Otta

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Didn't catch question time debates last night > but > > hear Milliband ruled out coallition with SNP. > > That's the end of his chances of being PM then. > > He did add though "not while the SNP plans another > referendum in the next 5 years". Exactly, I think his plan is to get Sturgeon to say they'll put that on hold for a bit, and then he can back track. BUT He got a slapping last night, and was too strong on saying who he wouldn't go in to partnership with. I have never liked Clegg one bit, but last night I did feel myself thinking that maybe just maybe he's not the self serving prick I've had him down as...

Jesus wept. PD, RD was just saying that it hasn't been a high scoring season like previous years. It wasn't a personal jab. Chill out, it's Friday.

Earplugs are your friend (quite possibly your only friend with an attitude like yours) http://www.boots.com/en/Pharmacy-Health/Health-shop/First-aid/Earplugs/

Haha, touche Loz.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Case proven. > > Fwiw. All together now... > > Because they are morons.! That's why Sue. It's entertainment from the Hulk.

Haha.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Several morons on here really didn't help. People just enjoyed winding you up because you were rude and called people morons for asking innocent questions, so they responded in kind. It was mildly ammusing.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- This election outcome will turn out to be their nightmare scenario, a minority government (probably without the most the seats or popular vote) propped up by the very nationalists who will more than likely wipe them out north of the border, anyone who suggests they are not heading for a very rocky five year term is living in dreamland. Perhaps a rocky 5 years is what is needed to shake things up a bit.

Or most jazz.

I think I heard an interview with him on Radio 4 a while back, and he seemed a really cool guy. I just hate jazz.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta, good find. Mr Kieran Rafferty, mentioned in > the Standard article, is exactly the same guy > involved with this development. Oh wow, I hadn't even realised that. Just saw this story yesterday and posted as an example of how developers in general are not above some pretty dodgy practise. Hadn't realised some of the same people were involved.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But the offices are not flats James? Surely you > are not suggesting they will surreptitiously and > in breach of authorised user, build them as flats, > not offices? > If so, I think that's a bit far fetched and > frankly not something they could achieve without > detection. > If that's not what you are suggesting, then your > point is not a good one - if the cut off for > Section 106 purposes is 9 flats then they are > entitled to ask to build 8, not 10 aren't they and > to instead build offices rather than flats? Every > developer is going to look to make maximum profits > within the rules, surely? You'd be surprised what some developers think of the rules http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/developer-told-to-rebuild-maida-vale-pub-brick-by-brick-after-site-torn-down-without-notice-10211892.html And they could still get away with it, the utter utter cunts.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can quite see they may do that, but it's not (as > I read his post) what James was suggesting. He > said they are describing flats as offices. Offices with their own bathrooms? Pretty unusual.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whether the result of incompetence or design, the > impression might be given that there is an unholy > alliance between developers and planning.... Southwark in bed with developers? Surely not!

I agree Loz. It's why it was a good thing to have Nock Griffin on QT a few years ago.

Well I was quite interested to attend hustings in Penge this evening, only to find it was cancelled. Not sure why, but found this http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/12910415.UPDATE__Another_Sydenham_and_Forest_Hill_hustings_cancelled_due_to_presence_of__far_right_wing__candidate/ Which is the same constituency, so possibly similar reasons.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why would anyone want to visit a cinema, a pub, or > a restaurant, when they have a TV, beer and some > food in their house? To be fair, there have been times when I've been out and wondered exactly this.

From BBC Website "Millwall striker Lee Gregory said on Monday that he hoped Championship relegation rivals Rotherham "would bottle it" in their fight against the drop. Big mistake. Big. Huge. Rotherham duly beat Reading 2-1 last night to ensure their survival and relegate the Lions. Millers boss Steve Evans, never short of a word or three, had these words of consolation for Gregory. "He said we've not got bottle. I've got 12 bottles of pink finest Champagne and we'll be drinking them for about a week," said Evans. "Look forward to League One, son, and keep your trap shut." Ouch." Kicking a man when he's down there.

Everton's back 4 have scored 9 goals this season. Liverpool's 4 recognised strikers have managed 8. Although to be fair Sturridge has hardly played. Balotelli is quality but was always a square peg in a round hole. Lambert probably regreats leaving the saints, and Borini just isn't good enough.

TJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This area of Lordship lane has so much potential to become a true destination in London. Think that's over egging the pudding a bit.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree Otta. Developers will only build > affordable homes if they are forced into it... > maybe this is a missed opportunity? Or maybe the powers that be at Southwark have absolutely no interest in affordable housing. One might even suspect they're on the side of the developers (see Elephant & Castle housing estates!).

Alcohol aisle for me.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta - yes I totally agree that we need more > affordable housing, but that needs to be a > government initiative. I don't think it's > realistic to expect a property developer (or > really any private business) to suddenly come over > all altruistic. Agreed, but then perhaps a local authority should do more to force their hands... A few years ago Greenwich council did a huge deal with Tasco to allow them to build a big store in Woolwich. But as a result Tesco also had to tart the area up a fair bit, and build a certain number of homes for social housing plus a great big new office building for the LA. That seemed like a good deal for the community and the area. I'm sure Tesco would have rather have just built their shop and some luxury apartments.

That's shocking considering the Enfield situation has no bearing on DHFC / Margate.

I would have no problem with an extra floor for flats if they were going to be affordable. Bit the term "penthouse flats" just shows the sort of person they have in mind.