LondonMix

Regarding why locally grown food is not always 'greener' please see the link below. Production techniques / natural resources have a significant impact on the amount of fossil fuels required to cultivate produce. These differences can wipe out transport miles differences (you can search for the case study of Swedish local tomatoes vs imported Spanish ones). http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6064

Yes, I have to read the doc more carefully but from what I understand they want the SE to have fewer full blown A+E's with admission capability based on current demand. The remaining A+E hospitals should each have specific specialties (so you will be taken to the hospital specialising in strokes if you are having a stroke). It think they allocated A+E's to the hospitals that were furthest along the route of having the best specific established specialist care unit. Don't take my word though as I haven't read it in detail, nor am I saying their decision might not be wrong. I just think jumping in with comments on income-tax isn't neccessary in the context of this debate.

I'm not sure what's not clear. Food being produced organically or locally doesn't mean it is less damaging to the environment. Regarding organic food's environmental impact you can read the link to a recent Oxford university study in my earlier post. Regarding locally grown food there have been a few articles on this over the last few years. I'm on my phone but will try to find a link this evening.

Not every decision is as simple as income tax cuts for the wealthy. This trust is a disgrace. Not only is it hemorrhaging money, the health outcomes for the community it serves are significantly worse than neighboring areas. Do you honestly think everything should go on as is regardless of the case for breaking up the current trust and handing it over to NHS trusts that are delivery much better service (from a health perspective to the community and a cost perspective for the tax payer)?

I've just skimmed the full draft recommendation and this seems to be the reason in simple terms. Lewishim will continue to have a 24/7 urgent care facility which is basically A&E cases that don't require hospital admission. Currently 77% of visits to Lewisham's A&E fall into that category so the logic is that the other hospitals can absorb the remaining 23% of cases that do need full admission. http://www.tsa.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/TSA-DRAFT-REPORT-WEB.pdf 157. The urgent care services at Guy?s Hospital and Queen Mary?s Hospital Sidcup are already well established. The draft recommendation is for University Hospital Lewisham to have a 24/7 urgent care service that will treat around 77% of the people currently attending the A&E and urgent care services there45. This is because the vast majority of patients with urgent care needs do not need to be admitted. The types of conditions the services will be able to treat include: ? Illnesses and injuries not likely to need a stay in hospital; ? X-rays and other tests; ? Minor fracture (breaks); ? Stitching wounds; ? Draining abscesses that do not need general anaesthetic; and ? Minor ear, nose, throat and eye infections.

Sorry, but food being produced locally doesn't mean it will be cheaper to produce / sell or that it will require less fossil fuels to be cultivated (including shipping). The reason why some imported food is cheaper is because it is easier to produce in other parts of the world due to climactic conditions, labor costs etc (thus requiring less fossil fuels during the cultivation process). Neither organic food nor locally grown food is by definition more environmentally friendly than their non-organic / imported counterparts. It is just not that simple.

In the article it says Kershaw recommends that the Department of Health is supposed to provide additional funding to the two SLHT hospitals with PFI arrangements to cover those costs until those contracts end. Therefore, it doesn't appear the decision to close Lewisham A&E is related to that debt. I don't like reading the comments section as its usually filled with incorrect information (which is just one of its sins). Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And that's the thing I still haven't quite > understood - despite reading plenty of news > articles. On what basis does it make sense for > Lewisham Hospital (which isn't in debt) to close > its A&E department rather than one of the poorly > performing SLHT hospitals? Is it that the > facilities are better at one of the SLHT hospital > or is it about creating a business model which > allows SLHT to service its ongoing debts (PFI in > particular). I'm not looking for an academic > debate about the rights and wrongs of PFI but if > anyone can explain why it makes business sense to > shut down a (by all accounts) well run and > profitable hospital facility at Lewisham - I'd be > grateful to understand the rationale better.

Yeah, I didn't even bother to read the comments. I understand the SLHT run hospitals will be now taken over be well run hospitals like Kings. However, I was wondering what the details were. For instance, Lewisham, another well run hospital, will close its A&E as part of its takeover of one of SLHT's hospital. It doesn't appear that any immediate loss of service in either Kings or the Princess Royal hospital is anticipated but it would be good to get a more detailed explanation of the takeover and its implications.

What are the implications of King's College hospital taking over Princess Royal hospital?

Well, recent research suggests that there really aren't any significant nutritional benefits for organic produce. Regarding safety, both organic and non-organic produce have pesticide residues below current safety standards but if you believe current safety standards aren't robust enough then I can see why you'd go for organic. While organic farms are more environmentally friendly per unit of land, they actually use more energy etc per unit of production as yields are so much lower. So that organic produce you are eating on average requires more resources to cultivate and therefore creates more greenhouse gases during its cultivation. I think the strongest arguments for buying organic concern farming practices (free range etc) and, if you think so, taste (which of course is entirely subjective). However, it?s clearly not the panacea some believe it to be. http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/september/organic.html http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120904.html Jeremy Wrote: > > Anyway, I generally avoid organic stuff, because I > don't want to pay the extra price, and I am > cynical about the benefits.

Not at all. See the thread below where they explained what was going on. They had to close for 6 months as the freeholder wanted to renovate the space above the shop at the end of their lease. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?30,952619,page=1

Yes exactly. Additionally areas that are more affluent (Clapham) and less affluent (Peckham) both have big chains already because one of the main issues determining if a chain can takeover a shop is the size of the retail units available. Cyclemonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, i think that point was in reply to those > concerned that further gentrification of ED would > lead to more chains. It was pointed out that > Peckham has loads of chains and cannot really be > described as gentrified. Me, i like the variety > of both. Happy to shop in the independents of ED > and Nunhead. I also go to Khans for rice and > spices, superdrug for bath stuff and > Asda/sainsburys for other stuff (Asda has great > Napolina pasta and tomato offers at the mo.

Mr Liu is very good.

Exactly! The idea there is a specific link between gentrification and chains is totally incorrect. With that said, Peckham already has more than most people realise and I do think the regeneration works will be positive for this entire part of South London.

Totally agree. I live in East Dulwich but commute via Peckham and all the shops people fear will come to ED due to gentrification have been on Rye Lane for ages. I mentioned Primark but Clarks, Super Drug and WH Smith plus a large assortment of international fast food chains have been on Rye Lane are all there too (again because of the appropriate sized retail units). Peckham / Rye Lane has never been totally abandoned. Cyclemonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > also remember Peckham is not like Shoreditch in > the 1980s and 1990s, although it has suffered it > was not almost completely abondoned by communities > in the way that Shoreditch was - i remember > walking through Shoreditchin the 1990s and there > was nothing - no chain stores, no food shops, no > banks, no local authoirty services, derelict > buildings and abondoned pubs - Peckham has never > got that bad. We also have an exisitingg mixed > community, families who live very close to Rye > lane, thriveing local businesses so i'm not sure > that an all night free for all night life will > develop in the same way it did in Shoreditch in > the 1990s

Yes, the new links and also the restoration of Peckham Rye station over the next couple of years will have a dramatic impact on the feel of Rye Lane. They will be clearing away all of the small shops near the entrance of the station to reopen the rather grand Victorian courtyard that fronts the station?the shops are currently being bought out. Also the old grand waiting room which has been closed off with the windows bricked off is being restored and will reopened. If nothing else, some of the true architectural beauty of Rye Lane will be revealed.

I don't think lots of chains will open up. Some will of course whenever a large enough retail unit becomes available but most of the shops in ED are far too small to accommodate the necessary footprint virtually all chains need. It doesn't matter how gentrified the area becomes, the space contraint won't change unless planning rules change to allow much larger retail units to be developed. As this entire part of South London becomes more affluent, chains are much more likely (to continue) to operate in Peckham as the retail units are appropriate for that use. Chains are not a rich / poor thing. In poorer areas, cheap chains open, in more affluent areas, chains that target a richer demographic will open. McDonalds, KFC, Primark etc are all already on Rye Lane. Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What Jeremy said. > > Personally I hope there is a KFC, but not if it > puts Favourite out of business! > > In all seriousness though, Green & Blue is > closing, and one of the reasons was greedy > landlords. I've said this elsewhere, but to me it > looks like a vicious circle. Place gets > "gentrified" (I hate that word), lots of nice (and > expensive) little independents open. More and more > people hear about it, prices go up and up, area > gets written about in th press, prices continue to > rise. Landlords see it as a chance to squeeze some > more money out of people, until the only > businesses that can afford it are the very > businesses that the people don't want. > > My absolutely honest opinion is that Lordship Lane > is a bit crap anyway, and I wouldn't mind seeing a > couple of big name shops there (as well as some > indies).

Thanks, interesting. DavidH Scoop (on Melbourne Grove) came on the forum a while back and said they had to close for a short while. They want to reopen but they might need to find new premises if I remember correctly. PSJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't think it is a B&Js. Possibly Haagen Dazs. > Sally mentioned to me that the ice cream company > had a branch in Hampstead. Might be a Marine Ices > or Oddono. Can't see it working there though...

The rumour is Ben and Jerry's but who knows... I hope its scoop

Two new shops on Forest Hill Road in a couple of months. It seems with the opening of the French Cafe that side of ED is starting to attract new business.

You have a distorted view about taxes. The top 10% of earners in the UK pay 55.3% of all income tax collected which is significantly higher than their share of income earned. This is because the UK has a progressive tax system meaning that both the percentage and absolute tax burden increases the more you earn. Pretty much every service offered in the UK is subsidized by high rate tax payers, and I agree this is the right way to organise the tax system. However, your argument that any government spending is being subsidised by low earners is patently untrue. The taxes paid by the average worker cannot even cover the government services they use.

I think the 80 figure is just families with 1 and 2 year olds rather than general support as its only that segment who can officially register support. Within the population of ED, I wonder what percentage of suitable families that amounts to? Maybe 15-20%?

Fox, I"m sorry things didn't work out for your business and don't doubt some landlords think they would make more money converting retail space to resi use. However, if there was no increase in footfall, the higher rents couldn't be paid and the reality is the landlords are finding new tenants willing to pay the rents and signing leases with them. Vacancy isn't increasing. What you say simply doesn't conform with the current reality. DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Landlords want rid of the shops. They raise rents > to oust shop owners so they can be converted > into flats. Like some Pubs.. > > How do I know this. > > Well I had a shop at 13 Uplands Road in 1993 20 > years ago.. > > It was called Seasonal Supplies. I was paying > ?175.00 per week rent + gas, electric, water > rates, insurance.. etc. > > ?175.00 was a lot of money in 1993. > > 13 Uplands Road was converted to 2 flats in > 1994. > > I was offered a short lease for ?14,000 but was > not prepared to take the risk due to poor sales > being that the shop was isolated and North Cross > road was deserted at that time. > > So I do know what I am talking about. > > Fox.

Wow, you're rude and angry! Not sure why I am surpeised. Sorry I didn't pick up on the fact you'd decided to speculate on a non-existent version of Lordship Lane... richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You seem to be in a different world. Read. If it > gets to look. I repeat if it gets to look. No one > has said it looks like rye lane > > > Green shops selling water saucers for passing > doplhins is limted footfall. Shops have to sell > goods people want or they close. > > For the moment the goods offered are what people > want if they are not wanted footfall will fall > rents will fall and a new shop will appear with a > better rental lease > > Areas will succeed on their own merit not by > hyping them up all the time > > Perhaps too many people have too much invested. > > Ed has always been a pleasant place and after 68 > years living here it does not need the hype to > survive

And you think ED is starting to look like Rye Lane and has declining footfall? Given how busy the shops and restuarants are I can't see how that could be true. Declining footfall would lead to reduced rents rather than rising rents. What are you basing your assertions on?