UncleBen

Hi rch, thanks for response. It seems to me that libdems 'lobbying' to get a police presence at the hospital is a smokescreen to hide not only libdem support of removing medical care from the entire site to build schools and housing and halls etc, but also to disguise inactivity concerning a police station in east dulwich. By the way your reply didn't answer if you wanted an art gallery at the hosp, or at what stage you went from Tory to libdem cnllr?

Keep the title D2020, i now agree with it.

Produce a business case . . .

Stilt

Dovetail

Pot

Elite

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Councillors weren't silent on this at all, it was > our first choice as an alternative to the current > station, but it got boarded up and sold off before > we could even launch a campaign. > > We fought hard to retain the hospital site for > medical use, as well... you all probably don't > remember the Save the Onions campaign I launched > to stop the demolition of the east wing with the > famous onion domes when I was first elected in > 2006. But the problem is that councillors are > actually very low down on the decision-making > totem pole, which makes it very difficult for us > to influence high-level decisions. Thats funny, my memory tells me that the old police station was partially in use for ages before it was boarded up. Even then the rear of the premises was being used by the Met. Plenty of time to start a campaign similar to the CPZ campaign, Waitrose/M&S campaign, primary school campaign etc. I think it just serves your purpose to remove Dulwich hospital for your own political ends. Were you a Tory or a Libdem back then i can't remember?! Didn't you want an art gallery at the hospital rch? Anyway, the Met could always buy the 'old' station with the monies from the sale of the LL station . . .

Strip

I wouldn't recommend acupuncture from personal experience. Know it sounds rubbish but walking is very good for lower back problems. Would also try stretches, arching back/bottom forward but gently to start. Whatever you choose remember more damage can be done so be carful.

Comedy

Oh well, you'll know better next time. Put it down to experience.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn't this discussion really about taboos? > > The threat of deadly makeup and homicidal leather > jackets may well be technically 'true' but the > risk is so vanishingly small that there has never > been a documented case to support these ornate > theories. > > It's certainly not big enough to justify the > visceral overreaction of some individuals to such > 'gross' women. > > So isn't this protest really about 'gross' women > upsetting the natural order and threatening the > very fabric of society? > > The fact that the protestors on this thread > regularly find themselves on other threads voicing > traditionalist, conservative, reactionary opinions > would seem to support this? > > The challenge with public makeup is that it > reveals the design and application behind a > woman's outward appearance. It's a statement of > independence - a rejection of the idea that women > are somehow naturally demure, feminine and > retiring 'pretty little things' in favour of more > complex motivations and machinations. > > So these protestations are perhaps the last gasp > of Victorian traditionalists resentful of female > equality? > > For 'gross women putting on makeup in public' > instead read 'women should know their place'. Great stuff! The complex motivations and machinations of these independent women that refuse to be thought of and objectified as 'pretty little things' and routinely demonstrate all of the above huge complexities by the act of applying make up on public transport/in public every morning. Hmm these amazing independent women may just be painting their faces every morning on the way to work so they look exactly like perfect little pretty things in the work place, and so conform to media and male views on how women should look! Thats ironic isn't it! No, it's just bad manners, and sloppiness of character no more and no less.

Belly

UncleBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Greedy gits that partake of a set price eat as > much as you like Sunday curry on the Lane, AND > then ask for a doggy bag!

Well said chillaxed.

Stop

Style

Vicanna Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Looks like I've got under *Bob*'s skin. Disabled > kid(s)? I have no idea but I suspect it's your derogatory language that is causing offence. That and your laughable UrbEx

O sorry - least

Engine

Ailes

Corrugated

It's not the odd touching up lippy that may have worn off-it's the whole application of war paint from the undercoat to the gloss finish.

Yes Callie, thats the one (forgot Upland Rd starts there). It was the police stn before the one on LL was built. It has a largeish rear yard and is/was still in use/ownership by the Met. There is a thread somewhere about it. I wonder why our local councillors are silent about this building rather than promoting a hospital site for a cop shop?