TheArtfulDogger

My social media feeds seem to be showing a lot of people, some famous, some not, who seem to deny certain elements of the pandemic. This morning it was Julia Hartley-Brewer, a talk radio breakfast presenter (no I've never heard of her either) saying "I've said it before and I'll say it again. Jab or no jab lockdown restrictions will never end until we Say 'enough is enough' & tell the govt to give us back our lives. There will *always* be another reason for them to extend the lockdown. This won't end till we say it does" I am sure that the government doesn't want to keep us locked down forever, the financial impact alone is potentially catastrophic, and then people question the reason masks are necessary. I've seen arguments that they are "muzzling" the population and emasculating us all as a form of control. In response hundreds of people are agreeing with her, and she isn't the only feed like this I've seen. Freedom of speech is marvellous, but should dangerous points of view like this be checked and validated ? People who respond in favour are potentially the same mindset as those that stood outside hospitals recently denying covid existed and upsetting medical staff who have come off shift dealing with it, and potentially deaths caused by it. Why are these people hoping to gain ? Do they really believe there is a global conspiracy against them ? and won't they be surprised when the "mother ship" doesn't come down and take them all away (to a human meat processing factory of course)

So Bic is an only child and we are trying to work out who Nic is Well I can reveal the truth (as there's no post till Tuesday now) On a Thursday night, down at the Legion's drag queen night, Nicole ShirtSinger is Bic's stage name as he goes through a routine starting with Please Mr Postman, Signed sealed not delivered, letters that didn't cross in the mail and his/her big finishing number the Postman always rings twice (before leaving a non delivery note) Catch him before it's too late 😎

It's not how we die foxy, it's how we live that's important !

You could try Jh skincare over in Sydenham

What's this Dogs Flashing Local park Oh my...

Get some sausage skins and stuff your own. Thus ensuring you have the right combinations of flavour and texture / meatiness

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sex banned indoors for Tier 2 couples living > apart, No 10 confirms > > At least Artful will be pleased, dogging is still > legal under Tier 2 rules... Taking my name in vain Diable Although these days with all the road restrictions by time you drive to a car park you are too tired for anything else

Begger me, imitation is a sincere form of flattery but please choose your own identity to stop confusion The above post is nothing to do with me.

The risk is with this thread, as soon as you penetrate deeper into it, it's gone. 😳

Secret Santa The stress of buying a tasteful thoughtful gift for under a fiver (or amount set) for someone you barely know and who won't appreciate it and will regift it to their aunt or uncle who will appreciate it less. I won't miss all of that this year

I really wish you lot would stop scaring people with these stories. Since you started my revenu stream has been badly hit ! "Hello foxy, this is HMRC, you've got errors on your return can you confirm the following security details before I discuss it with you : your mother foxes maiden name, your date of birth and the first 20 letters of your password ?"

The Hill Billy family descend from Dog Kennel Hill in their old jaloppy after drinking enough moonshine to turn them blind just to shout insults at people using the EDF on Ulverscroft road "There's no way of building more cycle lanes or improving bus services (or getting enough room to drive our shack) without restricting the volume of other traffic and the places it can park"

Blah, a consultation is a process to achieve a compromise but without knowing what is acceptable to Peckham vision /Eileen then how do you know when that compromise has been reached? Eileen has a track record for objecting to oppertunities for the town centre but not giving solutions or working with developers. The tram is a classic example, she objected to the terminus and depot being in Peckham on various grounds including that the depot would see shards of metal and sparks in the air of Peckham when they ground the wheels. During that consultation she didn't engage with TfL or cross river to find a compromise and as such Peckham lost the opportunity for an eco friendly transport, jobs, development and inward investment. We all want the best for Peckham but without saying what that is (size, no of properties, unit cost...) then Peckham vision's objections seem to be objections for the sake of it. All I'm asking for is Peckham Vision to actually say what the minimum acceptable option with this development is so that there is a starting point for the consultation.

So the answer I can ascertain from your clever wordsmith answers is, and correct me with an honest answer of what you want from the development if I'm wrong "You don't want what's proposed, you want a consultation but you have no baseline for what you do want" Hardly a visionary Eileen. That approach is liable to result in the developers pulling out with the loss of investment in Peckham at a time when investment is like pixie dust and potentially, with the way retail is heading, leaving what should be an amazing town centre (retail footprint wise) struggling for decades to come. The council will possibly never have funds again for investing in our town centres and I for one would be happier if Peckham Vision lived up to its name and had a real plan for how Peckham should be rather than an aspirational mission statement. Yours Mr. Artful Dogger

I asked what the vision for the development is, not for your mission statement. This lack of clarity over what you want is frankly making me wonder if you are being deliberately stupid, and we all know you're not. So again I ask what is Peckham vision's vision for the Aylesham centre development site ? Of course if you haven't got one, then as I stated before , how will you know when you have reached a point where you are happy with the outcome? And saying its for the consultation process just makes it obvious you haven't got an idea and won't be happy regardless of what's presented. So please give a straight answer to the question as I'm sure other people are just as interested.

Eileen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheArtfulDogger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Blah, that's the process but what are the > actual > > parameters that are acceptable for development? > > > > > Like I said I'm not asking for people to say we > > don't want this and we want a consultation , > I'm > > asking what would the development need to > contain > > and look like as a starting point of a meaniful > > debate with the developer > > That will come out of the consultation! > > * Please sign the petition for a meaningful > consultation here: > http://www.change.org/PECKHAMVOICES Oh come on Eileen, you must have a Peckham Vision. Don't just repeat the same, I don't want this, I want a consultation. What do YOU personally want to see? What's your starting point in a consultation ? How can you possibly know you've achieved you minimum requirements or a workable compromise ? What's the vision of Peckham Vision ? There must be one otherwise the organisation name is a travesty ! I can't in all honesty add weight to your petition until I know what you want because it may not be anywhere near what I want (inward investment and the chance for Peckham to be an amazing town centre again) So I ask again and I hope you don't do the usual vague politician answer because it won't cut the mustard.

Typical politician style answer You can't say what you do want but it's not this If there is no minimum acceptable level then how can you know when you have either got what you want or reached a fair compromise ? The consultation process needs a starting point from both sides, yet all I'm hearing is "not this" Oh well if you don't know you don't know but be brave enough to admit it, don't spin it

Blah, that's the process but what are the actual parameters that are acceptable for development? Like I said I'm not asking for people to say we don't want this and we want a consultation , I'm asking what would the development need to contain and look like as a starting point of a meaniful debate with the developer

I'm curious People are saying "it's not what we want" but I've not seen anyone say what it is that would make this work "Scale" what do you want? "Affordable housing" great, but how much of a development needs to be affordable and what's the price point ? "Height" great, but how high is too high ? If too low it will change the number of affordable houses on offer ! "Nature" again what do you want ? Eileen, you are leading this charge and want a meaningful discussion but lay your cards on the table and say what it is you actually want to see there rather than "don't want this" there has to be a starting point for the discussion and engagement otherwise a compromise can't be made. My twopennith worth, don't ask the impossible otherwise nothing will happen and the opportunity will be lost.

Eileen, I stand corrected on the 70% of 35% however as the rents are set to levels defined by the GLA or Southwark council then by definition they will be within the reach of local residents and if not you need to take that up with the council. The other 30% of the affordable housing will be set at no more than 80% of market rents. It's not a perfect system but with the cost to the developer it's possibly tough to invest at this time and it's better than no new homes at all. Out of curiosity what would you define as affordable (money wise) ? Also are you saying that a larger percentage should be affordable, in which case how would you expect the developers to make money ? (Shock of the day, it's not a council building the properties, it's a company who own the land and expect an income from their investment)

There has to be a balance between someone willing to invest in Peckham at this moment in time and the ability to make Peckham the main town centre of Southwark vs what a few vocal locals require. Some concerns are that the bar on the top of a run down car park will lose its view, so why not compromise with the developers to add a rooftop bar to one of the blocks? (Imagine the views from the top of the 20th floor, it could rival the shard) The proposal talks about 70% of the properties being social housing, so I can't see any concern there. Will they be affordable? Sadly property rents and prices have increased over the years so they will possibly be higher than properties in the area are currently but unless you want to build cardboard box houses, that's the compromise I guess. Will people want to live and work in London post the pandemic is a bigger question but we are a growing population and space is a premium so eventually, if not from the start. I've been to one of Eileen's meetings in the past , the Rye Lane station action I think it was called, and my personal opinion is she is treating Peckham as a giant urban social project, pushing her way or no way which seems to about keeping Peckham down and not accepting improvements as she fears Gentrification. I don't think the development goes that far but it will attract inwards investment to the area and it's a better option than the slow death it's experiencing now as a result of a model shift in shopping habits. As the poster above said, look carefully at the plans, but don't be constrained by Eileen's view of what Peckham should look like.

They don't like it up em kel (trees and tree houses)

I guess we have a simple choice after today's news about the r number going up The Rule of Six Or Six feet under 🤔

Is this allowed under the new rule of six ?

If you've got enough mates together does that count as "Six Appeal" 😂