nxjen

Isn't he the guy behind the never ending grossly over-developed project in Crawthew Grove?

"They've got some sort of support from somewhere, though, or the spacefillers of the local rags wouldn't be recycling the drivel so avidly, but I'm baffled as to what it is, or what it's supposed to achieve." Local papers have cooled considerably. As far as I can see, Southwark News hasn't reported on SSW since the end of 2015. The recent article published in the hard copy of the South London Press (jpeg posted by Blanche yesterday) is quite a balanced article and includes a reasoned and reasonable statement by the Chancellor of Southwark Diocese as to why they have agreed to the work being undertaken, providing a balance to the predictable hyperbole that is quoted from "Technical Director Lew Schaffer."

Lovely post! " ... the ability to unhinge themself on a local forum to the tune of daytime telly." There's one word here that might provide the explanation

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is a fair point but it is also true to say > that Camberwell Council no longer exists either. Not sure that's relevant as Southwark Council was formed from three Metropolitan Boroughs, one of these was Camberwell so represents a continuation, and this was the situation when the GLC was abolished in the 1980s.

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > edhistory Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So, I'm right. > > You are right in that Camberwell Council purchased > the area for burial in 1901. Apart from that you > are about 50 years out of date, times change. The > Rec has a strong established community use, by > design. Your earlier post quoted from an LCC report, not their decision which is not the same thing. Are you able to direct us to their decision regarding this planning matter? Anyway, when the LCC's successor the GLC was disbanded, most of the powers devolved to the councils so it would seem to me that it is questionable whether anything decided, or not, by the LCC was still relevant as it can be overturned by the body who is now responsible for planning.

Someone's trialling a bot under the username Blanche Cameron

I see the Southwark Council website are still advertising stalls for Fridays. Just as a word of warning, take a look at the "market" on a Friday before committing. There is very little footfall.

As the Southwark Council Cemeteries Strategy specifically includes provision for Muslim burial, any claims that Southwark are showing discriminatory behaviour, direct or indirect, are without foundation. You believe what you want to believe without any facts to back it up but most people like to have reliable facts before they make a decision. If as you say you don't have time to engage with the forum, why don't you just stop posting?

The matter of Muslim burial has been addressed in Southwark Council's Cemetery Strategy. - The Executive Summary states that provision for Muslim burials is proposed in Camberwell New Cemetery - Short Term options (til 2022) Para 6.2.1 "Muslim burial - Expansion of existing site (within Nunhead) on previously topped up ground, and provision elsewhere in new layouts" - Next steps short and medium term Para 9.1.1 "Include provision for Muslim burial"

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dont worry, living in a share house with 3 others > will grow pretty old, pretty quick...and in a few > years you'll look back and wonder how you ever > thought it was a good idea.... I'm afraid for many it's likely to be a long term experience as buying beoomes increasingly out of reach for the average Londoner.

There are alarm bells going off in my head on your behalf. Who has approached you about showing your work to another student? I may be out of touch but if it was the course tutor there is something very unprofessional about this, surely s/he must have samples of coursework to show the other student,it seems the tutor is passing the buck without being aware of the possible implications. If it is the other student saying the course tutor has suggested you show her your work - well .... I would do nothing and if asked directly again just "forget", you are under no obligation to share the fruits of your labour. Six months will pass soon enough, in a year's time you'll have forgotten all about it.

Southwark Council recycle them. If you can get up to Sainsburys within the next hour the mobile recycling unit is there now. I've just taken a load of CDs there myself.

Yes indeed. Here is a link to their website. http://ccwgroup.weebly.com/ I believe they are in discussion with the Council.

When I smoked, that first cigarette of the day was the best. It did though have a very strong "cathartic" affect. (OK too much information)

How will this affect Elton John and Wayne Rooney?

Maybe the cat isn't lost but is just a polite request from the owner not to feed it if it takes a shine to you and convinces you it hasn't eaten for a week. Neither strange nor annoying.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Constant repetition of the same 'facts' and half > facts is a good political method of wearing down > opposition - in the end we give up not because we > don't care, but because we have other things in > our lives. Monomania will often win out in the > end. The constant repetition of 'facts' and 'half facts' is leading more to them being ignored because decision makers have given up trying to have any meaningful dialogue with them. I would have thought trying to save the bona fide ancient woodlands that face destruction with the building of HS2 would have been a better way of spending their time and effort.

Has this got totally out of proportion?

I think the business has been taken over by someone new but former proprietor still owns the freehold and building an extension? Hoping I can still buy my sensible shoes there. I watched fascinated as I waited for a bus on the opposite side of the road at 8 am the other morning to see them knock out the glass of the old shopfront.

http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/east-dulwich-delivery-office-move-peckham/ Royal Mail reported to be in consultation with union. Article says it is closing because volume of parcels is too high for them to deal with. Seems crazy to close the sorting office because it is too successful: would it not make more sense to make the area covered by the East Dulwich office smaller?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > nxjen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "The increase in the use of NHS services is far > > more to do with a population that lives longer > and > > people who cannot/will not access more > appropriate > > services, than any increase in immigration." > > > > What I haven't seen discussed anywhere is that > > ever evolving medical research is continuously > > making new discoveries in terms of treatment > and > > drugs which increases costs to the NHS to treat > > previously untreatable conditions. I have no > idea > > what the solution might be. > > > Theoretically loads: > Whilst I agree with your suggestions for cost savings, what I'm trying to say is that as more and more fantastic medical treatments and equipment become available, these will make a potentially unlimited call upon NHS funds. Much medical research is undertaken for commercial reasons. Even with the best political will in the world, the NHS budget is finite and already certain treatments and drugs are only available privately. I fear this will give further amunition to those that are promoting private medical insurance for all.

"The increase in the use of NHS services is far more to do with a population that lives longer and people who cannot/will not access more appropriate services, than any increase in immigration." What I haven't seen discussed anywhere is that ever evolving medical research is continuously making new discoveries in terms of treatment and drugs which increases costs to the NHS to treat previously untreatable conditions. I have no idea what the solution might be.

"Anyways, why say 'UK taxpayers', do you not think immigrants pay tax?..." UK taxpayers includes immigrants

AFAIR when the Glazer Delmar sign appeared at the end of North Cross Road, JB was outraged it had been put up without planning permission. Now it is intended to put up 35 banners from lamp-posts - 35 - which JB appears to support. Surely these would need planning permission? My criticisms are that, as someone has pointed out, these banners can look very tacky in a very short space of time and that this is a business led initiative that will benefit only the businesses while the residents have them imposed on them without any discussion. I see there is one resident on the "steering group" but as they are part of the initiative they are clearly in favour when in fact many of the residents may not be so may not be representative.

Ooh you are awful