LondonMix

I am almost part of this younger set (33) and I agree. Everywhere has an initial surge when it opens (including M&S) but places continue to trade very strongly on a regular basis. I don't think MeatLiquor is ageist though they do have a demographic. I get the sense from people in the family room that they aren't trying to encourage this place to be rammed full of kids which is fine. Its easy to forget once you have kids how off-putting being surrounded by other people's kids can be. A place with a more adult environment and a young vibe definitely has its place! KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DF: "The younger E.D. folk are a fickle lot.." > > I don't know about that. > As a younger guy out and about every night, I > don't remember signing contracts to only eat at or > frequent favourite / specific bars and restaurants > to prove my loyalty. > Surely, especially when you're younger, > checking-out the latest place to open is an > exciting part of being out and about ? > Perhaps 'fickle' is not the word you were looking > for.

Yes, its the new season and was on at night Sue. I think Jules is just trying to wind people up :)

That's absurd. Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > well, they haven't been in the news much for > anything else recently - can't help thinking they > need attention.

Franco Manca is still doing great. Every time I pass it its full. The younger demographic deserve to eat out too!

No, they got caught because of a whistle blower Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a non story imo. Bitter Russians who DID > cheat with performance enhancing drugs show how > low they really are by trying to discredit > athletes who actually win medals because they are > better than everyone else shocker. > > Common sense tells anyone that all of the named > athletes have given drugs tests in pretty much > every competition they compete in and athletes can > be tested at ANY time during training periods too. > In fact, isn't that why the Russians got caught?

What Southwark are being accused of is much more serious than that. They are essentially stealing people's money. If they pay you 150k when its worth 300k that is actual robbery. I'm not saying I don't care about people getting to remain in the regenerated community etc just that if the accusations in the article are true, its very damning.

I was at Pop Brixton recently and one thing I wish was around here was really good sum or Japanese dumplings.

The only off clip I noticed was a shot of Rocca in the village when they were talking about Lordship Lane. Given however the jumped between saying Dulwich and East Dulwich, that wasn't wholly unreasonable. I also thought it was pretty ludicrous when they first said the sisters from South Norwood would be looking in Dulwich for a 3 bed property for around 300k. Of course, they didn't step foot in Dulwich, so that must simply have been really poor editing / scripting. I read somewhere a house on Shawbury Road is going to be on the new series of Grand Design which kicks of soon. ED become a TV property stable :)

I'm not against CPO's or estate regeneration. I even think the option to remain on the estate in a higher value property with the shared equity / zero rent concept is decent. The main problem for me is the valuations used. I have to agree that on the face of it, they seem extremely low. I mean how much does a 3 bed flat at Dog Kennel Hill estates costs these day?

Yep, she got a much bigger place in Crystal Palace but in an uglier building. Makes sense as a trade off. She gets the urban vibe without having to live in a shoe box. That flat was 330 sqft which for a one bed is tiny. I wonder if its sold yet.

I agree that Helen Hayes has been great on this issue.

How does the proposed ED timetable compare with the old time table before the emergency timetables were introduced (is that a tongue twister)?

The schools don't know the order you put them in so put them in order of your true preference. Good luck! emc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Tasha - it seems that Haberdashers (I'm > assuming you mean the Hatcham one on Pepys Road) > have now done away with banding so it will now be > all on distance which given where we live im > assuming my daughter's chances of getting a place > there are slim - is that right ? Have no idea how > far I am nodal distance wise - how do I measure > this? Also does it matter what preference you put > the schools in in terms of the schools? I.e they > won't know how you've ranked them ? And if a > school is in a different borough (think habs is > lewisham?) it all still goes on the one CAF > doesn't it ? Thanks so much

I have to say I'm genuinely shocked by this break-up. Not that its my business but it does make me sad for them and their children.

Yes-- I find the rise of UKIP extremely disturbing. The Conservatives have been fighting their own battles at party cohesion and the rise of UKIP posed various existential threats. Cameron's decision to call the Brexit vote and all its subsequent consequences including the fall of his government are all part of this crisis.

Just to add-- I do think we should always continue to challenge the status quo to make our political and economic models more just and equitable. I am keen to hear fresh ideas and approaches and I don't think we should just accept the status quo as the best possible. That's part of being progressive. But you can be progressive without being mired in old ideological dichotomies.

I agree with your concerns regarding his leadership ability and his ability to work as part of a team. There is more to it than that-- in him I personally see hints of demagoguery that I find worrying but of course I could be entirely wrong about that. However, putting all that aside, anyone who would appoint as Shadow Chancellor a self proclaimed Marxist cannot get my vote. Being a proponent of Marxism, after a certain age displays a type of delusion that disqualifies one from positions of power (for me). I mean, is there any historical example of Marxism being implemented that didn't result in bouts of famine (including in modern day Venezuela)? Even countries that are communist in name like China etc abandoned Marxist economics long ago. I'm not saying unbridled capitalism is desirable or that even modified versions of capitalism lead to Utopian results of zero poverty and prosperity for all. However, looking back to Marxism given its historical record as a solution to the current economic issues facing the UK truly boggles my mind.

Blah Blah, I think Corbyn won't win because he doesn't appeal to centrists (left leaning or otherwise) rather than because he doesn't pander to extremists. Corbyn clearly has to support of the far left. My husband for one, who has never voted anything but Labour in his life will not vote for Corbyn in the next election. His position on this is categorical.

Blah, I said DaveR was rude. I believe Lordship was much more out of line. I've explained why. There really is nothing more for me to say about it as I've detailed my reasoning already. If you think I'm over reacting then fine but clearly I disagree with you. Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DaveR dismissed a view as horseshit without > offering any insight into why. He got the reposte > he deserved for it. I don't understand why you are > seeking to now make something out of it. You are > over reacting. Really you are.

DaveR quoted a much larger argument stating that the selection of HS2 was down entirely to bragging rights and that there was no point in making these types of infrastructure projects when you have poor people. There are lots of grounds to suggest that line of reasoning is horse shit, none of which have anything to do with not caring about what happens to poor people. The idea that somehow disagreeing with the entire quoted text means you don't care about the poor is a huge leap and a rather unpleasant one. I also don't think its frivolous point I'm making. I think accusing people who think your political points are weak of essentially being 'bad people' encapsulates everything that's wrong with political discourse these days.

He said your argument was horse shit which I agree was rude, particularly without any refutation of specific points. But you suggesting him disagreeing with your reasoning means he does't care about poor people is much worse. Accusing someone of being a 'bad person' because they hold different positions than you creates the kind demonisation and nastiness in politics previously discussed.

Lordship, you sound pretty unpleasant...

Yes, but for a lot of people on the left I think its surprising. Being a left leaning centrist I always thought of the far left as a bit looney and overly idealistic whereas the far right were truly violent and racist. However, the real far left and the real far right are exactly the same. The political extremes of both groups historically end up as oppressive dictatorships. The logic underlying ideological purists is exclusion and oppression of those that disagree with them. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are unpleasant people on the left and right. > No one has a monopoly on being a sheetbag.

Okay but would you agree saying that investment was at an all time low isn't actually true. Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No it is not correct LM. Investment dropped after > the crash as you would expect (it did all over the > world). It recovered a little (by ?10 billion > annually) by 2010, and in fact, most of the > recovery after the crash had come by 2010. Ths is > why it is a myth that Osborne is responsible for > all the recovery since 2008. Practically nothing > has moved forward under his policies. Fluctuation > by just ?10 billion over six years is a woefull > performance by any comparison. All the charts are > out there for you to look at. Even after the > recessions of the 80s and 90s, there was no period > of flatlining like this. And as I said, Germany, > USA and France have all recovered on investment > markedly. We haven't. Lordship has seconded > everything I have said on that and gone further > and explained how Osborne has messed it up (by > degearing investment). > > ****crossed posts with Lordship, but agree of > course.

Wait- wasn't 2008 labour? So isn't it more correct to say infrastructure investment fell to an all time low under the labour government following the global financial crisis and has grown by a 3rd since? I'm not debating if more spending would have been better or if this was the right approach but how on earth do the facts you've laid out support your statement that investment fell to an all time low under Cameron? Again, I think Cameron made loads of mistakes as all leaders do but he doesn't seem guilty of what you are suggesting Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The ONS publish detailed figures on investment and > breakdowns. It fell to ?60 billion annually after > the 2008 crash and hasn't got above ?80 billion > since. That gap of ?20 billion over 8 years > represents a flatlining of investment. You would > have to go back to 1990 to see investment > flatlining, and even then it only did so for three > years. Germany, France and the US have all > recovered better than us on investment growth, > Germany especially well (which puts to bed any > idea that growth figures fuelled mainly by > household consumption, really means any kind of > tangible growth). I will find a chart to > demonstrate that.