victorian suburb, an integral part of which was roadside tree planting, with particular types denoting the status of the people who lived in the road. It was not random self-seeding at all, and if I'm living in a fantasy world it appears you may be in living in ignorance purporting to be fact. "Anyway, years ago the late, and much lamented, Camberwell Council, had a team of what you posh people would call tree surgeons." What us knowledgeable and educated people would call arboriculturalists, actually. They've always (by one name or another) been employed as long as local councils have existed. And it's not that badly sited trees have become a sacred cow at all, it's that people are resistant to them becoming easily expendable in the face of those who don't seem to want to appreciate their value. "The copper nails, they poison the trees and the poor old tree suffers a prolonged, agonising death. Ring barking is almost equally barbaric. The chain saw is quicker but it's a bit like trying to justify the death penalty." News: Trees do not feel pain.