Earl Aelfheah

That's fair Miga. I do hope that Mark's will try to find new jobs for the Iceland staff effected by this.

Let's hope they get convicted. Motorcycle theft is a big problem in the area.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sure, I accept what you're saying with regards the > attractions of low price, poor quality processed > food. But it comes at a pretty terrible cost to > health. For that reason I'm not particularly keen > to mourn Iceland's passing. That's not to say that > M&S is much better. .... btw, I do realise that this sounds a little sanctimonious. To be clear, it's not that I'm against people being able to make their own choices, or that I don't understand the pressures on someone working double shifts and juggling childcare on low pay. It's just that I can't find it in my heart to mourn Iceland.

TUPE doesn't apply here, so the staff have no protections. I think Otta's idea about writing to M&S suggesting that they look to re-employ the Iceland staff is a great one.

Sure, I accept what you're saying with regards the attractions of low price, poor quality processed food. But it comes at a pretty terrible cost to health. For that reason I'm not particularly keen to mourn Iceland's passing. That's not to say that M&S is much better. As I said, if you were talking about the cheap wholesale places, or fresh food stalls (which are fairly abundant in Peckham) being forced out of business by 'gentrification', then I would be 100% with you. Likewise Lidl - which does sell 'proper' food at low prices.

... just to add - last survey I saw about this, Iceland were actually more expensive on Frozen than their competitors (although this may have changed).

I'm not convinced that Iceland is particularly cheap. It has a few very good value basics (milk being the main one), but actually a lot of the food is really poor value - heavily processed, high fat / salt. People are picking a couple of things Iceland do offer at a good price and making out like the whole operation is some kind of hero to people on a budget. I would say they're closer to a villain if anything. People on a budget don't need to be sold poor quality, bad value frozen meals - and this is Iceland's core business. M&S is arguably very similar in many ways (heavily processed, 'value added' (aka ripoff) ready meals) - but at least they're generally flogging the stuff to people who can afford to waste their money. The caricature of Iceland as a life line to those on a budget doesn't stand up IMO. Lidl maybe, independent grocers and wholesale places certainly - Iceland - not so much.

Like the idea of the street artists project getting involved.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Doesn't this just translate to: > 1. From my memory I reckon I had a great time back > in the day. > 2. You lot who haven't lived round here as long as > me will never understand that. > 3. Only I can really appreciate the way things > were, once, according to my memory. > 4. No matter how much you like ED at the moment, > my memory tells me that it was better back in my > day, according to my memory, regardless of who you > are and what you know. > 5. The best time has gone and all that's left is > shit. > 6. I am unable to move on, times have changed, but > I cannot and will not adapt to it. > 7. I can blurt-out whatever I like to talk-up the > past / put-down the present, but you can't > challenge my view, because you're not me and only > I know the truth. > 8. You're all wrong and I'm all right. > 9. If you challenge me then you're a bully and > part of a clique. > 10 If you challenge me have no grounds to do so > because you're not me. > 11. Back to 1. And Repeat. Ad Infinitum. Yes, nicely summarised

Iceland does some OK stuff. Their milk is cheap. But mainly it is processed food, cheap but not great value. It's a massive chain same as MandS. I have a lot more sympathy with independent places in Peckham being driven out (who generally sell good quality, low cost produce than Iceland. lm not much of a fan of marks, but probably would use it more than Iceland.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's just a bit of a punch up and then everyone > shakes hands and gets a round in. What has this > world come to when you can't even experience an > authentic bust-up in the local? Jeez. > > Louisa. louisa, I'm sorry, but your romanticising of the past is getting silly. I remember only too well the kind of pubs you're describing. The casualisation of violence was never a good thing. And although it may have appeared that everyone shook hands and moved on, a lot of those kind of guys weren't very nice... many a pissed up bloke who had been humiliated in a pub brawl would take violence home at the end of the night to feel like a big man again. I'm glad that whole negative culture has largely died out.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even used to happen in The Plough in the 80's > > Was the regular floorshow and scrap.. Just a bit > of light Cabaret. > > Same as the Foresters. Always the same people. > Locals who I knew so they did not do me any harm. As long as they left you alone, then sure, why not enjoy some thug knocking ten bells out of some other poor soul. What a laugh.

If your idea of a good pub is one where a small group of regulars beat up anyone they don't know in the toilets, then we've pretty different ideas of a good night out. Personally, I dont find bullying, intimidation and violence particularly entertaining, but each to their own I guess.

councils have legal obligations to house people in good quality accommodation (quite rightly). they are not allowed to borrow money to build new homes. They are forced them to sell the properties thy do have, to tennents, at huge discount. At the same time, they are having their budgets cut. Whilst this is going on, the government pursues policies which seek to bolster (if not inflate) house prices in the private sector. You then have incompetent local politicians looking to huge multinational developers for answers. The taxpayer is never going to come out of this well and neither are those desperately I need of an affordable home. These consequences are the result of policy. It doesn't mean that someone in Westminster has written a bill which explicitly calls for the poor to be displaced.

This thread has made me feel like a right booze hound. Oh well, I'm off to the pub.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If you look at what's happening, for example, at > the Heygate, then Social Cleansing doesn't seem > > that hyperbolic. > > You can find occasional examples of anything, but > that doesn't go to prove a wider policy. There is > no policy to socially cleanse London - it's just a > side-effect of other policies. Which leads onto > (and kind of agrees) your other comment... The Heygate is actually a fairly good example of what's happening in many parts of inner London. I don't agree that there is a government policy to socially cleanse London, but the consequences of decisions made in Westminster are played out at a local level and this is what you get.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- If you are > completely for or completely against > privatisation, then you are just an ideologue. > > I am a big fan of government services and a big > opponent to government handing out money, > generally because it doesn't work. Take housing > benefit. All it does it throw fuel onto a very > big bonfire and pretty much fails to achieve what > it is supposed to. Far better to build more > social housing and successfully accommodate a > fewer number of people, than to throw a lot of > money at a lot people and fail to achieve > anything. I agree with the above completely. I am not against privatisation in all cases. I do think that the Conservatives have an extremely ideological approach to 'shrinking the state', which often is not pragmatic and does not add up to value for money. Why re-privatise the East Coast mainline which was making a profit and bringing money into the exchequer for example? Why force councils to sell off social housing at massive discounts, only to have to rehouse people in privately owned stock, at hugely increased cost?

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've even heard of people having a drink when they > pick their children up from Nursery .. > > DulwichFox Err, not sure I should own up to it, but yes, I've done this too.... swung by the Great Exhibition on the way back from nursery for an apple juice and a packet of crisps (for the kids) and a pint (for me). Starting to feel like a rather bad parent.

... but my main issue is the failure to see the bigger picture. You can't talk about reducing dependency on state intervention and at the same time pursue policies which increase house prices, depress wages and see public services delivered through more complex, less accountable and more expensive mechanisms.

If you look at what's happening, for example, at the Heygate, then Social Cleansing doesn't seem that hyperbolic.

DulwichFox - that's from one of them blowin' boutiques no? Don't tell me you're turning to the darkside.

Sounds like there is some ambiguity here, maybe I'll hold off catching that flight to the Costa del Crime.

Jeez, I was feeling suitably admonished before, now I'm wondering whether I ought to hand myself in to the Police.

To clarify, I did say the individual concerned sounded like a prick (based on the account posted). That said, It was a flippant and unnecessarily offensive comment and I apologise.

dimjim79 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As an aside I hope it was Pale Ale and not Tenants Export. Beavertown Gamma Ray in my case.