nxjen

..

Apparently events took place over 30 years ago which is outside the statute of limitations which is operational in the US.

But Admin, an MP's sphere of influence is primarily with national matters and rarely interferes with local government matters so by asking for people's concerns about Southwark Council she is giving the impression she is able to help with matters outside her potential jurisdication. I don't think the thread that is envisaged can be compared with the local councillor's thread as the councillors who post on that are elected representatives and carry more influence, she just wants an opportunity to knock the labour council and by association a very strong Labour candidate at the next election.

reshamkotecha Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi, > > My name is Resham Kotecha and I am the > Conservative Party candidate for Dulwich & West > Norwood. > > I want to do my best to help with local issues or > concerns so please feel free to contact me - > either on here or by emailing > resham4dwn@gmail.com. I want to hear about issues > in East Dulwich or related to Southwark Council > and will do my very best to help you solve them. I > will check the forum frequently, but if it is > urgent, please send me an email. > As a prospective MP and neither an elected representative of Parliament or Southwark Council, I don't understand how you feel you are able to help with or influence those issues relating to Southwark Council. Doesn this fall within the remit of our elected local councillors? Perhaps you'll use the opportunity to push the Tory agenda but are not really in a position to do anything though will make vague promises what you'll do if elected? Agree with previous post that this is pure electioneering.

"No, without benefits low skilled workers would live less well, not be paid more." If however the state has determined that the wage is insufficient to live on and the employee is eligible for state top up i.e. benefits paid for by the tax payer, then the minimum wage should be set higher i.e. minimum wage + benefits. "Every employer pays what the skills of the employee add to the business" At some levels yes but at lower levels, those jobs that are typically outsourced (as Otta has touched upon) workers are paid the very least the agency / outsourcing company can get away with so their rake off is higher. With these parasites in control of so much low level employment, skills that are offered are only a very small part of the equation in determining wages.

"Increasing the pay of low skilled workers by law rather than skill makes no sense. Businesses aren't being subsidised. Unskilled workers don't generated the value commensurate with higher pay. If we as a society believe that even the unskilled deserve a minimum quality of life they hold get government benefits." If the low paid are in receipt of benefits paid for by the tax payer instead of their employer paying a decent wage, the company's payroll is kept lower by payments from the taxpayer to the employee, so yes, businesses' payrolls are being subsidised.

Easy D looks like the result of a typo

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Grove Tavern was actually built on the site of > Lord Byron's primary school. Hence you have Byron > House on the estate around the corner. And when the school closed and the main building demolished, a Mr Bew who was one of the school's servants, opened a tavern in the outbuildings and established a tea garden. Hence you also have Bew House next door to Byron House on the estate.

Agree, dreadful language but also very funny. Sounds like it's been written either by a computer or someone relying heavily upon the Thesaurus facility on Word.

"We looked in Crystal Palace, which is becoming very nice, however you pay for the postcode!" I was renting in Crystal Palace just over 30 years ago and when I wanted to buy, was unable to afford Crystal Palace or Anerley. So I came to East Dulwich.

It was around where the Seacow is now, definitely close to that bus stop. Was also reminded of Meritline Travel this morning which was in the same vicinity as where Headnizm is now.

..

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi P68, nxjen, EDLove, > So you think it morally acceptable to ensure state > school kids don't have a playground so that bigger > subsidies can be given to private schools? My response to you had nothing to do with what's morally acceptable with regards to larger subsidies being given to private schools though by DE holding on to land which belongs to them does not amount to giving a subsidy to the private schools. For what it's worth, I agree with posts further up the thread that state schools should be allowed access to the largely unused playing fields of Alleyns and pressure should be brought on the Estate to enable this. My post to you was an objection that you feel you know what would be going through Edward Alleyn's mind regarding events nearly 400 years after his death to enforce your argument - sloppy, just your opinion. Bequests were given in the 17th century, not so much as a philanthropic gesture to help one's fellow man but to ensure a place in heaven, and building a Chapel, almshouses and enabling education were popular means. Alleyn, as well as an actor, was a business man (with brothels among his interests), and my opinion is that he would primarily be a business man today.

"Such behaviour is clearly contrary to what Edward Alleyn would have ever expected and the Dulwich Estate Governors should be ashamed of themselves." Hmmm ... Edward Alleyn set up the Foundation 400 years ago when things were very, very different. Very little education, none of it state funded, the Dulwich area hardly built upon at all and the population a miniscule proportion of what it is today. I don't think it's possible for anyone to hazard a guess what Edward Alleyn would have expected!

All ED trains starting and terminating from South Bermondsey today.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't doubt it and that is sad. I hope that it > doesn't present them with a real economic hardship > and it might be worth finding out if Iceland will > take phone orders for delivery. I find Rye lane is > quite reasonable for fruit and veg as well as > other basics. If they are mobile, hopefully, > heading to Rye lane won't be too much of burden. Until this post, I've been indifferent whether there's an Iceland, an M&S, a pound shop or an emporium selling 3,000 types of cupcakes on the site. Perhaps you don't realise how it comes across and I do appreciate the changing demographic/economic argument put forward by P68 but it is very sad that those who have been using Iceland for years be pushed out of shopping in what has been their high street for many, many years.

I am against the right to buy scheme, always have been and always will be. It didn't take anyone with half a brain to see that over time it would lead to a housing crisis which has now become reality. But I really can't blame anyone for taking advantage of the scheme and good luck to them. As Otta says, any profit made by leaseholders on the Heygate estate is meaningless as the compensation they have been offered is insufficient to buy a similar property in the same area or anywhere near, and, as they are no longer tenants, it is no longer the responsibility of the council to ensure they are rehoused. They have got the rough end of the deal and dismissing their plight by saying they received a good return (possibly) is callous. As for opposing the plans for the regeneration of Peckham, it seems to be that some people are very selective about the regeneration, wishing to keep and enhance the Victorian elements, to gentrify rather than regenerate. Might have happened 20 years ago but now the need is for more and more housing (see first para of my post).

Mustard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gone are the days when you needed to fast for a > blood draw for a cholesterol test. Interesting. I know guidelines have changed for those taking statins and annual blood tests for cholesterol are no longer required but my doctor tells me tests for liver/kidney function are still required. I'm due a blood test and the form I got from my doctor requests a lipid test (cholesterol) as well as liver/kidney tests. Will have to check if in fact there is a need to starve, I really would rather not! In the meantime I came across this on the NHS website: http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1018.aspx?CategoryID=69

First thing in the morning tends to be very busy. Obviously there are those hoping to pop in quickly before going to work but there are many who need to have their blood taken, i.e. for cholesterol levels, after a period of not eating, say from 10 o'clock the previous evening. Not even a cup of coffee (or tea) is allowed! So as one of those desperate for a caffeine fix first thing in the morning, I go there first thing in the morning so I don't have to wait too long for that wonderful first cup of coffee and I guess I'm not the only one. And yes long may the blood test service at East Dulwich Hospital remain.

Have sent a pm about another application for a house proposed to be built in a garden that got refused but looking at the plans for this one in Hindman's Road: 1) Does the applicant own the whole pathway to the proposed new build or is it jointly owned with the next door neighbour. 2) Is the pathway wide enough for emergency vehicles to gain access?

Good grief, not again. Is the OP who he says he is or an impersonator?

Have just got back from Greenwich (not by bike). Lovely event, highly recommended and its FREE! It's on until Tuesday.

Too Good To Be True Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps the police should hire two reformed > convicts to wander up and down ED streets spotting > potential burglary targets. Once spotted, > potential victim gets a warning letter informing > them of a weakness in their property. > > Potential victim has 90 days to remedy potential > weakness. > > Three warning letters in a three-year period and > the police inform your contents insurer. Bonkers

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But, in the days when councils are wanting to > spend as little as possible and even offload the > running of the parks to Friends of Parks type > groups and voluntary organisations, do we really > imagine this Council will have the funds and drive > to open up our Lido again? > I agree but perhaps an application can be made to the Heritage Lottery Fund? I wonder if the Friends of Peckham Rye Park have been contacted.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The overall population of London is up about 30% > in that period, so a 20% increase is respectable > in an area which was largely built by then. My > suspicion is that it's rocketed/recovered recently > too as 15 years ago - none of them flats in Goose > Green, flats/houses at the Top of Henslowe Road, > the Wood yard, all those by Sainsbury's and > opposite the station existed there's a fair few > properties in that lot alone...plus several other > new developments I don't think though the estates on Dog Kennel Hill and Champion Hill or the Lordship Lane Estate had been built in 1901 which must have increased the population of ED significantly. The population could possibly have been higher in the intervening years than the figure of just over 12,000 quoted in the 2011 census. To balance this, as P68 says, families were larger and some houses had multi family occupancy whereas today there are many dwellings occupied by just single people or couples.