Undisputedtruth

sideline mum!

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let's end this. My position has always been the > same. We disagree. That's the end of it. I'm happy to end discussions but I do wonder where you get your ideas/information. Certainly not from official sources.

At least you're beginning to understand the principles behind the new framework. A step forward to meaningful discussions compared to your previous stance where you had a completely different idea about the framework that was not very productive to discussions. Planning departments do not need to enter into any commercial lease negotiations, that's absurd. They simply set conditions to planning instead. While you may still have a disagreement with the interpretation of new framework, the New Economic Foundation have campaigned on the issues of Clone Towns for several years and have direct access to central government like all think tanks. So I'm more than willing to see NEF view of things. Central government gives guidance to how the framework should be interpreted. If local governments were left to their own device to interpret the new framework then pandamonium will break out for sure.

Two Champions Leagues, three Ligas, two Club World Cups, two European Super Cups, one King?s Cup and three Spanish Super Cups, these are the titles won by Bar?a in the last three and a half years. Bar?a has won 13 out 16 titles since Guardiola took command of the bench Fat zero is the number of titles won by Otta.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's probably why barca had no answer when > Chelsea parked the bus. Great tactics. > Chelsea rode their luck a few times while Barcelona missed a hat full of chances. Sometimes the better don't win. That's football. Most people would agree that Barcelona is one of the best teams in the world. Also Spain do not change their style either. Two Euro championships and a world cup medal.

Boderlands, can you change your link to this one http://www.bellenden.net/srug/news/campaign-save-our-services-victoria as the new transport minister is Theresa Villiers and the campaign for the SLL has moved on. I don't think the city requirements was the main reason for the axed SLL. TfL wanted to build a circular outer London train route.

EJTH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a shame that the library cannot become the > heart of the community again and if Tower Hamlets > can do it then surely Southwark can? That's the crux of the problem. Southwark officials have never been community focussed but rather self-serving idiots. I sometimes think that our Councillors have a difficult job in dealing with these officials.

I fully agree with first mate with his link. Suggest you read the document in the link first, Sidhue.

Try here Sidule http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2252/draft_dulwich_spd

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > WTF is all that about ? Unfortunately the days of communicating using paper cups and string are long gone. The Olympics is a world wide event and so they need to accommodate journalists and broadcasters with the latest technology.

Again, you're showing your lack of football knowledge once again. Teams like Barcelona and Rodgers' do not change their style of play even when they're losing. Speed of thought is more effective than just lumping the ball forward to the striker.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Undisputedtruth Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'm not really taking an active interest in > this > > thread, RD. > > > Really? I've not been posting much over the last few weeks. Still, if you can't understand why Carroll isn't suited for Rodger's style of play then I think I've made the right decision by not taking much of an active interest in this thread. I don't think I've seen a post that shows your understanding of football.

I'm not insulting you LM. Just pointing out your obvious failings as a way to correct your thinking. Here are part of minister's foreword. Our historic environment ? buildings, landscapes, towns and villages ? can better be cherished if their spirit of place thrives, rather than withers. You also need to read the New Economics Foundation website to further understand the background to the National Planning Policy framework http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/2012/04/02/time-is-running-out-for-clone-towns

A very good footballer rarely gives the ball away. Don't you know that, EP?

EP's last post isn't exactly football focus.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The library stock at Dulwich and Peckham always > seems a bit older compared to when I use > Westminster libraries. Not just older stocks but the quality of books are not particularly good either.

I think you're misundestanding the National Planning Framework (NPF). Not surprising as previous discussions have shown that your planning views are somewhat out of touch. No one ever said that NPF was the elimination of big busineses. You think that because you repeatedly failed to understand the policy. The NPF is about protecting high street assets such as your local butchers, fishmongers, bakers and delics from the likes of M&S. Perhaps you need to read the minister's foreword to understand the background behind the policy. No one has said that homes above the site should not be developed as long as they don't infringe on neighbours' right to privacy, quietness and light. Having fully read all of the documents and consultation replies then I can't see how this planning application can proceed in its present format.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Didn't arsenal build their 60,000 capacity > football stadium for ?200 million? Edit it cost > just under ?400,000.. I don't get that ?6.7 > billion olympic figure .... Cost of Arsenal stadium, with a capacity of 60,000, was projected to cost ?200m but final cost was more than doubled at ?470m. Olympic stadium - capacity 80,000 was projected to cost ?496m but final cost was ?428m, delivered on time and well below budget. eta: m to replace bn

Factor in ?2bn in sponsorship receipts, long term infrastructure investments, boost to British export markets, tourism and economic growth then the ?9bn total spend on the Olympics becomes good value. eta:tourism

Somehow, I don't think I'll miss EP's insightful knowledge on the game of football!

My understanding is that the stadium was built on time and to budget according to ODA. However, I'd like to see a complete breakdown of the total spending to ascertain whether there was an overspend on infrastructure.

I'm not really taking an active interest in this thread, RD. Too much playground football talk and not enough real understanding of the game. I'm more interested in the tactical side fo the game so I go elsewhere for that. I do agree with your earlier comments about Butland. But let's not forget Cleverley who rarely gives the ball away. For me, he's more of a footballer's footballer.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's an insane ammount of money for a few roads > and a stadium a copper box and a few temporary > sites. > > I'm in the wrong game! The figure also includes spending by several government departments investing as a result of the Olympic opportunities, transport infrastructure upgrades and counter-terrorism security. I suspect people here are confusing the way Public Accounts Committee calculates the cost of the games to the cost of just building stadium and venues.

Tower Hamlets have built libraries too but actually thought more about revolving their services around users' needs and saving money through efficiency while Southwark have not.

No LondonMix, the spirit of the framework is actually about protecting high street assets such as the local butchers, bakers, delis from the likes of a M&S. That is what Nicholas was saying earlier on. The M&S development have several flaws in its design that affects the immediate area and this is why the immediate local community is objecting the planning application.