LondonMix

Is it any bigger than the co-op though? With the huge Sainsbury nearby, M&S can't hope to compete as a major supermarket for major weekly shopping. Surely, people will shop there as they do at the co-op, except they'll also have the option for M&S convenience food, lunch stuff and picnic food. Also, the co-op is horrid so they'll have to benefit of fresh produce and a clean store... M&S Food, with very few exceptions only sell their own brand products (only started selling Coke in recent times). Its not like you go there to buy nappies, toothpaste etc. Maybe the Food Hall format has changed but that's how I remember it. Happy to be corrected though as I know these shops are always tinkering with their offerings. Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Louisa, I do agree, it's not been thought out in > terms of practicality - it seems they were more > interested in maximising financial return (hence > removal of the cark park). > > As a massive food store, it's akin to opening a > Sainsbury's and not allowing for any parking. > > A convenience store implies you're just picking up > one or two items and can hoof it without a car. > A huge shop implies a weekly shop and I'll be > darned if I'm carrying anything myself on that > scale. > > I'd probably pop into the carwash and go shopping > then.

This thread, like the others that proceeded it are hilarious. There are about 10 M&S stores already in South London within a few miles of Lordship Lane. Many of these are much larger than the one opening in East Dulwich. This is hardly some major destination shop for South London. This store will attract the same geographical pull that already comes to ED (Dulwich Village, West Dulwich, Forest Hill / Honor Oak, Peckham Rye, Nunhead). People will come in for picnic, lunch food, and convenience food mostly. It will also steal the co-ops business (people popping in for a few things but not a major shop). Overall, I think it will increase footfall on Lordship Lane (the more reasons people have to come out, the more likely they will). That's why some of the independent business owners came out in support of the M&S opening on the previous thread. Will that increase parking pressure-- maybe a bit but most people won't drive as most people didn't drive to Iceland and don't drive to the Co-Op. Will this shop be busier than the Iceland and make Lordship Lane busier. Yes, probably. That's the outcome of opening businesses people want to use.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > sela Wrote: Not being able to pay market rent (that another retailer will pay) means you don't have enough customers. Rent is part of your business costs. > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > BigED who will have Iceland? M&S? I think they > > closed as not enough customers. it's all > business > > minded those decisions. > > > Iceland were forced out due to rent rise, they > were more than making enough money and didn't want > to leave. The landlord just wanted a more > prestigious retailer and to redevelop the site. > > Louisa.

It doesn't have to be private developers. The article is simply assuming that even with the 50% affordable housing requirement, private developers (due to economies of scale and general efficiency) will be the highest bidders to join the joint-venture with TFL. That's not unreasonable to assume. Anyhow, raising the affordable housing requirement (as was his pledge) was always going to reduce land values. It appears though that his focus will just be government land rather than imposing a new 50% requirement across all of London. Otherwise there would be no legal problem. Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting. It also shows though how law and > planning rules are getting in the way of any > meaningful attempts to do something. Also why does > it have to be private developers who build on the > land? Why can't it be housing associations or even > councils the land is sold to?

I should have added in that excluding au pairs, 'mother's help' tends to be the cheapest option (in general).

Have you tried the one in West Dulwich. Its pretty amazing. I'd go there even if the old one were still there. Northeastview Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I miss the garden centre, just saying...

Sorry for what happened to the girls but that hardly makes ED 'not safe'. We are in London. Bags get stolen all over London all the time. I'm not sure ED has ever been a rural idyll free from opportunistic thievery in any of our lifetimes. alica Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Two young students who work in Potager juice bar ( > corner of the forest hill and dunstans road > opposite Peckham park) were robbed today in broad > daylight. Their own bags ( with all their personal > belongings) were stollen while they were actually > serving customers. Shocking! Apparently it happens > in late afternoon just before their closing > time.Police were there yet it is very unlikely > they find those thieves or girls bags. East > Dulwich doesn't seems to be save neighbourhood > anymore.

Elphinstone's Army Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A craft shop is restoring independents to our high > street, > a counter balance to the changeling behemoth now > in our midst. Its one chain replacing another chain (I assume you mean M&S). Nothing has changed except M&S is slightly more upmarket. But let's not exaggerate: Eltham and Brixton both have M&S's as o many other locations in South London. I don't think its nearly as upmarket as some people seem to suggest.

Exactly-- I'm not sure how the co-op stay open. They are terrible.

Live in nannies are more affordable as you are providing their housing which compensates for reduced wages. It also typically includes longer hours (as there is no travel time) and 2 nights babysitting. A mother's help is basically a more experienced aupair. They shouldn't have sole charge of children under 2 (so no newborns) but are expected to much in a bit more than a typical au pair regarding household chores. If you and your partner both work full time, this probably isn't the right option for you. A nanny-share (where you share with another family) is cheaper than having your own live-out nanny though the exact costs will depend on the nature of the share (how many kids each family has etc)

It depends. Are you installing a downstairs loo, bifold doors, moving your boiler, under floor heating? What kind of windows will be in the extension (velux or more expensive)? Do you want it build in London stock or cement render? Will you need to relocate your manhole? Does your gardening need leveling? Will there be any architect fees? 60k is a pretty basic budget for small side extension (including the kitchen) but it really varies and can be much more. Good luck.

Louisa! When did you get out of confinement? Welcome back :) Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No Lowlander it is not snobbish, and if you read > back over what I wrote I was saying I am not > adding pressure to existing bus services which > others rely on, I choose to walk or drive because > I am able to do so. Would you rather me clogging > up the buses when I don't need to then? Anyway, > back on topic. The PO is a resource for everyone > not just car or bus passengers. > > Louisa.

The Lloyd's monthly saver, is still decent. The rate recently dropped from 4% to 3% gross but in the current environment that's still decent. The max you can keep in there is 5k I think but between you and your partner that's an additional 10k and a decent gross interest rate. Also, for basic rate tax payers, the rules on tax of interest are changing (favorably) so might be better than many saving ISA's out there if either of you pay the basic rate of tax. Trying to find a sensible place for savings in the current economic environment is a challenge even for professional investors so I'd say stick to what you are doing until you buy a place and then move towards longer term investing strategy incorporating more risk.

I don't give money to the homeless anymore, but I do buy food occasionally. I saw a guy too weak to even beg near Waterloo a while ago and he looked near death, covered in terrible sores etc. I went to Pret and got him tomato soup and bread which he seemed grateful for. On the other hand, I've bought food for homeless people (in NY) and after initially accepting it I've seen them throw it away (they'd picked what the wanted from a street vendor) so its impossible to know who is really hard up. There are a lot of scam artists out there.

We had our loft done and the difference in cost between a window and a juliette balcony was 700 quid. 1,200 for the french doors and balcony, 500 for the window. We opted for the window primarily for space planning reasons. Its also not the master bedroom in our house so it felt unnecessary. With the velux windows and main window open you can get a nice amount of cross ventilation and that room is always flooded with light. We used the savings to put in an extra window in the stairwell which I initially didn't think we needed but I'm glad our architect pushed us to do so as it makes the 1st and 2nd floors much more bright and lively. I also wished I'd installed a water softner when we were redoing the heating and plumbing systems but beyond that no regrets one way or another.

Yes, but how is a traffic warden supposed to know a gate is never used. Being blocked out of your drive is also not on, though obviously less problematic.

I'm glad. My friend has repeatedly been blocked in to her house by people parking across the dropped curb. Whenever she asks them to move so she can leave people have verbally abused her. Last time she had to call the police (her father recorded the incident) as the person was so aggressive. Regular ticketing I imagine would avoid this happening to her (its been twice in the last few months).

As previous post indicated, I agree this needs to stop. Neither the tone nor the language are anything I find appropriate or acceptable. Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suggest you two just ignore each other for a > bit, because this is getting slightly personal, > and Loz you're not covering yourself in glory as > JoeLeg points out (and more often than not I'm a > fan of yours).

I don't think I attacked you, I asked you questions (without insulting you). You think your admittedly opaque questions weren't deserving of pointed questioning. Let's at this point just agree to disagree as neither of us are likely to shift and in the grander scheme of things, it's hardly worth banging on about. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I did not scream loudly at you and I don't need > > your condescending invitation to participate on > > the forum. > > You came in with a very attacking post, came to a > ridiculous conclusion and accused me of saying > things I didn't say, with the added pompous > 'educate yourself' twaddle. Not to mention your > attempt to stifle debate with your 'stop > criticizing something you don't actually know much > about' demand. And still you wonder why you got a > major pushback to your bolshiness? > > Many times I suggested you just ask nicely for a > clarification and when you finally did I gave it > to you. > > Anyway, enough. You have your clarification and > your last few posts have been an improvement.

I feel like this is such an emotive issue its hard to make my point clear without offending people but I think its important to be clear. I don't think anyone who has been posting is anything close to racist. Often times, the underlying issue for social justice groups, whoever they are, is that they don?t feel their lives or their suffering is valued or assessed the same as those with more privilege and consequently they create forums in which to validate themselves and draw strength. Places where they are understood and believed. The sense of not being as real was included in the speech I quoted before by Williams: ?The thing is though? the thing is that just because we?re magic doesn?t mean we?re not real.? It may seem ludicrous that someone would need to remind society they are a real person but a study reported this year in the Washing Post (a conservative US broadsheet) underlies how necessary this can be: ?African Americans are routinely under-treated for their pain compared with whites, according to research. A study released Monday sheds some disturbing light on why that might be the case. Researchers at the University of Virginia quizzed white medical students and residents to see how many believed inaccurate and at times "fantastical" differences about the two races -- for example, that blacks have less sensitive nerve endings than whites or that black people's blood coagulates more quickly. They found that fully half thought at least one of the false statements presented was possibly, probably or definitely true. Moreover, those who held false beliefs often rated black patients' pain as lower than that of white patients and made less appropriate recommendations about how they should be treated.? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/04/04/do-blacks-feel-less-pain-than-whites-their-doctors-may-think-so/ If you read the entire article, you?ll see this isn?t based on an isolated study but multiple studies at different institutions. There are similar studies in the UK that also show under treatment of pain in various minority ethnic groups. It is very easy to dismiss other people?s view about the difficulties they face and the sense of shared identity they perceive. I wouldn?t personally have believed the figures could be so disturbingly high among educated people who I am sure are not racist and don?t even recognize the nature of their prejudice. While to outsiders it may be tempting to critique the nature of social justice groups' identity politics, why the feel kinship with certain others (in other countries), why they aren?t more inclusive, how legitimate their grievances are etc real prejudice can be invisible to those on the outside and so empathy should be the first basic framework we use without substantive reasons for a different stance after cautious and careful assessment. I?m still in the office due to all the contributions today so I need to get back to work?

DaveR Wrote: > > I think that's evident - you should stick with > your instincts. Cross posted with DaveR-- Evident because I found it odd? So far the most consistent criticism has been that people find it 'lazy'. That just strikes me as an odd criticism of a social justice movement. Perhaps its entirely apt.

Anyway, I've understood the broader point that WorkingMummy was trying to make as akin to what the BLM activist Jesse Williams stated in his highly publicized (in the US) speech. He was specifically referencing criticism of the Black Lives Matter 'slogan' and the All Lives Matter response: "And let?s get a couple things straight, just a little sidenote ? the burden of the brutalized is not to comfort the bystander.That?s not our job, alright ? stop with all that. If you have a critique for the resistance, for our resistance, then you better have an established record of critique of our oppression. If you have no interest, if you have no interest in equal rights for black people then do not make suggestions to those who do. Sit down."

I think anyone has a right to criticize the nation of Islam for its anti-semitic views. I thought I made that clear but if not I'll say it again. I also think you can criticize any movement that tries to raise itself up at the expense or through the oppression of others. I don't think its racist at all to question the BLM in the UK. I'm from the US so my threshold for calling something racist is pretty high. I think the comments about the UK movement are odd in that I don't understand why people feel that way and the explanations people have put forward don't really seem substantive. It kind of seems like people are annoyed by it more than anything else. To be fair, a lot of social media driven movements annoy me, particularly when fronted by 'passionate' (and oft ill-informed) young people so I'm guessing that's a big part of it. I don't know as I'm not following it closely though. rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do some black people express their identity and > vocalise their sense of injustice and oppression > through the Nation of Islam? Does the Nation of > Islam advocate hate positions against other > groups? If the answer to both of those is yes, > does any person not have a right to criticise that > group, no matter what their enthnicity? Yes, it's > an extreme example, but WM specifically said that > no white person has zero right, zero place, to > criticise any way in which a minority person or > group choose to express their identity or vocalise > their sense of injustice or oppression. > > "my gut reaction to criticizing different members > of the black diaspora for wanting to unify in a > single movement and in so doing it broaden its > focus to incorporate other civil rights issues > beyond just shootings struck me as...odd. I'll > leave it at that." > > Please don't leave it at that - you clearly imply > that there's an element of racism in the > criticism. If that's what you want to say, have > the courage to say it rather than leave a coy > little hint.

Rendell-- criticizing a groups views on other groups (ant-semitism, women etc) is not the same thing as saying you don't feel you have a right to criticise how said group 'expresses their identity, or to vocalise their sense of injustice and oppression'. Your conflating two separate issues and given Working Mummy's position on the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, almost certainly misinterpreting her position on this. I really don't want to get into the issues in the UK as I am not well informed enough but my gut reaction to criticizing different members of the black diaspora for wanting to unify in a single movement and in so doing it broaden its focus to incorporate other civil rights issues beyond just shootings struck me as...odd. I'll leave it at that.

Also, when your very first post on the thread before anyone brought up stats is the below in response to the All Lives Matter question, it's hard to get that all of the subsequent talk about men etc was to prove that correlations don't prove anything even when they exist but that you are not specifically questioning the existence of racial bias in shootings stats per se (for which there is significant statistical data) just making a generic point about the difficulty in using statistics. Asking if you were suggesting there is no proof or no actual racial bias in U.S. Police shootings or if you were suggesting that as other groups suffer disproportionately, All Lives matter was more appropriate isn't a leap of imagination... You acknowledge it wasn't clear but have reacted in the extreme to being questioned (and everything I said directly to you was posed as a question regarding what you meant). It was not unreasonable to try to get at what it was that you were trying to say given you yourself say it was 'opaque and esoteric'. I think you are being overly sensitive and saying I'm harming the standing of the BLM which I don't belong to is churlish. Also, your repeated assertion I was screaming and being loud is telling. I didn't use exclamation marks, caps, abusive language or insults when engaging with you. Yet me asking you to explain plainly what you were trying to say and questioning what it might be is me screaming at you and I'm the one unable to engage in debate.... Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The percentage of people shot by cops that are > male is higher than the percentage who identify as > black. > > So why isn't it 'Male Lives Matter'?