LondonMix

That's certainly a good thing though isn't it given the shortage for larger properties for families? Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Social housing residents are also facing changes > as more housing and council tax benefit reform > starts in April 2013, Southwark are proposing a > 15% cut to housing benefit per bedroom to working > age residents who have more bedrooms than they > require. > > For example, a single person with two bedrooms > would see 15% off their housing benefit, but if > they move into a one bedroom, they'll continue to > receive full housing benefit. > > A neighbour of mine has already started looking on > Southwark Homesearch as they have a three bedroom > (kids have grown up and left home) to downgrade to > a one bedroom in preparation.

Finally something sensible being said by Penguin! Does anyone actually have an update on the process and timing of what is happening? Everything else that can be said has already been said in this 26 page thread.... Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I ought perhaps to remind people that there appear > to be two separate arguments contained within this > thread, one about the appropriateness of the type > (scale and scope) of the proposed changes to the > existing Iceland store (regarding building > extension, loss of parking amenity, possible local > disruption regarding delivery schedules) in which > people living adjacent to the site clearly have a > direct interest, outwith the retailer which will > be sited there, and a second set of arguments > about what sort of retailer should be there (M&S > etc.) > > WE CANNOT INFLUENCE THE CHOICE OF RETAILER - > either by forcing Iceland to stay, or by arguing > that M&S isn't a 'proper' tenant in Lordship Lane. > The decisions (to go, to enter) will be being made > by very canny marketing departments taking account > of demographic etc. changes and long-term retail > potential of the site, compared to other possible > sites. > > WE CAN make a case about the planning impact of > the proposals. It is that case, not an argument > about Iceland or M&S which will be being > considered. > > By all means express preferences for outlets here > or elsewhere, but those expressions of interest > are neither statistically valid regarding real > local opinion, or will actually change anything. > > We all know that the ED demography has changed in > the 20 years that Iceland grew out of Bejam - and > the commercial arguments which made it a good site > for Iceland 20 years ago may no longer hold true > (as also the commercial arguments which kept M&S > out of ED 20 years ago).

That's great Pam50, did you manage to get tickets to the opening ceremony?

Good luck and I hope you get a copy of the show!

Its a nature reserve / park in Honor Oak just south of East Dulwich. Very high viewing point so you can see what's going on in East London.

No one mentioned anything about who was going to win, just that they were excited to watch the games and wanted to watch them with other members of the local community. No need for snide and off-topic comments to ruin the mood. Comment all you like but don't get annoyed if someone calls you out for making comments that are negative and unrelated.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anywhere not showing it.. > > Who Cares Who Wins. ? > > Fox. The people engaging in this thread. If it doesn't interest you, don't read or comment....

Oh, dear you turn away for a min and a perfectly happy thread has devolved into the usual BS! Otta, I think people are banging on about this (perhaps too much now!) because too often new users of the EDF are met with unnecessarily sarcy remarks which puts lots of people off using the forum. When its done to a young girl looking to make friends who is new to the area and making a perfectly reasonable request, I think it particularly rubs people the wrong way. Rosie H, out of curiosity what are all the boxes that have gone unticked for local?!? What were you hoping for to not to get anything- Russian supermodels that in their spare time saved lives working as paratroopers?

Haha-- I'm probably seeing you! See you at one of the ED socials soon I'm sure

There is a big difference between tax planning and avoidance / abuse. Most companies-- including the firm I work for-- will be very aggressive but won't cross that line. For example, certain "loopholes" exist not by accident but intentionally and the tax authorities in most countries are not only aware of them but have given tax rulings that confirm using them in various ways is okay and cannot be challenged. For example, when the government closed the "loophole" to allow individuals to buy properties with off-shore companies to avoid stamp duty, our tax lawyers called the tax authorities and asked if the same rule for commercial real estate transactions was likely to be changed and was told no, that they decided to leave it untouched?apparently the gov?t wanted to encourage business. If we are even slightly concerned that our tax planning may be viewed as abusive because its un-tested or unusual we always go for a tax ruling and this is standard practice for many. Tax planning turns to abuse when someone is exploiting an over-sight by the tax authorities to twist the law into something that was not initially intended, which also happens but people seem to lump everyone into the same bucket. General anti-avoidance rules are being implemented throughout Europe to tackle this less common issue. In the US, everyone is taxed on their global earnings and there are minimum taxation laws. The solutions are obvious and it?s simply that the authorities want the system to work as it does. Most people want to pay as little tax as they can but far fewer are willing to do something patently illegal.

We are in ED-- the South east corner near Peckham Rye Park!

Ju*Ni , that sounds fantastic. However, how does the Montessori philosophy approach developing other positive characteristics like team work and compromise within the framework of letting things be led by the individual child? My cousin's children go to a Montessori school and are very happy but i would like to learn more about it.

NJC97, the trip to London bridge via the ELL will be longer- 15-20 min depending on the time it takes to change trains etc vs 10 min now. Victoria station is in the West-end (right in the middle of Sloan Street and St James Park) so your other comment makes no sense at all NJC97. If you mean Covent Garden area as the West End, its a very short change at London Bridge to one of the trains heading to Charing Cross. The journey to Victoria via Clapham Junction will also be at least 10 min longer, which is a considerable difference for a journey that currently only takes 16m on the South London Line. This really is not rocket science. The ELL does not go to central London as it is designed as a greater London orbital. Even with inter-changes with the tube, getting to Central London indirectly via an orbital loop will always be longer than direct trains into the city centre. Arguing the opposite is nonsense. It's better that you simply state that the benefits (connecting the extremities of greater London) outweigh the negatives of losing some of the more direct service. I don't actually think that's true-- like others I will use the ELL primarily on weekends to visit friends in south-west London and in East London which will be great. But for work, unless your company is based in Canary Wharf or Shoreditch you aren't better off and given that many of the areas this new line serve are economically disadvantaged, making access to jobs in central London more difficult seems like madness. The orbital is a good idea but not at the expense of direct service to the centre.

No problem. You'll meet plenty of people. This area is the friendliest place I've lived in London and there are plenty of lesbians--I see ladies holding hands and kissing all about my neck of the woods! Perhaps you are just in the wrong quadrant of ED. Pink Thursday's also has a facebook page where they organise other events I've been told!

Fair enough. Let's not stir the pot :)

There is an event called Pink Thursday's that some of my gay friends go to around here. Do a search for it here on the forum as its a recurring open social event (monthly I think). If memory serves they hold it at House of Tippler on Lordship lane. Also, there are a few regular social events for people to meet each other (usually announced in the events section of the forum) that are always good fun and everyone is welcome. Usually held in the Bishop and the crowd is generally mid twenties to early thirties. I met some of my best local friends at one of them.

Why did people consider the post vague? If memory serves it had a partial plate number...

Renata, is your concern that users of Denmark Hill / Peckham Rye and Nunhead will have to terminate at Blackfriars and lose direct access to City Thameslink / Farringdon / St Pancreas? If the Wimbledon route terminates at Blackfriars, am I right to assume those who use Herne Hill lose access to the same stations and the in general, this part of south London will lose access to north London (Hampstead / Mill Hill and Luton Airport)? Within the broader context of the major transport changes that will occur, will there be any opportunities to access all of these stations? Also, what's the uplift in service in 2015? I read through the document but it was not immediately apparent. Thanks, LM

Sorry, let me clarify. The only point the first link is making is that there is a connection between crime and drug addiction and this connection is acknowledged by organisations that support needle exchanges such as the NHS. Please see link on same page to NHS needle exchange program http://www.nta.nhs.uk/healthcare-nems.aspx. I've included this since you accused the other link of bias. As I already stated, there have not been any studies I can find in the UK that have been carried out positive or negative but there are reports in the US that exchanges are at times accompanied by an increase in crime. I don't believe there should be any increase unless the facility is used by more than just local addicts. However, this facility will attract addicts from outside the local area due to the unique longer opening hours. If addicts from outside the local area are encourgaged to come to ED in the evening due to late night opening hours, given the link between addiction and crime (particularly crimes of opportunity) I think we have to think about how to deal with the risks associated with this as part of the proposal. If ED is the best place for this, should the facility be accompanied by additional police patrols? Should it be located on a residential street? Will more lighting need to be installed / CCTV? The argument some seem to be making that an increase in the addict population visiting our area will have no consequences and that they won't even consider discussing mitigating strategies until a study is carried out in this country really surprises me. However, I would also like to understand why the pharmacy believes an additional exchange is needed here? I would imagine that an exchange with longer hours serving the wider Southwark area (most local areas including ED already have exchanges with normal hours) should be located where either the concentration of intravenous drug users is greatest or in a location easiest to commute to for most residents of Southwark. Has any of this been included in the application? Someone earlier suggested the pharmacy is using the provision of this service as a cynical means to get the application for longer hours approved. While this might not be true and they might be motivated by pure altruism, has anyone actually studied if ED is the best location for such a facility within Southwark?

Have you read the thread? I am not against needle exchanges per se. I simply believe that if an additional one is really needed in ED that provides a service that will attract drug users from other neighbourhoods because of its unique opening hours, we should as a community discuss and plan ways to mitigate the negative consequences of this social good... I've already said I am in favour of exchanges from a public health policy perspective but that doesn't mean I have to pretend that there is no downside to having one

I've looked and couldn't find a UK study on the matter one way or anther. However, the NHS has its own statement regarding the connection between drug addiction and crime on its needle exchange website: http://www.nta.nhs.uk/criminal-justice.aspx Given this connection is acknowledged even by proponents in favor of needle exchanges, perhaps you can provide some evidence that there won't be any negative issues at all if there is an increase in drug addicts visiting the area? I agree that if the facility was used only by our own local addicts it should be neutral but if the late night service is rare, one would imagine addicts from other areas would be informed about it as an alternative out of hours location to their local exchanges.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/treatment-drug-abusers-in-criminal-justice-system Quote from article at link from government website advocating drug treatment below: "The connection between drug abuse and crime is well known. Drug abuse is implicated in at least three types of drug related offenses: (1) offenses defined by drug possession or sales, (2) offenses directly related to drug abuse (e.g., stealing to get money for drugs), and (3) offenses related to a lifestyle that predisposes the drug abuser to engage in illegal activity (e.g., through association with other offenders or with illicit markets)." Now, if someone can explain to me why active drug users who use needle exchanges will behave differently than other drug users, I would be very happy to hear it. I am actually for exchanges as public health policy but I don't want to pretend like we don't need to discuss this frankly including how to mitigate any negative consequences. Another link on increase of crime associated with needle exchanges-- not to say this is definitive evidence but rather that there is a basis for debating the point. Wanting to debate this does not make me ignorant or prejudiced, just pragmatic. Needle exchanges increase crime Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007: "Crime Increases in Area of Needle Exchanges: - Crimes Due to Drug Use: When a needle exchange program (NEP) moves in, associated crime and violence follows, including prostitution which contributes to the spread of AIDS. A spokesperson from the Coalition for a Better Community, a NY City based group opposed to NEPs, visited the Lower East Side Needle Exchange with a NY Times reporter. Their conclusion: ?Since the NEP began we?ve seen an increase in dirty syringes on our streets, in schools yards, and in our parks?Brazen addicts shoplift, loot, and steal to buy drugs." Also, Jenny H, if you read my previous posts you would know that I said if ED is the best place for it, then it should be here but we need to mitigate the negative consequences. Why people keep on trying to paint my argument as something its not, I have no idea...

Who is heaping scorn? Drug addiction is a disease and my first comment clearly said despite any negative consequences, shirking social responsibility via NIMBY attitudes is inapproriate. Holding those views though does not mean you have to pretend that drug addiction (as a disease not a moral failing) has behavioural consequences and that we should openly discuss this rationally to be able to mitigate against them if this service is provided. I'll see what statistics I can find and post them if you think that will be helpful.

willma Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > A narrower and narrower group of people will be > > able to move into the area the higher prices go > > which in my opinion will make ED a less > > interesting place but that's the clear downside > of > > gentrification. The truth is, that narrowing > has > > already been going on for years... There are > > still parts of South London that are as > affordable > > as ED was 10 years ago before the schools > improved > > and the place smartened up. You just have to be > a > > brave first mover... > > > I sold my flat in ED recently and decided to buy a > house in Penge. A bit of a risk and not as nice as > ED but it was the only area that was affordable > for me to buy a house. Who knows though, perhaps > it will be a desirable place to live one day. Penge has got the East London line right? Everyone in London (save the multi-millionaires) have to figure out their priorities for their families and decide what they will compromise on: size of home, length of commute, etc. We all want the same thing- a safe home, not too far from work that will provide good and convenient educational opportunities for our children. Within our budgets we all try to maximise these things the best we can. If you and your family are happy then don't sweat it. Others who have the same values and priorities as you will undoubtedly move to the area and form a like-minded community. We are all doing the best we can!

I didn't say that so please don't be so dramatic. One of my closest friends works in a methadone treatment centre in Devon but its not my own field of expertise. Does that disqualify me from participating in the dialouge ? From what I know, drug addicts to feed their addiction do have a higher propensity to commit crimes of opportunity (robbery / break-ins). Let me know if you disagree with that statement. Attracting more active drug users to the area should raise concerns about an increase in this sort of crime. If you think this is entirely unfounded please explain why?