DJKillaQueen

I always thought it was El Pipe....only realised it was El Pibe tonight when I looked properly......it was a genuine mistake all this time.

Please edit that first line El Pibe, it's not funny (although I don't think you mean to be genuinely offensive). All I was trying to illustrate is why Eddie Murphy is so highly paid. Most top stars are on some kind of points system in addition to up front fees that give them a share of the profits. We can debate the value of one actor over another, especially in a 'brand' kind of movie like Shrek. But studios tend to stick with what they think works, and that includes an A list of actors they consider to be bankable. Even the BBC does that. If you are producing a one off drama for them them you have to use a certian quota of actors from their A list.

There ya go El Pibe http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=eddiemurphy.htm Even the dross makes makes huge amounts...........4 billion dollers for the studios over his career.......

They won't stay overpaid for long if the movies they do stop making 'hard to fathom' huge profits. The studios are brutal in that respect.

I can see your point computed but the royals have a choice once they reach adulthood. They don't have to take the throne, can abdicate etc. But given that everything is an accident of birth, I judge the monarch and cohorts by what they do rather than what they have. I personally would be bored by a life of diplomatic excursions (which is essentially what the Queen's life entails).

James, of course you disagree with most of what I have written, because you think your party is beyond reproach. The only paragraph with subjective room for debate is the first one. All of the other paragraphs are fact, supported by example. I doubt the Lib Dems will regain countrol of the council anytime soon and on a national level, Nick Clegg is finished. But yes, it is off topic and not the place to debate it. Back on topic though...of course, the only people who are going to email you are those who object. But if you like I'll email you to support the application and urge others in support to do so too. Then maybe you'll have a more balanced outlook as to the general feeling about the application. Totally agree with Mic Mac's post above.

H, I understand your point about acting with impunity but I don't really get how the Police or Policitians were stopped from challenging law breaking by the press. I do though understand your point about the press being able to destroy lives (although many press organisations have been successfully sued for this) and I also understand that Leveson maybe more about tackling these gray areas of behaviour, but agree with Marmora Man, that it was illegal activity that led to Leveson and better enforcement of the law as it stands maybe all that's needed.

I hate coffee full stop but how can it be that Costa pay tax and Starbucks don't. I listened to various people on talk radio today try to justify this nonsense, to attract foreign investment and so on. Well, since when did the retail provision of coffee require foreign investment? I'm sure Costa would sieze the opportunity to expand if Starbucks really felt that playing on a level playing field was too much to bear.

That 'useless' guy tibby, has to patrol other parks as well. He can't be everywhere all the time, but for the record, whichever park he is in, he does approach people when they break the rules. I've seen him do that on more than one occassion.

Anstey IS used as a rat run. Bellenden Road is quite busy too. It's the main cut through from Peckham High Road to Peckham Rye.

I was under the impression that the offences committed by journalists that led to Leveson were exactly that....criminal offences already covered by exisitng statutes of law. So have never quite understood why we need new reglation because of 'law breaking' by some journalists, or am I missing something?

Signed it.

There's nothing wrong with James informing of an application for change of use on the forum. It's just when his tries to garner support for his own objection by suggesting it's going to be a Sainsburrys or Tesco store, when know one knows yet. So why make that kind of presumption? Because he knows there's a dislike of large chain stores by independent retailers, and a bias by some residents (and forum users) towards this kind of chain store or that....(Iceland vs Waitrose for example). It James playing politics.....but he is a politician. Yes the 'out of town' bit is partisan and disrepectful to neighbouring communities and businesses but James, to be fair, did acknowledge in reply to one of my posts that he was having a off day when he started the thread. Looking at the consensus of replies on this thread the objections seem to be outnumbered by those for though.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi DJKQ, > The draft agreement with the E&C developer was not > signed before the May 2010 local elections by > former leader Nick Stanton. That draft agreement .................... > has agreed in principle to this decision being > taken by committee but awaits the hed of planning > to agree or not. Hi James, that may be so, by why is that? Because the Conservative/ Lib Dem government made major changes to PPI and almo funding that put the whole Elephant and castle development in jeopardy. There had to be revisions, and when you factor in cuts to local authorities and capital funding grants how on earth can any local authority find the money needed to reverse a development (or even honour one in it?s previous form) from HA housing to Council owned. Whichever way it is looked at?.the Lib Dems in partnership with Conservatives, both on local and national level, have been the puppet masters. And the previous Lib Con attitude to council housing was so poor that any finger pointing at the current Labour council is extremely hypocritical. I still have Nick Stanton?s comment in mind (from the Politics Show) where he said (in reference to Elephant and Castle) that an area so close to central London should not be a poor one. This was in reply to Peter Tatchall?s accusation that the plans were cleansing the area of it?s existing social demographic for a preference of a more affluent community. I think Mr Tatchall had a more than a valid point. To be fair though, housing is a difficult issue to address and one that ALL the parties have been struggling to solve. On the Lambeth Housing management thing. I know exactly where the Lib Dems took this nonsense from. It was from a directive looking at whether some services on the border with Lambeth could be shared, to solve some cross border inefficiencies with things like repairs and refuse collection. It was never an attempt to consider giving blanket management of anything in Southwark to the companies managing things in Lambeth. You also know very well that Lambeth had specific problems in managing things like Housing (being at the time one of the worst run boroughs in the country) which is why it turned to private management, in a much needed effort to genuinely improve things. To take that and then tell Southwark social tenants that Labour will hand over management of it?s housing stock and that rents will rise by 14% was a giant and underhand leap of a lie. On campaign literature, grabbing attention is fine. But grabbing attention with misleading sound bites aimed to shock is just wrong. And it does the Lib Dems no favours. You are right to make sure your own literature is more informative and intelligent and HONEST. People aren?t stupid. They can see through the nonsense, and it?s a nonsense that many of your counterparts (certainly true of my ward) seem to think is acceptable. It didn?t work for the last local elections, and it didn?t work in Walworth either.

James...maybe I should scan and post the said document that was handed to me last night to look/ laugh at. It says and I quote....'Southwarks Labour Council is agreeing to new development at the Elepahnt without enough affordable homes.' You know as well as I do that Nick Stanton is the person that should be, and indeed was at the time, challenged on that one, as it is your former council that signed the plans off. And I'm still waiting for the Labour council to sell of management of all of Southwarks Council homes to private companies....something that Lib Dems claimed would happen, in a deliberate attempt to scare social housing voters, at the last local elections. On the whole, I find most of the Lib campaign material targetting social tenants, simple, childish and intellectually insulting.

DID...most councillors are accessible through a variety of means. A forum is just one of many means that councillors can use. Do not make the assumption that because James uses this forum that he is somehow more accessible and hard working than other councillors who don't. Townley, not anywhere near the level of Local lib dem campaigns - including the most recent Walworth election, where they try to blame the lack of council owned homes within the planned Elephant and Castle development on Labour (and even though there are 2000 HA homes - more than the council rented homes they are replacing). Hilarious given that Nick Stanton an his former Lib/Con coalition cronies dream't that plan up and set it in motion (it is THEY who decided the affordable home make-up of the development). It's that kind of blatent misinformation that the local lib dems are shockingly guilty of. All that's off topic though, yes the issue at hand is one of whether EDR should have another retail unit over an office unit.

The Libdems also have a track record of deliberating misleading voters in their local election campaigns too, which doesn't help. The planning application is simply an application for change of use from office to retail, so no, what kind of retail unit isn't a consideration. If the change of use is granted, then the retailer needs to apply for a licence to trade. It is in THAT process that the nature of business can be scrutinised and objected to (within the remit of four specific catagories). Change of use is not the same as building extensions, which have to satisfy various building regulations.

The Caravan and Trailer may only be temporary while the refitting is taking place (although odd this should already be happening if a change of use hasn't yet been granted). They would also need a licence to trade on the site and without an application for one of those...no trading whatsoever should be taking place yet. Have a look on the southwark licensing website and see if there is an active trading licence in place, or an application for one. Whilst I have no objection to another retail site I do have an objection to one that doesn't follow the correct procedures for planning and licensing.

Ah but no graduate would be allowed to operate without supervision from someone who HAD done it a thousand times over for themselves ;)

Coops we'll just have to agree to disagree. I certainly don't have a problem with the view of any one of any age (I was young once too and still work with young people)...just views based on models in cities the person proposing them has never lived in. I think I've been eloquent in my counter arguments to those points, and would never be bored by anyone engaging in a debate that interests me, personally. SJ, of course not every one using the car for a particular journey needs to, and to be fair I didn't say that. 'Some' people though do have to use cars and we are not being fair to them in this drive to drive (excuse the pun) people out of cars. Quite often I've walked to Sainsburrys and got the bus back (because one stops outside my home) which is cheaper than a home delivery. The one time I did take a home delivery for bulk cat stuff, they didn't deliver most of it as they didn't have the stock in...so I wasn't too impressed by that option (a one off I hope though). "In reality, it's not the speed limit that needs adjusting, but people's attitudes. City life means getting everywhere 3mins before you left. Just take it easy or leave earlier!" Albert, that's one of the most sensible things written on this thread so far :)

If I'm working say 70 hours a week (as many people do), I think I prefer to do all my shop in one go, or if I have a family to look after, I may prefer to do the bulk of my shop in one go. In my own case, I have cats. Have you tried getting 10kg of litter on a bicycle SJ? And sainsburrys is the only place I buy it because it's only ?1.28 a bag....as opposed to ?3-4 a bag anywhere closer. I've stated my reasons for opposing a blanket 20mphr limit earlier in the thread. The latter part of the thread has moved on to ignoring cars altogether and promoting the bicycle as an alternative. I'm just engaging in a debate and trying to introduce balance - being someone who cycles and drives and uses public transport and being able to see the need for all of them. Disagreement doesn't always equate to being argumentative SJ ;)

I'm not defeatist at all...just realistic. We are not Paris, Amsterdam or Tokyo. Nor are we having a balanced debate about roads and transport infrastructure here. If I'm going to the supermarket for the weekly shop....my bicycle is no good to me any more than a crowded bus or train. Cycling is not some great solution to it all. I've cycled in London for 26 years, and there are more cyclists on the roads than ever, but the journeys by car, bus, train etc made by others are more expensive and crowded than they've ever been, more time consuming in some cases, and less frequent in others. Also my ability to cycle long distances was better 26 years ago than it is today. I don't want to cycle in the cold, and the rain anymore. I'm 45 years old and beginning to feel it. We are not keeping up with demand....and we are not investing enough.....that's the bottom line. Where are your suggestions for making public transport affordable and plentiful? Where are your solutions for those who need cars? Cycling is a great option for those whom it makes sense to do so....but what about the rest? You have no interests in them it seems. It all needs a massive rethink, and it all needs massive investment. You are too young to know how little actually gets done over time, especially when it comes to anything costing large amounts of tax payers money to bring about. I think also your age misleads you into thinking cycling is an easy option for everyone.....when it's not. You are not thinking about the alternatives for those for whom cycling is either impractical or impossible. And for some, the only alternative is the car....and they have as much right to get from A-B in as reasonable a time and safe manner, as you. The world is full of graduates who think they have the answers to everything after a couple of years of data based research. I was one of them once too. What life and age has shown me though is that finding real working solutions to anything as complex as transport infrastructure is extremely hard and can't be done without considering the needs of ALL transport/ road users fairly, and the insights of those who experience the failings of it directly.

There are no mega-cities in Holland and there are no mega-cities in Denmark....let's be clear about that. Richard eloquently illustrates the impact of space to any kind of town planning. If we look at true mega-cities elsewhere though, we see that in megacities that are younger, they fare better, using latest technologies and planning to create better functioning cities for modern life. London is one of the oldest cities in the modern World. When cities like Paris were demolishing slums and redesigning with those huge boulevards cutting through radial ring roads, London went on as before. We all know what happened after the Fire of London, when town planners seeing the perfect opportunity to rebuild London in a better planned way, couldn't. London has always been a city of add-ons. A central old town with narrow streets that slowly swallowed up villages and other towns around it. It's why it is so diverse from street to street in some areas, and also the result of untold buereacries that made any kind of meaningful city planning impossible. An average journey accross London takes an hour or more. The majority of Londoners just don't live near enough to their place of work to make cycling feasible either. South london is particularly poorly served and continues to be so by modern aproaches to transport infrastruce...an East to West line (Crossrail) being considered more important than an meaningful North to South links for example. There are always things that can be done, but the cost to do them is prohibitive.

Of course established businesses don't want competition, that's a no brainer, but one that if we listened to it, means we'd never have had any new businesses in the area, ever. Consumers on the other hand do sometimes want new businesses, if they are the right ones, because they increase choice and jobs. And just as new businesses can increase competition, they can also bring new customers into a street, from which other retailers benefit - so it can go either way. For all we know, the applicant might after all, want to open a new type of business to the area (I'm hoping for Poundland ;) but Waitrose might be looming - who knows). And at some point they'd have to apply for a licence to do so, which is when we find out that detail. The application is located approximate to an already retail based area. I really can't see any issue with it.

Studying something is not the same as seeing the real impact for yourself. Plus you are not comparing like for like, which undermines you argument a little. New York has still has the same traffic problems as us. Take a drive through it and you'll see that for yourself. New York is also an interesting case when cited, because it's only in Manhatten and immediate surrounding Islands where networks are improved. New York's suburbs are as neglected as anywere else (where the focus has been on making public transport safer rather than better linking). Paris is also a city I know very well. It has an extremely good, mordern, reliable, properly staffed and cheap transport system, heavily subsidised by government. All things London doesn't and never will have. It is also a city of two worlds. The affluent centre (where people truly have little need for cars), and the suburbs, (where car ownership is higher). Tokyo I've never been to so can't comment. I entirely agree though that some major junctions can be better managed. Even just something like light phasing has been a hotbed of debate for decades....accusations that TFL are not putting smooth traffic flow before other things for example. But introducing 20mpr blanket speed limits will do nothing to address those problems at major junctions for two reasons. 1/ Speed limit changes do nothing to change flow or density of traffic. Most vehicles approach junctions a speeds lower than 20mpr anyway. 2/ TFL control all A and most B roads in London. To suggest building seprated cycle lanes will reduce travel times for cars is nonsense. That is like saying that cyclists are what slow traffic flow, when actually, it is congestion and poor congestion management that impacts on traffic flow. Seperated cycle lanes do of course massively improve the safety of cyclists (and I'm for them for that reason). The only places these can be feasible though are on major roads, but I think London has enough of them to provide a good network. Interestingly, in central Paris you will find the bus lanes are seperated by a kerb from the main road. This is soemthing that works very well for cycling in Paris and would be relatively cheap to build on our roads. It also stops buses pulling out in front of cyclists and cars too, whilst also keeping cars out of bus lanes altogether. And of all the cities I've cycled in, Paris is the most stress free. The point you make about turning roads into cul-de-sacs allowing children to play is a good one. That is a better argument to me for advocating adapting residential roads in that way. Again, it's not helpful to cite countries in data that are not like for like. Denmark for the same reasons as Holland is not like the UK. In London, there are just too many people who for various reasons can not turn to pedal power. They need plentiful cheap public transport and some of them need vehicles (night workers/ tradespeople etc). Consider this instead....the population of London has increased by 30% over the past 25 years. Now take a look at the increases in investment in infrastructure (including transport) over the same period. There'll you find the answer as to why London is creaking (and why everything is so expensive). It's very easy to say this or that works somewhere else, but you have to understand why it works there before looking at somewhere else and seeing if the same conditions exist for it to work there.