macroban

The concern remains that the outcome seems to have been based on a deception.

Well, we'll see if this inconvenient 20th century way of dispensing, produces an increase of service provision to 100 hours per week.

Very bad news.

> a road which has a poodle parlour Incorrect tense?

I await the first news story on East Dulwich food supply security.

> Subsidy is gone now Not until any soft loans have been repaid.

> I suppose I am 'middle class' whatever that is. There are the Upper Class, the Nomenclature, and "others of little consequence".

> Maceys is oopen till 7.30pm, I believe. Unfortunately my human frailties don't turn off at 7:30pm in accordance with Maceys' timetable. The offer of an on-site 100 hours pharmacy (14 hours per day) is wonderful. If DMC get permission and it is a success they could start working towards a 24/7 integrated service. The DMC site has room for a team of NHS dentists to. This is the way forward for 21st century provision.

Feeble response for allowing a serious thread to be hijacked.

It would have been so much better if Admin had merely deleted the childish postings.

One of the things that remains unclear to me is who wrote the text of the petition. Was it BARA? Does anyone know?

I spoke with a friend this morning whose grandfather was in the Dulwich Volunteers. I was told that their HQ was a shop in the middle of the parade that starts at 481 Lordship Lane.

One of the things that remains unclear to me is who wrote the text of the petition. Does anyone know?

You need to watch the mosaic effect, *Bob*. Meanwhile this seems apposite: "Heaven home's a place for those who pay."

Thanks, DaveR. Seems to support my assertion on another thread: > However, I don't think that Dyos and the like can be applied to the specific area bounded by East Dulwich Road, Peckham Rye (Road), Barry Road and Lordship Lane. I understand that the small properties that dominate this area were specifically built for rental by the skilled working class, and low rank white collar managerial staff.

> But I don't think that makes their stock impervious to criticism, does it? Depends on the neighbours, *Bob*.

Not many people seem to have read and responded to the original question which said "NEED", not "want". East Dulwich is still well provided for with shops that provide human needs. I hope it stays that way.

> perhaps we could have our own version of the Guardian Angels? Well, we do have our Community Wardens. Do we have any input about where they should patrol?

Sorry to dash you hopes, Sean, but it's not going to be a sin bin, just another DummyYummyMummy shop.

"Gentrification- the leading cause of emotional distress as Oliver James suggests? OR merely and extended form of regeneration? Using East Duwlich (Lordship Lane) as a case study, I will examine the pro's and con's of gentrification and the effects it has on society." That won't get you very far on the current citation indexing rules. Time to change your tutor?

Previously mentioned here. An incomer from Camberwell.

None of the anecdotal material here about increasing crime seems to have made it to the Metropolitan Police crime statistics for East Dulwich (yet).

> From memory and reading I've done about ED, I don't think it's the case that the house were built for rental. It happened that in the 1880s there was a glut of newly built houses, and many of the streets in the area stood empty for a long time after being built. I also seem to recall that this coincided with a cyclical and national economic recession in the 1880s. I suspect that the rental market was a way of getting them occupied at the time. The point about the Great Depression is interesting. I hadn't thought about this before. However, I don't think that Dyos and the like can be applied to the specific area bounded by East Dulwich Road, Peckham Rye (Road), Barry Road and Lordship Lane. I understand that the small properties that dominate this area were specifically built for rental by the skilled working class, and low rank white collar managerial staff.

> Off to meet some fellow 'hobbyists' for some lunch (tax deductable) and a few drinks. I wonder if HMRC agree. Perhaps we should invite a representative to join the forum.

We want children to start using the forum?