Maurice

'Twas me who brought it up Sean.

Ah a good afternoon giggle. I like Cafe Nero. I hope it stays. But the argument was to follow the letter of the law, which was the same argument for the needle exchange from BARA ('failed to follow proper consultation'). I just thought it would be interesting to poll on it...it has obviously shown that a) the letter of the law is only important to you when it serves your purposes and b) many never wanted the needle exchange and used the consultation excuse to further their own prejudices. Personally, I'd take a Cafe Nero and pass on the needle exchange too dear Em.

"If it doth please the Planning Committee, I refer you to photo exhibit A as evidence of the ill health inflicted on ED by Cafe Nero serving food".

Imagine that Chav - and informed debate from that fuddy duddy body you believe needs more people like you to be truly representative. Me thinks the system may be working and more reflective than one might contend. Now. What about GHB (you know, the one I labelled GBH to howls in an earlier thread)? It's legal-ish. Some forms are all out legal it seems. And folks who take it tend not to get violent or addicted. If taken in the right quantity, it makes someone all ovely and nice. No issues. But, as I understand it, getting the dose right is impossible meaning on a given night, dozens of ambulances are called. A lot of issues there...(and I think perhaps a lot more ambulances than alcohol). Umm......

I'm all for the letter of the law. Can I just take a poll? For those of you opposed to Cafe Nero being allowed to get retroactive permission for having not followed the letter of the law from the start, were you equally outraged at the needle exchange clinic for not having followed the rules of consultation? And vice versa - those keen to be a bit lax on Cafe Nero, were you equally open to allowing the clinic to slide on the details of the laws of consultation?

Sadly this case is grey. While the black and white nature of your statement is true Les, this argument is clouded by those who have never gotten over losing the battle to keep out big, bad Cafe Nero because it is an 'evil chain'. No more no less.

Not necessarily. It could've been an honest mistake for anyone actually. A small shop that hasn't had the experience and a chain with so many layers that the left and right hand hadn't spoken.

Just curious. Had a small indepedent coffee shop done the same thing, would you be opposed to it? Asked another way, is your affection for the law equal toward 'big bad chain' and 'local independent'?

Why thank you. I'm keen to know how much her 300K home, which she owns outright by the way, would be worth if LL had a soul?

Too much coffee?

Shu - good riddance to bad rubbish. Bye bye!

London, particularly south London, is all about pockets. Including East Dulwich. In fact, having examined crime stats (I know I'm sad), Kennington ranks better than most. Though there is a pocket heading east (surprise surprise toward Camberwell) that's a bit dodgy. But that's about the same geography for East Dulwich heading back to Peckham. I ate in the new park cafe and was told all about the massive transformation in the last two years with much more to come. It seems to have done an East Dulwich. The houses I'm keen on are more expensive in Kennington than ED, but you are paying for a more central, better connected location. And if you think it's worse than Camberwell (or better than ED), than you haven't spent much time there. But I'm not sure. Will be looking further. But for now, for housing stock, central, good transport, nice neighbourhoods, good amentities, Kennington appears to be winning out in South London. ED is good for the pram set, but it is suburban, out of town and hard to get to....great if you've kids.

Having been encouraged to move by many here, I've taken to searching for a placed that meets my needs. I'm keen for lovely period housing stock, all amenties on the doorstep, a lovely feel on the streets, and excellent transport links - close to Central London. I've spent some time in Clapham just recently. To me, it feels like the its own suburban city well outside of central London. It's a bit of a dull high street too. Dulwich is too far outside of London with poor transport links in, same for Blackheath. For me, I would shy from going into Central London of a weekend because it's an investment of hours (few trains an hour, wait wait wait, then coming back the same). Clapham is bit better on that score, but still a while out. Right now, top of the list is Kennington. Some lovely stock (Georgian!) and terribly close to Central London by tube or by many buses. Amentities are very good and while there isn't a booming bar/club/restaurant scene, there is just enough should you stay home and heading into town can be a quick trip without losing a huge chunk of the day. And you can easily walk to Vauxhall where I club quite often and partake in all sorts of substances. Okay, that's a lie. But my mind is opening to legalisation so who knows, maybe I'll rediscover my (long gone) youth.

'Tis the season!

Chav's political career is dead. Does that count?

This is fact? No dear Mark, that is elitism at its worst (or is it best?) I'm genuinely perplexed on the crack thing. My understanding is it was a scurge on the African American community leading to massive crime and cruelty. Many even suggested it was used to keep the community down and/or cause violence. Perhaps more Daily Mail drivel.

While I don't read the Daily Mail, I don't think such sweeping statements help inform an honest debate. While I know you and your small brigade of truly enlightened thinkers have arrived at a level above the masses of people in this country, you might spare a moment to help us on our path. My honest understanding of crack was based on conversations with police who used that exact phrase. It went something like this: 'we don't worry so much about ectasy of a Saturday night - those folks are loved up and not going to cause any problems. It's the crack - where men will kill their own mothers to get the next fix, which we worry about.' Is that an urban myth bought into by the millions and millions of us ignorant masses beholden to your highly evolved intelligence?

Thanks Asset, but I'm not sure I can believe that. Perhaps I need to study up a bit more. I always believed my neighbour smoking on cigs or drinking was far less likely to kill me for cash like maybe someone on crack.

We should not criminalise people for who they are: be it colour of skin, eyes, hair, height, sexual orientation. Certainly not. However, it is less clear to me whether we should criminalise choices on drugs (of all classes). I go back to my issue about crack and heorin. They seem a different issue to ectasy and cocaine.

I agree mostly Bob. But do appreciate, I think if you legalise drugs you will have more people do them that might not otherwise. Whereas with homosexuality, you weren't going to create more homosexuals.

Sorry Bob. I'm not against legalisation of some classes of drugs but such a comparison is really apples and oranges. Surely anyone sees its weakness. It's not foolish.

So drug use is a genetic?

I do wish someone in the know would address my two honest questions. Is there a difference between drugs like cocaine, ectasy, etc. and heorin/crack? You've conveniently lumped them together and I'm keen to know if we those of us who are prepared to listen to legalisation are expected to lump them together too. Also, your comparison of homosexuality and drug use seems to suggest both are choices. Is this what you mean?

Oh goodness. I'm not terribly opposed to some legalisation and regulation of certain classes of drugs. But now comparing drug use to homosexuality is not winning your argument.

Asset you think we should leagalise heorine and crack? Really?