unlurked

Renata Hamvas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Unlurked, I prefer to be addressed as Renata > rather than Hamvas! If I had been addressing you maybe I would have addressed as Renata Hamvas, but I was addressing the OP.

Reps from TW will be at dulwich community council this evening - would suggest that questions and complaints are put to them for action.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, if you can hardly get to 20mph, why object > to it as a limit? That is a non argument-if you can hardly get to 70mph on, say the M25, why object to 70 as a limit! Where are the accident stats for MG that support J Barbers wishes? This is just another con to get the gullible to call for a CPZ.

unlurked Wrote: ----------------- > > James Barber Wrote: > > > - > > ----- > > But you have always wanted Waitrose om the Lane > > haven't you JB? Did you not start a thread 3 or > 4 > > years ago trying to generate support for your > > plans? What is it about Waitrose that > you > > have been pushing for it for years? > > You seem to have missed this, James. Thanks for the partial reply, James, but what about the second bit, (above)? I would also be interested how you select, and approach a retailer and entice them to an area?

No to 20mph on MG. As others have stated, vehicles can hardly reach 20 let alone over 30mph! JB you are loading the question again to suit your own views and wishes like you do with certain planning apps, certain retail chains that you like, and anything that is anti car. Try being fair and balanced.

Oh sorry, thought you were advocating council doing works on private land. Isn't there a dulwich business group or something similar? Sounds right up their unevenly paved street to me.

Philippines/philippinos love spam too.

unlurked Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James Barber Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Hi Louise, > > Waitrose when I spoke with them were very clear > > they would be delighted to move in ASAP to the > > existing shop footprint. > > They think it's fine and they anticipated the > > planning result M&S experts failed to foresee. > > But you have always wanted Waitrose om the Lane > haven't you JB? Did you not start a thread 3 or 4 > years ago trying to generate support for your > plans? My memory tells me that you were slated on > that thread for assuming this forum is > representative of ED as you did not do any other > 'consultation'. What is it about Waitrose that you > have been pushing for it for years? You seem to have missed this, James.

Most of that pavement area outside the shops is private and belongs to the successful businesses there so the tax payer should not pay for it. Let the money making shops pave their own areas. They could even work together.

I'd vote for two strikes and out, threes just seems too much. Any banning system should include not just the person or company that booked the pitch but also the named team. Otherwise a new 'booker' will be used each week n litter etc could still be left. Would also need someone to assess the pitch post match else how can it be said that Team A littered rather than a random group. Now I've typed this I don't think it's viable now no matter how good an idea. Oh well, a parkie with a litter picker it is then after matches, and the ignorant antisocial get away with it again. . .

1. Get tortoise to specialist vet before flies lay eggs in wound. 2. Are you sure it was the cat that did the tortoise and not a fox? 3. If cat then you need to scare it enough to stay away from your garden, whatever that may take 4. Build a "run" for tortoise incorporating bushes etc,and whatever size is needed. 5. F#?k the cat owning neighbours.

Report it to the parks dept EVERY time it happens. Tell Hamvas about it also and ask her to look into it (election coming up). LGooner - pathetic.

Thought you'd mispelled :-D and meant peckham bizarre, SE15

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We questioned Court Lane as well, but there are > specific criteria and priority lists which are out > of the borough's control. However, we managed to > use this situation to get other nearby pavement > replacements funded. It's frustrating having no > actual power, councillors can only make > representations and query decisions. > > We don't even have a Town Hall anymore, we have a > hot-desking facility miles away at the top of the > borough. > > I heard things were pretty questionable a few > years ago (before my time), but as far as I can > tell all the bidding processes are robust now and > everything is above board. > > I keep a pretty close eye on all works in Village > ward, mostly because I'm a pavement and highways > geek. The officers know that I'm going to be out > sniffing around, so everyone tends to do a good > job to shut me up. > > If anyone has any specific information that they > would like me to check out, then let me know > offlist. The council offices at tooley st is the 'town hall'. Didn't you know that rch? And conway have permanent staff there in the public realm team don't they'

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps that's one of their tricks - using > customers toilets to dispose of branches and.. > er.. logs? Haha. Maybe they were saniflow engineers generating work?!

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi John... there is a complicated bidding process > which Conways is very successful at. From what I > can tell from your posts, I think your problem > with Conway is more with the managerial overseeing > process. Maybe CONways win "bids" because they have lots of permanant staff based in the town hall. How does a private company have staff in the town hall, surely thats unfair advantage/conflict of interest, rch? This also means that council tax payers are paying for a profit making private companys office space, paper, printing etc doesn't it?

They're called macerators. Only allowed them if you have existing flushing loo, not as only loo in a residence. Poor bloke, you must have known by his urgency that he needed to evacuate in a big way, and should have let him use the flush bog and you woudn't have a problem!

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nigello Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > One - one - young woman was being led away by > two > > border police/agency people. > > > I hope it wasn't the little dark haired french > girl. She was too nice to give away. If she was actually French then it won't be her, it would only be non EU bods. Free movement and all that.

You'll all be demanding the council spends it's money on firework displayr in Nov, Xmas tree lights in Dec etc etc. Never heard of austerity? Ring fencing. Try turning up at council meetings and asking for these 'essentials'!

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Louise, > Waitrose when I spoke with them were very clear > they would be delighted to move in ASAP to the > existing shop footprint. > They think it's fine and they anticipated the > planning result M&S experts failed to foresee. But you have always wanted Waitrose om the Lane haven't you JB? Did you not start a thread 3 or 4 years ago trying to generate support for your plans? My memory tells me that you were slated on that thread for assuming this forum is representative of ED as you did not do any other 'consultation'. What is it about Waitrose that you have been pushing for it for years?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > M&S planinng appeal has been rejected by the > planning inspector. > Please do read the attached report for the full > details. Hurrah

Hope you recover soon James. BTW, how did the accident happen? It wasn't a pedal hitting a speed hump was it?

A nappy factory

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > unlurked Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > >99% of posts on this thread can adequately be > dealt with by the poster ringing or emailing the > council rather than using the middle man of JB. > > > JB may do good work at his case surgeries but > it's all smoke and mirrors on here. > > What? You are actually saying that councillors > like James Barber and Renata Hamvas should not use > the EDF to make themselves available to the people > of ED? Because people could just ring the council? > Really? Why don't they then? Ummm... > > Councillors being criticised for making themselves > MORE available on more channels? That really is > the stupidest thing I've read on here in a while - > and I've read buddog's posts. 99% pointless duplication of work/effort on this thread as all can be adequatley done via phone etc like the rest of Southwark residents do rather than use of a middleman. JB works no harder than other cllrs. Loz, go and post some leaflets, JB has asked for volunteers!

OMG. It's the 1st Oct! At least let Halloween pass.