Maurice

When out on Lordship Lane there arose such a chatter, I sprang from the Grove to see what was a matter. Away to Cafe Nero I flew like a flash, chowed down an illegal bagel then returned back to trash.

Actually I do believe such high barrier businesses benefit from more state control. The NHS hybrid approach is another case. Private investment is better in things like developing a quality shopping high street.

Or you could end up quite *angry*.

And before anyone asks, I am in the photo.

Do you read dear boy? I was talking about architectural merit. I'm the first to admit it's a dangerous dump today.

Doesn't hold a candle... http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/images/southwark/camberwell/camberwell-green-00671-640.jpg

Another thing I noticed while looking up. I spotted the 'Parkhill Properties' signs. Quite discreet but green and beige painted signs noting they had 'acquired for development'. They have posted similar signage all about Camberwell.

Oh I would add, the Foxtons is horrific. I now know why all the fuss.

I mean no ill will, just my observations. I find it fascinating, actually. I, too, prefer it to Walworth and even Bellendon. But isn't it funny how putting a beautiful coat of paint on something at the public's expense does very little unless the private sector decides to step up? I just think given the enormous tax base generated by LL, you all should push to the front of the queue to get your coat of paint.

It's enough to make me just want to send huge paper cards and ignore all charities. No matter what one tries to do, a group rises up to tell us that actually no, that's even worse. I think there must be a sort of pecking order battle among the militant wings of left-leaning charities. You score points by taking any charitable cause and ripping it up as even worse. What can one really do to be helpful without being made to feel even more guilty when you discover your efforts actually made things worse?!

It's a shock of an admission but for the first time in many, many years, I ventured out to Lordship Lane over the weekend. To date myself, the last time I visited LL was when it was full of antique shops. Anyone else even remember that decade so very long ago? Having read so much about it, I was sorely disappointed. Yes there are some nice shops, agreed. But let's be frank, it looks very much like Walworth High Street. Actually, architecturally, Walworth High Street is superior. And with its recent makeover and new paving/planting, superior in all ways save the quality of the shops. The pavement is dirty and dis-jointed and my favourite pastime of looking above the shops at the architecture met with great disappointment. The Christmas decorations look like something you'd see in an American film set in a depressed mining town circa 1976. I enjoyed a lovely meal and popped in to a few places and yes, the quality of shopping is high. It made me more depressed about Camberwell, which underneath beats Lordship Lane hands down. The architecture is so much better (yes, much of it beneath betting shops and off licence cladding) and the layout: a lovely village green with the parish church spiralling in the distance...and the housing stock heading south and, to a degree, west and slightly north. All of it so much closer to London. It really depresses one. I guess it comes down to what I've always known. Camberwell, despite having a superior canvass underneath, is overwhelmed by a poorer population and more than its fair share of high density council housing. That's it in a nutshell. Such a shame. Such a disappointment. With so much private investment there, surely you can get your share of what Walworth and Bellendon received from the public purse. It's those places in reverse: they take a 'if we build it they will come (and they really haven't)' versus you all - they've come and you've still to build it.

Problem with Peckham is a) we're not talking about a 'small bit' being the dodgy bit and b) to get to the few good bits, you have to go through the dodgy bits.

Try getting insurance without using your postcode. I think it says a lot. So do they.

Oh my. What exactly is a 'space cowboy'? In asking, am I only confirming my stereotype? Chav dear, I must admit I do love Lady Burke. She's lovely.

Will you be voting early?

Oh and Addington Square.

No I think a lot of good folk in Camberwell are embarrassed. So they use The Grove, Myatt's Fields, 'near Burgess Park', Denmark Hill way, east Kennington, Oval, North Brixton....

Indeed we were Surrey and back then, everyone wanted to say they lived in 'Camberwell' (or close enough). Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Fair enough. My mind isn't what it once was - I'm struggling to remember why Sean hates me so. I'm sure it was something I said. Do forgive me dear one.

Perhaps I'm out of touch - or you are living in a dream world. Who knows? I do believe your views are skewed. Camberwell's tale is one of peaks and troughs. The bits that have improved in the last two years were actually recovering from a better offering say 4 or 5 years ago. For those somewhat new to the area, it misleads them to think it is steady improvement. Peckham is a story of its own. Millions and millions and millions. God knows it should be better. But 'better' is relative.

I'd like to move the whole of The Grove there. Sorry. Camberwell is a dump Alan. I do applaud your one man campaign to talk it into being 'hip' but it's a dump. I cannot fault anyone living in Camberwell for clarifying where they live when asked. 'It's Camberwell/SE5 but the bit close to East Dulwich'.

I agree. I'm a very proud resident of The Grove.

Love it!

I can only guess now that Emily must be a journalist for something like the SLP or Southwark News. It would explain everything.

Why is it clearly absurd? A poster claimed it was cut and dry: the law says x so it must be enforced. I wondered, as a matter of amusement I admit, if the same group who claim it is ONLY about the law (and not their secret desire to see Cafe Nero out of town via any route) then are they the same who called foul on the needle exchange for violating rules on consultation. And by similar, are those opposed to the needle exchange (claiming ONLY because it violated rules on consultaton and not their secret desire to see it out via any route) were equally fervant about the law being applied to Cafe Nero. I reckon neither is really about the law being applied cut and dry - but both used it as an excuse. I'm quite honest about these matters. No to needle exchange and yes to Cafe Nero.