thebeard

I use Capitalised words in a semi random WAY for the fun of it and to SOFTEN the blurb blurb of my ranting!!!!! Makes me feel better apologies if it confuses maybe it make what I?ve written require a second read ??? Many readers misconstrue what I?ve written. Maybe CAPITALS don?t help maybe they are beyond help. Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Listed buildings are identified by our appointed > nominees as buildings or other structures of > special architectural, historical or cultural significance. Was the building Listed before or after the current owner took ownership??? > > The concrete house undoubtedly falls into this > category as is demonstrated by the support of so many individuals on this forum. Just because is has a lot of support does not mean it is worth saving, if every thing which had a lot of support was treated that way a huge number of projects and developments would never happen. > > It would take a particular kind of idiot to think > that their views shouldn't be taken into account, > but it is understandable that 'cultural > significance' would be a subjective issue. > The circumstances and the TIME take to action the required action should be an important factor. Together with the ?cultural significance?. It is unreasonable to Blight a property and through SLOW action cause financial problems to any involved party the public purse included. > Nevertheless, once we've 'listed' a building the > owner and purchaser have legal and social > responsibilities to maintain our heritage. > Absolutely right TOO. Just get on with the business as rapidly and fairly as possible. > I can understand how frustrated owners would > become if their property was listed whilst they > were resident, but if you actually buy a house > that is already listed, you do so in the fully > knowledge of the responsibility you take on. > Absolutely!! Agreed > If you then deliberately let the property go to > ruin in order to demolish it and build a block of > pre-fab battery chicken coops then you're showing > a disregard for your society that calls into > question your right to be a part of it. > What about the OWNERS RIGHTS when the property is blighted and the value is slashed and it takes years for the authorities to make a decision a decision on compulsory purchase has no dead line. > If others then support this obnoxious behaviour, > then quite frankly they are contemptible. If we knew the full circumstances then we?d be in a better position to make a judgment. BUT From my experience the self serving conservation and planning professionals are happier for these thing to drag on and ON and ON because they will be employed dealing with the issue.. This I believe is why we are where we are now with this VERY important building. Is has nothing to do with keeping busy professionals busy busy busy earning a fine salary dealing with problems which should have been sorted many many years ago. NO NOTHING to do with JOBS for the BOYS ???????????????????????? Every one has to justify their position but lets be REASONABLE !!!!!!!! This Building should either have been SORTED out YEARS ago . ??? OR been DEMOLISHED It is a Disgrace all round ! The PLANNERS and THE OWNER/s The syetem is not COMMON sense and it is NOT SERVING the PEOPLE. The system is geared to keeping the Profesionals busy in WORK ?

lenk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you the owner? > > From your posts I would suggest you seemingly > don't know enough about planning to RANT ABOUT IT > ON THE INTERNET IN BLOCK CAPITAL OUTRAGE > > also, who made you keeper of the public purse > anyway? > > PS It's worth trying annother paper that isn't The > Express No I?m not the owner thankfully!!!!!! I would be quite happy if the public purse were used effectively. Which IT IS NOT! If this property is of such high social historical value then surely it SHOULD have been COMPULSORY purchased LONG LONG AGO!!!!!! How is it that the owner has been allowed to let it fall into such a disgraceful state.? I do NOT believe that the OWNER should be made to pay UNLESS he bought it in the full knowledge that it was a building of significant importance. In this case it appears the planners have failed to implement a suitable process. And THEY ?the planners? have FAILED in their duty to all of us to protect the property. Is this because the owner bought it prior to it having any historical value? If it was then the planners should have bought it and paid the owner the value plus any profit. A set time period should be in place for such important buildings. say within 6 months the Council should enforce a purchase at 10% above mkt value. Why should the owner suffer a financial loss because the property has historical value surely if it?s so important the least that could be done is to pay a fair market rate plus say 10% for the trouble. I always believed an English mans home was HIS castle not the property of others. But it appears as TIME goes on what YOU own and what I own is becoming the PROPERTY of OTHERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Busy busy BODIES being busy with the property of Others!!!

bob Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The owner of the propty is to blame and he should > foot the bill. > Bob S So the owner should be made to pay for a load of UNNECESSARY work, which would benefit no one? So if tomorrow a committee of Conservation specialists and Southwark planners decided that YOUR HOUSE was of special interest. You?d be happy to pay for refurbishment of the property to the condition it was in when it was first built out of your own pocket? Say ?200,000+? IT is the PLANNERS and THE COUNCIL NOT the OWNER who are responsible. The Councils polity and actions where this house are concerned have blighted the use of the house for many year they have been too slow to put into action a reasonable plan. What you are suggesting is that IF YOU own a property in LAW it is not YOURS somehow it belongs to the PEOPLE??????????? Bob You?re talking Gonads? m8 Yet more NONSENSE

lenk Wrote: > Have you heard of the Chinese Cultural > Revolution? > > Yeah, let's get rid of old stuff! It's like, > old... Yes I have and I agree with you. BUT this Concrete house could have been made structurally sound and been repaired ages ago rather than have been left to rot for years. Besides it is hardly the same as scriptures manuscripts paintings jewels. What will now happen is that an army of restoration specialists will spend ten to twenty times the cost necessary to make it habitable / usable again. My point is that if this is such an important building it should have been done many years ago. I very much doubt that keeping the remaining rotten concrete walls and rotten timber will be to the benefit of anyone except the conservation specialists and the ultra expensive restoration specialists. To you me and the rest of the population who will ultimately foot the bill for this nonsense we would not have known the difference if it had been rebuilt and rendered over with an identical finish and new timbers underneath. These specialists will spend an age and a fortune (time and money which would be better spent on real housing need!) to make the house right in all the places which will NEVER EVER be seen by anyone. It?s NONSENSE!!!!! Good luck to the specialist and their best mates the contractors ?Jobs for the boys? all on our hard earned money for something which will make not a jot of difference to any of our lives but we will end up paying for in one way or another. We have already had to suffer the DISGUSTING sight of the dilapidated piece of Dudu for the last god knows how many years. TOTAL NONSENSE!!!!!

UTTER nonsense Yet another fine example of Council PLANNING Stupidity! This building should have been demolished years ago! And rebuild using new modern materials. WHY on earth anyone in their right minds would want to save a concrete cancer rot box I have no idea it would serve no purpose. What is the POINT ?????? THIS could have been sorted many years ago rather than be allowed to turn into a planning farce. DISGUSTING waste of tax payer funds and a DISGUSTING waste of a brown field site which could have been put to much better use. Again I say another fine example of Council PLANNING Stupidity! Better late than never. What about the owners rights and what he will get paid in all of this STUPIDITY?

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > thebeard, do you never give yourself a headache > with all that SHOUTING? Nope... sorry IF IT GIVES YOU ONE.... B)

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has anyone complained to Southwark Council about > this directly? > I mean, rather than on here where no-one can do > anything? > Just askin'! I've phoned them many times about Zebra Crossings but nothing changes. Their idiotic scooter riders and their crusing Toyota Prius driving gangsters only care about bus lanes yellow lines and drop curbs oh and a wheel on the curb and double parking to ofload a ton of luggage or ikea purchases. We are trying but they just don?t care. It?s us the ENEMY and them THE MASTERS of us. The Idea was supposed to keep the traffic flowing and keep pedestrians safe. BUT It IS about REVENUE and JOB CREATION for THE COUNCIL. THEY SERVE THEMSELVES WE are just the PUNCH BAGS. Sad but true????????

Much as per Hazel Blair good riddance to bad rubbish. He appeared to be short of a few marbles if you ask me, very robotic and not too clever maybe? Brown can only blame himself for allowing these people to rise to such heights. The Germans did it in the 30s. The pity is he may have struck a blow which will leave us all with a far more incompetent government than the one we already have. Run by Alan Johnson! OMG.

I think we are living in what is effectively a police state on NOT run by the police it?s run by COUNCIL employed GANGS. I?ve said it before it?s about justifying position / department and keeping themselves busy. The more we stand for their nonsense the worst it will get. I really do believe you should be awarded a payment for the time and effort and the anxiety and stress you were forced unjustly into by council staff if they got it wrong. That is the least you should expect. Maybe the individual council worker should be put on a warning and risk losing their job if further incompetent episodes occur. As I said in my previous post they?d take a lot more care before issuing tickets and clamping. Its DISGUSTING WE should not have to put up with such an IMBALANCED system. I?ve had a number of fines where I should not have been fined in both Lambeth and Southwark. After the personal stress of 2 appeals and meetings with parking adjudicators (both of which I won) I realised that it was far cheaper just to pay the fines the process is totally biased to the point where it is just an employment system the adjudicator makes his living from the system it?s just a farce. They could make it far more efficient and implement common sense to parking but then they?d all be out of work and then we?d have a load more on income support and unemployment benefit. So all hail the Parking enforcement taxation and job creation system. Soon there?ll be a Parking Uni get your BA in parking folks.

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure we have not heard the last of HB. > Unfortunately. I fear you are most probably right. She?ll be like that other bad Labour SMELL Ken Livingstone Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww full ON Labour STENCH so many seem to like the pong. Though few will admit it. Do you think HB looks like the mother of the umpalumpas in Charlie and the chocolate factory? The original? When ever I see her on telly the Umpalumpa music starts off in my subconscious.

Common sense wins following much stress anxiety forum and letter writing. I?d still be fuming over all the time and effort they should have paid you ?100 for your troubles. Now that would have been a balanced approach. Maybe then the machines would have been checked before they clamped you. ITS Still an Upside down world here in S?^$*y money grabbing Southwark.!!!!!!!!!!! Hope you feel really great!

Why oh WHY does the BBC continue to bleat on about the obvious they make me quite sick, we see every intimate detail of MP expenses. Yet they (BBC) are often incapable of explaining to us viewers the basics of many other news stories the most recent Balkan war is a prime example, who what and why? MY GOD the PRESS in this country are so TWISTED and or INCOMPETENT! At least it?s keeping them away from the DOOM and GLOOM of the CC. What makes me really laught is the way that SKY and BBC news follow the same stories at almost exactly the same instant. Never though I?d say it but GMTV are more interesting, at least in the news slot. B) Happy now,,,,,

Shameless and arrogant. Horrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy She?s gone!

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn't the zig-zag offence a police rather than > council parking attendant matter, because of the > licence endorsements? Yes but the POLICE are far to busy these days AVOIDING any DIRECT CONFLICT situations. And for some strange reason the Southwark PARKING MAFFIA gangster?s would rather ticket someone for being ? inch on a yellow line or one wheel half on the curb or similar minor offences.

daizie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > on my knees Is that on the forum or ???? ummmmm sounds interesting. B)

A thorny issue thistle not make a vase?d improvement to arrangements.

No Doubt she has some issues feel sorry for her. She should have stayed home with her cats poor thing. I don?t like trucks. I?m cursed I like expensive Red or Yellow Italian cars.

I prefer the whole idea fighting on the forum, and making love on the streets. Pavement Queensbury rules apply of course. Where?s the whipped cream and honey on mi tongue lets go for it especially with any pretty small businesses assistants. I guess the most important thing is that we all have some fun and a little forum anger is good to keep us all on our toes? B)

Cool B)

Another sign that there is too much of OUR MONEY burning a hole it Southwark Councils pockets. B)

scott Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A business loan. Basic legal measures where taken. Woul you lend me 42k? I'm happy for you to take some complicated legal measures. what rate of interest ? B)

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > thebear, have you been to the John Lewis food hall > in Oxford Street? A cheese room. A room full of > cheese. My legs turn to jelly just thinking about > it. COR sounds like Heaven! Next time I?m up west I?ll check it out for sure. Talking of Jelly, early this year there was a glut of Quince and I tried quince jelly with cheese for the first time very good it was too mind you it made it very easy to eat loads of cheese,?.

Swinebury?s without doubt the worst at the hide the stop stocking the and don?t know where the ???? is. I hate the place! It?s all about getting us to try something different, which makes them more money and drives us potty! WHICH IS WHY I avoid it at every opportunity. It a real pity we don?t have a Waitrose. They are smaller stock a wider variety and almost always have everything in stock. I head over to Beckenham which is a pain but less of a pain than the Swinebury?s of ED.

ruffers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > thebeard Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ruffers Wrote: > > > > Even ignoring all the blah in that, you were > thinking she was expecting a machine to apply > common sense? > You're funny. Err no I was expecting the people who run the machines (who are paid for by all of us, to serve US) to use common sense and behave with a reasonable level of decency. We?re all funny in our own I guess you mean I?m funny peculiar and not HAHA. Cheers

?