ednerd

For the record, I have no connection whatsoever to this gym and was principally referring to the gym instructors/ fitness experts that are meant to be in the gym offering people advice on a variety of health related matters, and prescribing exercise programmes, despite only being qualified in Exercise 101 (as opposed to class teachers, who are normally self employed and you can therefore often find decent ones in even 'budget' facilities). All I am saying is be very wary of taking advice from individuals with only a base level of qualification, particularly if you have a injury or any other health issue - if you're fit as a fiddle it doesn't really matter where you go, but some people do need more guidance and care, and a facility such as this seems to be MUCH better equipped to offer appropriate support for those who need (or just want) it and have the means to pay for it. Unfortunately, it stands to reason that the best qualified instructors are not likely to be employed by the cheapest facilities. And by the way, every time I have been in Fusion, there has been a distinct whiff about it.

I have not yet seen the gym and probably won't be joining for a number of reasons, but I would like to make a small point on the issue of cost. As anyone who has worked in the 'gym industry' knows, membership fees for major chains and council run facilities such as Fusion are kept low as a result of the very low salaries paid to gym staff (in London, your average gym instructor probably gets a FT annual salary of between 13,000 - 18,000 GBP). I'm not necessarily saying they deserve to be paid more as inevitably, as market forces would adjust gym salaries to higher levels if people were willing to pay more for their gym memberships - and based on most comments on this forum, it seems this is not something people seem willing to do). However I am always amazed how people will pay 80 quid to get their hair coloured, or around the same for a couple of rounds of overpriced drinks, but when it comes to their physical wellbeing, seem happy to pay as little as possible and settle for some underpaid, under-qualified gym bunny and a stinky over-crowded facility. Anyway, to each his own. I personally wish these guys all the best.

I won't pretend to have the profound understanding of addiction of other forum members, nor the entirely selfless ability to put the needs of drug addicts above my own desire to raise my family in a pleasant and safe area. The fact is that there is a clear association between drug addiction and anti-social/ criminal behaviour (although, clearly not all addicts are criminals). I am not against such a facility per se, and agree that the steps Ko has outlined are required. Nonetheless, in order for me to change my ?nasty selfish? position, the evidence to show that a) this facility is necessary in our area, b) that negative implications for local residents are likely to be negligible, and c) that the location is the most appropriate available, would need to be extremely compelling.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > ... its appropriateness and the > > implications for local residents? > > > Who and what decides whether something is > appropriate or not for a particular area? Usually, it is local government, subject (one hopes) to consultation with various stakeholders, including local residents. > > What are the implications for residents? Ever > thought of looking at other areas in and around > the UK which have these drop-in centres local to > them? Yes, if you would re-read the first few posts on this thread, there seems to be some indication that in other areas the presence of such centres has led to increased crime and anti-social behaviour in the surrounding area, which does seem entirely plausible.

AllforNun, ignoring your 'wide boy chatter' about loads-a-money etc, as, a) don't fully understand the references(too young and wasn't in the UK during period you mention), and b) they are irrelevant, have you any thoughts on the location of the facility, its appropriateness and the implications for local residents? Or was your only intention to state the obvious: "that it's a facility for people, with a heroin addiction, who may actually live in ED"?

Difficult to fully rebut that one, Louisa, as so many jumbled, slightly illogical points to tackle simultaneously. Notwithstanding, it does seem reasonable to suggest that I would prefer that the less pleasant elements of society (paedophiles, drug addicts etc), were not a dominant theme during my child's formative years. For the avoidance of doubt, yes, the point I am making is that I would prefer that such elements were not in ED at all. If that viewpoint limits me to a life of friendship with Daily Mail readers, so be it. And by the way, how very kind and enlightened of you to wish addiction upon one of my family in order to help you to make your point.

Incorrect, my friend. It's the FT for me. (That's the pinky orange one). Now get off this thread and go and help a junkie!

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ednerd the whiter than white character who has > never had any addiciton issues, should perhaps > consider the future. Any current or potential > offspring who may well be inclined to follow a > certain path in later years, are they condemned to > the same narrow minded attitude? I hope not. If > the new service isnt offered in ED, where else > will it go? Louisa - perhaps they could use your living room, or perhaps set up a marquee in your backyard? I guess you dont care as long as it > doesnt damage your "decent residential area". Correct.

As one who has frequented my fair share of local cafes with my sprog in tow, I would personally support the Chandelier, even if it became overtly anti-enfant(But, I'm not sure their business will be remotely viable if they do). Babies and kids can be annoying, for sure. There are plenty of places in ED where little 'uns are tolerated. It may be nice to have somewhere to go sans my or anyone else's noisy sprog and oversized buggy. However, I do agree that they need to make their position clear. In the meantime, it is certainly reasonable to suggest that anyone under 5 stays well away from those beautifully upholstered armchairs. PS Domitianus, nice point, well made.

While we're at it, let's stick up for child abusers and wife-beaters, shall we? Surely, they too are damned by faulty genetic programming. For the record, in fact, I have had no addictions to speak of; not nicotine, not alcohol, not the gee-gees, nor even the ubiquitous grossly-obese-through-excessive-love-of-turkey-twizzlers-addiction. I think the hypocrites among us may be the ones even attempting to put forward a credible argument that the facility that is the subject of this thread would do anything whatsoever to enhance the lives of vast majority of ED residents.

Louisa, more or less offensive than children in le Chandelier, or much of a muchness?

I'm still slightly perplexed by the how much 'forum-mileage' has come out of the clearly ludicrous idea that drug users and insulin dependant diabetics are comparable at any meaningful level. My opposition to the scheme outlined, particularly in a residential area during the hours suggested is vehement. The small grain of sympathy I have for their addiction is eclipsed by my desire to walk home late at night without making the acquaintance of a gaggle of smackheads. Although I begrudgingly concede that such facilities ought to be provided 'somewhere', I'm not sure that I could conjure a LESS appropriate place for one than next door to a nursery in a reasonably 'decent' residential area. There are plenty of other appropriately scummy areas in South East London where surely these individuals may feel more at home. And before the inevitable barrage of abuse from those patronising do-gooers among you comes flying in my direction, may I suggest that we agree to differ? I?ll use my time signing the petition and ranting to anyone who?ll listen about my opposition, and perhaps you can pop out for an evening stroll, befriend yourselves a drug addict and make provisions for a nice proportion of disposal income (normally spent on organic chicken and Guardian subscriptions) to be directed towards ?those less fortunate?.

Hey - we had a thread on this a while ago. May want to try the search function, but if it comes up with nothing, here are the options I am aware of: 1. Sitaram Partnership runs classes at Kings College Hospital, their house in Streatham and the Brockwell Lido (I think they do St Tommy's as well). Would recommend, but you may have to try a few classes: http://www.sitaram.org/ 2. Dulwich Therapy rooms 3. JAGS Fitness centre in Dulwich 4. I think the place above Soup Dragon does something as well. In this hood, she'll be spoiled for choice. All the very best. Yoga for preggies is great!

Humpf, SimonM, music snob. You may snigger at my ignorance, but I bet you've got more than a few Westlife CDs kicking about your abode, and though you may not admit it, word on the street is that you know both words AND actions to Steps' 'Tragedy'. If my suspcions are unfounded I can trade you Westlife's Greatest Hits for one of this Trenet character's. PS 5th day in a row at le Chandelier today. I am officially French. But clearly, still a philistine.

Ultraconsulatancy, I am very happy to defer to the considerably better advised musical opinions of others. I cannot say I have heard of this Charles and Django, although they do sound like fellow nerds.