Ko

Bara have put petitions in about 5 places. However, the majority of petitions (e.g. in the CPT, Greetings, Healthmatters etc) are being circulated by other parties who are concerned about the proposals.

.

.

P.S. Just to make it clear - I did *not* complain about CWALD's post. CWALD - you're very brave for sharing your story - I'm not as brave as you so I won't share my experiences, but well done you for turning it all around. Btw, Go Greenie!:))

.

I thought I would come and post a reply to AllforNun's Nazi post (which, although I might be just missing it, seems to have disappeared from the thread), and also a reply to Snorky's post. Where's AllforNun's post? The one where she/he was trying to compare people signing the petition to Nazis'? Mr Admin - I didn't realise you might remove it before I could reply. Is it still here somewhere??? This thread is so long now its too hard to find stuff on it. I'm getting all dazed and confused again!

Oh no! ::o I remember when you first got your kitten and posted that pic up and we were saying how cute she was. I'm sure she is on an adventure and is having a great time sticking her snout into everything new. I've just had a look in our garden and also peered into the neighbours' gardens from our upstairs window. Can't see anything and none of the other cats are out either, so all is quiet. I will definitely keep an eye out.

See this story about a proposed clinic for drug addicts on Batsworth Road Camberwell. It is for services that are different to what is proposed here, but the point is that the PCT publicly admitted that it failed to consult properly. Who exactly is in charge of these things at the PCT? This is obviously not the first time there has been concerns about the PCT not consulting adequately. http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200southlondonheadlines/tm_method=full%26objectid=18829432%26siteid=50100-name_page.html

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So if there is not going to be a needle exchange > and there is already an addiction clinic > running,which was so unobtrusive no one even knew > it existed, what is all the fuss about? > But there is still significant disagreement about whether needle exchange/methadone services are going to be there. Both the PCT and the DMC are unclear about what is being applied for - at the moment they are disagreeing with each other. I think this is shown by what has been posted above. The PCT still hasn't shown that needle exchange/methadone services are needed. So it is still unclear if the money would be best spent on new needle exchange/methadone services, or best spent on improving/investing further in the existing addiction clinic at DMC, or even best spent on some other area of greater need. What about the other services offered by the pharmacy - are these just as confused??? If things are confused as they seem (DMC and PCT quite obviously disagreeing about what they think is beng applied for), I just think that whatever ends up there (whether or not it includes needle exchange/methadone) is going to be ill thought out and not the best use of taxpayers' money. The NHS is already struggling and short of cash - so its even more important that the PCT is accountable and transparent in its actions. There may be an addiction clinic already there (which I think is a good thing), but that will only operate during the surgery opening hours. The pharmacy will open until 11pm and some people want to see some risk assessment done and better lighting and better security if they are needed, etc. Security at night and a need for better lighting is already an issue on many roads in ED - numerous roads have been asking for better lighting and its not just a fear of addicts that's driving these requests.

Lozzyloz, what's Jenny Eclair? SMB is tea! Dulwich Park - Doggy Bark

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought Macys worked in partnership with the > DMC... Talk about biting the hand that feeds! I see your point Keef. But if the DMC pharmacy leads to one or more of the other existing pharmacies closing (see my comment above), they won't be working in partnership anymore because Maceys won't still be around!

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > And lastly, when I went to Macy's the chemist on > Northcross Rd, they had a big wad of petitions > against the DMC pharmacy on the counter by the > till. > > I wonder who will benefit the most if the DMC > pharmacy proposal is blocked I've seen the petitions at the Co-op Pharmacy and at the Northcross Rd pharmacy. They said they fear that a couple of them could be forced to close if the new pharmacy goes ahead. That could be a possibility I guess because Southwark is saying that there is no need for any more pharmacies in the area. IMO - There is a difference between 'benefitting' (which the owners of the new pharmacy may be seeking to do) and 'saving your own livelihood'.

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also the DMC have obly applied to dispense > methadone, they don't want to have a needle > exchange> The Southwark Needs Assessment (which the PCT is referring people to) clearly states "Any pharmacy applying under the 100 hours a week exemption will be expected to provide needle exchange services". I myself spoke to the PCT specifically about the DMC application and the PCT referred me to the needs assessment (they directed me to it on their website) and I asked the PCT whether DMC would have to provide a needle exchange and the PCT said yes. The PCT couldn't tell me much else. So either the PCT is wrong, or the DMC is wrong. Yes, I can see my confidence levels rising rapidly - not. Also, there was a recent article in the Southwark News about a needle exchange proposed on Heaton Rd (Nunhead/Peckham borders). Ther is a quote there from Jane Fryer (the Medical Director of Southwark Health and Social Care), stating: ?When an application is received we advise existing local pharmacists of the application to get their feedback. In this case, this feedback together with any other submissions received, including the petition will be considered when our vacancy panel meets to consider the application. A decision will then be made in line with national regulations over whether a pharmacy can open. The panel will not be making any decisions on the detail of the services that the pharmacy could provide at this early stage. However, as with all new pharmacies and any other service we are seeking to develop, we will be making sure that the services it provides meets the needs of the local community as a whole.? Seems they will approve pharmacy first and then later decide the services (eg needle exchange etc). Not sure if this allows a risk assessment (about suitability of site for such services) to be done - nothing has been mentioned about this and the PCT didn't know either. Also, once the application for a new pharmacy has been approved, can the services be added to or changed without any further consultation?? The PCT said to me that it was also confused over how things were decided. I hope the PCT is clearer when it is giving advice to the GP surgeries...!

Posted by: Brendan Yesterday, 05:35PM >I?m an out borough type and I had to write a test to prove my East Dulwichness before I was granted residency. It included having to have a remedial knowledge of East Dulwich Rhyming Slang terms like: Goose Green Fair ? Au pair. As in, I?ve sent the goose down the crocs (socks and crocs ? shops) with the rigs (3 wheeled rig ? kid) so that I can go down 197 (197 ? Peckham) for a foxton?s (foxton?s fear ? beer) with my williams (William rose steak ?mate). Anyone else? No? just me? I?ll get my coat then. ------------------- Laughed at Brendan's post. :)) Has this been done before apart from Brendan? I remember that 3 letter acronym thing. How about... Meet you at the EDT Lager Lout ... Goose Green Roundabout Rock Steady Eddie ... East Dulwich Deli 'Goose' is au pair (see above). 'Sent the goose down to the farmers market' ... Sent the au pair down to Somerfield (summer-field - that's a particularly bad one!)

Declan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I haven't read all this thread but I do know, as > my boy used to attend the after school club, that > at that time (several years ago) the DMC were > trying to buy most the land next door to build an > extension. As the club provided a very good > service for working parents especially and the > kids, there were various meetings organised to > oppose this. If this is part of the current plan > then I would oppose it regardless of what they > built there. I have no reason to believe the DMC > is a charity. This again is being talked about by residents - a lot remember about past wrangles with the DMC. At the time, the DMC were after the land at the Community Centre. Which, in my opinion, wasn't really the DMC 'working with the community'.... The community needed the facilities provided by the After-School Club. Also they wanted their children to continue to attend the Community Centre's evening activities. There was also the campaign a couple of years against the closure of the Community Centre. I wonder if the DMC backed the campaign to keep the Community Centre open???

nutty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Most posts seem to me to be missing the point > entirely imho. > > Isn't the issue that we'd all rather this was > openly discussed amongst residents and their > opinions sought and listened to by the powers that > be? Whether it should or should not happen is a > blunt debate here, but should be able to be had > with the people behind the proposal and those that > decide on it's appropriateness to the area. > > Then all this discussion about pros and cons can > be had in an informative environment where > responses are backed by fact (hopefully) and where > comments from residents will make a difference > (again hopefully). > > I think this is the central point of the petition; > that a discussion should be had, not necessarily > that the proposal be blocked. Tell me if I'm > wrong? Hurrah Nutty!! Give the boy a gold star! (tu):)) (he even gets two smiley symbols) I am blocking the current proposal as it stands because the whole package offered is preposterous (e.g. no consultation, no full information provided, no risk assessment, no firm commitments on prevantative measures). If people had full confidence in the PCT, they might feel differently. Why is everyone attacking each other when its the PCT who's most at fault? Yes some people might have dodgy views, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the PCT is currently behaving in one of the most dodgy ways. (I know the last sentence is not the best English!)

bawdy-nan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >As I understand it the needle exchange and methadone business will be required as a condition for allowing a pharmacy on >site, its not that having a needle exchange and methadone consumption clinic is the main motivation. In many ways I'd feel > more comfortable about the whole situation if it > were the primary driver. I'd feel as though the > people who want to set it up have a real interest, > expertise and concern in serving the needs of > people affected by drug-addiction. > I agree with quite a few points Bawdy-Nan says, especially this one.

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What makes people think that Dulwich is such a > special area that it shouldn't provide a service > like this, and why would other areas be more > appropriate? I don't think Duwlich is a special area. For argument's sake, say the DMC was picked up and put in the middle of a trouble-strife council estate in Peckham. (BTW, I'm using Peckham as someone has suggested this above as somewhere EDers might want to push the problem to. Also I'm not saying that council estates are all dreadful places, because there are plenty which provide decent housing, a safe environment and a good community.). Would the location of this council estate make it a better proposal? No. Because: (1) The PCT has not shown that there is a need, for example, for more needle exchange/methadone services. If the PCT are determined to spend a set proportion of money on services for substance misuse, how about they look at what is actually needed by that group of people (including non-methadone users). What about if there is a need, for example, for more counselling services for them? Even if the location for that has to be provided on Crystal Palace Rd or in the middle of the fictional council estate. It our taxes (including, as CWALD says, the taxes of what seem like so called 'respectable' people, who are actually addicts). The addicts will also have probably paid taxes at some point in their life and even if they haven't, they are still entitled to support from society beacuse they are ill. Why not spend the money on services needed, rather than another daft PCT plan which they so far haven't shown any substance/need for. (2) The PCT should do a risk assessment and put into place some measures to minimise any potential risks, whether the services are on Crystal Palace Rd or on the fictional council estate. What about if drug pushers are attracted to the area and that in turn attracts more drug users and it gets to the point where there is trouble? I'm not saying that WILL happen, but how do we know it won't happen - because no risk assessment has been done. Why not do a risk assessment beforehand and put some measures in place, like some firm commitments about better lighting, more street clean ups etc. The PCT has not done this, so I am opposing the application as it stands, until I can see an application where a sensible and responsible approach has been taken. Addicts are also entitled to see that money spent on them is spent on what actual services they need. They also have the right to go somewhere safe which will not be potentially be so targeted by potential drug pushers/drug addicts that it leads to trouble. (3) The PCT is supposed to be an accountable body. Last week, it was discovered that the PCT has received an application and it had not consulted relevant interested parties and there were only 4 working days left to put together any sort of response and the PCT were unwilling to provide full information. Under law, consultation means taking into account all relevant factors, but then it is subsequently up to the decision maker to decide what weight to attach to those relevant factors. But the decision maker can't just decide not to consult without explaining their reasoning. The PCT has to comply with the principles of Adminsitrative Law, or it is behaving illegally. Last week, the PCT decided to do what it likes, regardless of the right procedures and requirements and without employing some common sense. So I will oppose that application until they start taking a reasonable and responsible approach. At the moment they are behaving like a bunch of cowboys, which is not what I pay my taxes for. That's my view and everyone is entitled to their view.

Outrageous! I've been lounged without knowing it! I have just stumbled across this at 5.57AM. I was wondering where this thread had gone. Are you all trying to confuse me? ;-) And to think, I wouldn't have even noticed this if the BBC Gardening board wasn't closed... Well Mr Admin, I suggest you unlounge this right now, yes right now before the dark forces come to get you! Oh, hang on, actually my confusion is becoming unconfused! I've not been lounged! It wasn't my thread to begin with!! Phew. Well that's better then! I will happily tell you everything I've heard next time I see anyone! Does anyone know what time the gardening board opens? I always think they go to bed too early and sleep in far too much.

sorry I didn't make it. had a date with mr ko, then saw a friend and got caught up - i sent mr ko home and in the end he had to come out and find me as i was gone for so long! never quite made it as far as the mag (hangs my head in shame)

BARA Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Lordship Lane is a more appropriate place for a > needle exchange - busy at all times of day and > night Hard to know if LL would be better. If something was opened on LL, I would still prefer the hours to be 9-5. And I would also like to see more thought given to it beforehand to assess the needs of all the families/elderly/children using the busy Lordship Lane and to have a proper assessment of what servies are needed including rehabilitation.

macroban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would like to know what Ko was writing about > Macroban, If you didn't understand the point, just say so. I'd have been happy to clarify and edit things to make it clearer if that was the case. In my opinion, your thread takes a quote and confuses things further - at least for me :)). Lets make it easier. From reading the title of this new post, I didn't even realise it was about something I said. I don't open all threads, but luckily I did open this one and so I could clarify.

Give me strength. Would you like me to make it clearer and say "While I am on the topic of the PCT, I have begun to hear from good sources about various PCT plans which I don't like the sound of". I was going to repeat them but then thought the forum might not like me repeating rumours, even if they are from good sources. Would you like me to delete that sentence altogether if its confusing? I'll do that then. Sorry, but I'm not perfect. I was posting while having a bad bout of insomnia (hence being up at 3am!) I have never been a fan of the PCT, full stop. I don't like the way that, in my opinion, they frequently try to bulldoze their plans through without adequate consultation. I once met with the PCT and the senior person I met with reminded me of a dodgy salesman. He also kept looking blank whenever anything of substance was talked about. Macroban, why pick out quotes and start a new thread? - its just as confusing and just odd!!!

As Bawdy-Nan has already said above, the PCT?s needs assessment shows that there is not a need for another pharmacy in the area. I believe that it also has not been shown that there is a need for more services for substance misuse/drug-users. So if there is no need for another pharmacy, the PCT?s regulations mean that it will normally not permit one to open. So normally Mediquick would not be allowed to open a new pharmacy in ED because it is not needed. (?..So do Mediquick want to open a new pharmacy out of the goodness of their hearts?..?) If Mediquick want to open, they can only do so if they fall under an exemption. One exemption is if the pharmacy opens for at least 100 hours. So Mediquick wants to open under the 100 hour exemption because it MUST fall under an exemption. (?..So are Mediquick opening for 100 hours out of the goodness of their hearts?..?) But any pharmacy opening for 100 hours in Southwark MUST, as a condition of being a 100 hour pharmacy, also provide certain services including needle exchange and be willing to have methadone consumption. (?..So are Mediquick offering the needle exchange and possible methadone consumption out of the goodness of their hearts?..?) So 100 hour pharmacies have to provide needle exchange and possible methadone consumption, but they do NOT have to have provision for rehabilitation services for drug-users. (?..So will Mediquick be providing needle exchange/possible methadone out of the goodness of their hearts, but the goodness of their hearts means that they won?t also provide rehabilitation services?..?) (By the way what, if any, is Dulwich Medical Centre?s connection?) Why doesn?t the PCT plough the money into extending hours at the existing pharmacies, and then use the leftover money on rehabilitation services (rather than needle/methadone services they haven't shown there is a need for)? Overall, I would like to see a lot more transparency in what the PCT does. And also in what some other organisations do as well. Please let?s not allow the PCT and the likes of Mediquick divide this community!!! We need to find the best solution all round, and that?s going to be a really hard one. But at least there?s more time to figure it out now. It needs to be the best solution for everyone?s needs, and not the best solution for the PCT?s agenda. [i've edited it to take out the last sentence which may have confused people and where that sentence was quoted to start a new thread]

CWALD and Ganapati, you both say some great things. (tu)