Blah Blah

Pot calling the kettle black. What if the pot is purple, or silver, or copper, or any number of colours that pots seem to be.

I also would be interested to see viability assessements for the space. Councillor John did say two years ago that those assessments would no longer be kept secret! The council could redevelop the space purely as a retail park themselves. Councils can borrow money to do that. What councils can not do, is borrow money to build homes. This is why they end up in these immoral deals with corporations like Lendlease and HA's are becoming more and more like property deveopers and less like HAs too. We might even see some of the bigger ones sell off their social housing stock and deregister as HAs in the years to come.

It is the only way to fix it unless we want to requisition privately owned empty property, stop foreign ownership, stop ownership of more than one home, control rents in the private sector, end right to buy and a whole raft of other levels of interference that would be unpopular, and build on the green belt. We have to be sensible about the problem and the solutions. One tower block in that location is hardly going to bring the world crashing down.

Keano. You are aware of what is involved in trade deals are you not? That the smaller market always has to conceed more to the bigger market to get access to it? This fallacy you have that we are somehow hard done by because we have to agree to things in order to trade with the EU, as though such conditions don't exist in trade deals elsewhere is a certain sign of someone who knows nothing about trade deals. What you don't seem to understand is the most of our agreements with the EU relate to trade and issues around trade. Of all UK legislative Acts, EU directives only impact on 13% of them. The 13% they do impact on, relate almost entirely to business, trade and labour. We are not going to get as favourable a deal on trade with the EU outside of the single market as within it. That is just a fact. So what is at risk here? Our top 37% of exports to the EU are in things that the USA, China and India don't need from us. So where are the equivalent markets to the EU we can export to instead? You might want to pretend there is no such thing as a global economy but you are wrong. And we are beholden to it just like every other Western economy is. The days of the West profitting off the backs of everyone else are long gone. And the isolationsism you stand for won't change that. You really should listen to that interview of James Dyson with Andrew Marr, and ask yourself if that is really what you voted for!!!!

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A second referendum will only settle matters if the leavers win it again. > If remainers win it things will be more divided than ever. It would be 1-1 so to speak so we'd need a third and final referendum. Brenda from Bristol would be at the end of her tether. Yes this would be the risk. The referendum was flawed and anything but a definitive swing in one direction of the other will change nothing in terms of the divide. I agree with you.

That woud make sense. Cars are expensive to own in London. We spend far less on the occasions we hire one than when we owned one.

I think providing much needed affordable housing is more important than one tower block and the view. Franks and the Bussey are not the owners of London's skyline and it is ridiculous to give them such preference. Personally, I think one tower would be fine. Two or three, not. And it does not have to be 20 storeys high. It can be 15 etc. The whole development can at least match the height of nearby buildings, most of which are at 3 storeys. More important is that the tower meets fair targets on the homes the area needs, not the homes the developer can profit most from. We are in a capital city, which is growing and building up is going to be the only solution if we are going to be able to house the workers we need.

But referendums are not finite. They can be and often are repeated. What we have is a referendum so won by the skin of the teeth that the victors are terrified of losing a second one and are desperately clinging on tooth and nail. It has nothing to do with democratic will. Democracy allows us to change our minds.

UG finally admits the referendum campaign was flawed and people could not vote on the real considerations, over their own anecdotal bubbles. Are we finally getting somewhere? So by your own admission UG, surely it is folly to continue with a process decided by flawed logic? How about a second referendum fought on truth, and detailed discussion of just what is at stake (good and bad) and what leaving actually entails, both short and long term? At least then people will be voting on the level of risk they are prepared to take, and not on an irrational hatred of things that don't actually define our economy.

The mayor has set his intentions clear that targets of 35-50% affordable have to be met and we have a Labour council who also should take note that at Party Conference, Corbyn made it clear that residents should have a full say in regeneration and be taken notice of. Ok so this is a retail space, but there still needs to be pressure put on developers using the 'viability' argument to get out of building the kind of housing the area needs most. There are thousands of households on the council waiting list in this borough and I wonder how many are being currently housed in temporary B&B. Of new builds, year on year, net figures show that market rate private property has become the main type of building while homes for social rent have steadily declined (and gone into negative figures over the last two years) since this Labour council took over. There are FOI figures that illustrate this point and those figures should be used to demonstrate to the planning committee that any home building without a meaningful percentage of social homes should be rejected.

Poch is right. Polls consistently now show no more than 20% support a hard brexit. This does not surprise me though, when only one third of the available electorate voted leave. We will never know how the third that did not vote would have voted of course. And yes, TM did fight her election on brexit, expecting a landside. It did not happen because Parliamentary elections are still fought along party lines in the main. Cameron made the same mistake in thinking that UKIP success in MEP elections would translate into gains in a domestic Parliamentary election at the Tories expense. The referendum will go down as the biggest mistake ever made for political expediancy by any party in history. What really annoys me though, is how some think the governments we elect fair and square, should consult us on the things they don't like. We can't have it both ways. Either we trust those we elect to make decisions on our behalf, or we have a referendum every time government wants to introduce a new bill, sign a treaty or trade deal - ridiculous. If we don't like a government, we get to change our minds every 5 years, and parties always break manifesto promises. I could list tons of broken promises by both main parties over the decades. We don't see a lot of what is involved in running an economy from our armchairs. It is complex stuff. The fact is that we can not just 'walk away' from 40 years of trading and economic alliance like it no longer matters. There are millions of jobs impacted, depending on what kind of deal we agree with the EU. There are business considerations, research partnerships, aviation standards, all of these things are complex relationships that can not be modified overnight if we are to keep the benefits they bring. And most leave voters have no clue about that complexity at all, and worse still they don't care. Those of us that are fighting for a soft brexit are doing so because we really care about the economy of this country, not because we are traitors. Many people have fought for decades to make this country one of the least racist and xenophobic in the world, and a modern day Enoch Powell has put that all at risk, and for what? Farage can go crawl back under the stone he belongs. And those of you sucked in by his nonsense had better understand that he and his ilk are not interested in a better economy for the many, they are interested only in lining their own pockets by stripping away regulation (like worker protections) and turning this country into a tax haven for big business and the wealthy. I posted a link somewhere of James Dyson setting out his reasons for wanting out of the EU - That is what these people conned the public into voting for!!!

This has not got to planning stage yet. It is just a proposal by the company drawing up plans to redevelop the site. It is also worth remembering that there is a high rise tower block of council housing 100 meters from this site, so the idea that a single tower block is out of place is probably not true. It is better to wait for the final plans to emerge and work on a proper objection based on more solid reasoning when then planning application looms, as no doubt Peckham Vision will do. Proportion of the development, as well as affordability of any housing can then be properly scrutinised based on actual plans.

This is the real challenge. Many rough sleepers have other problems that make staying in a home, maintaining a tenancy, difficult. One of the problems with assisted accomodation is that it tends to be filled with people with these additional problems. It is hard to treat an alcoholic for example, in a hostel filled with alcoholics. There are strict rules to being housed in these kinds of accomodation, but those in them often break those rules. They are not prisons, so a person can not be stopped from leaving the premises and drinking themselves into a stupor. So the question is one of what can effectively be done. My view is that we seem to place conditionality on being housed, at people who are never going to be completely free of the things we want them to change about themselves. This is where we go wrong in housing policy and where a country like Finland have got it right. House people first and keep them housed, whatever it takes. The rest should be treated long term as a seperate issue.

No Keano. You just typify the aggressive tone that seems to follow the Brexit brigade like a bad smell. Haviing a difference of opinion does not make anyone a traitor and whilst you might make some valid points above, your tone is so bad tempered that it deminishes any point you are trying to make. The establishment is indeed full of cronies, but leaving the EU is not going to change one bit of that is it? This is what you hard leavers don't seem to understand. You have just given unfettered powers to people you claim to despise. And when Workers have no protections and have to work round the clock to make ends meet in tax haven Britian, who will you blame then? And as for the actul resignation letter, he is spot on in so many areas. Day to day government has stopped for this circus which will almost certainly end with a soft form of Brexit, because no-one with any common sense can see a better option.

No. There are no compromises with pets. You either look after them properly or don't have them at all. If your husband won't have pets indoors, then it is a no-no.

An overall strategy is a complex thing to get right. My issue with pricing people out of driving is that, as with everything, it is the most vulnerable and poorest in genuine need that are hit hardest, like the diasbled, elderly etc. Many women don't like taking public tranpsort alone late at night either. We complain all the time about public transport in London but compared to other parts of the country we are doing very well. No other part of the country has the frequency or coverage that London does, nor the subsidies that London transport has either. Is it perfect? Of course not. But we do have a habit in London of expecting the moon and the stars, and of thinking we have a right to no inconvenience. When we finally decided to get rid of our cars (we had two). we were surprised to see just how good bus services were for getting anywhere, even with our two kids. The tfl journey planner is excellent.

The powers of the council over empty buildings in private ownership is very limited, unless the building falls into disrepair. And even then, the owner simply has to make good the building to avoid a CPO. There are empty properties all over London and beyond. Councils have no powers over them.

mikeb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @ Blah blah: and sometimes you?ll see me and my family on the bus or more often on our bikes. But sometimes a car is the best way around SE London. We hire a car on the few occasions we need one, rather than owning one and being tempted to use it when we really don't need to. East Dulwich has great transport links. Pollution is a big issue Sally and both the government and Mayor are trying to tackle it by making owning and driving the more polluting vehicles more expensive. But this does nothing to address the big polluters like buses and other commercial diesel vehicles, like taxis, who have exemptions from some of the charges. So there is still lots to be done on many levels and questions to be answered over who pays the cost of electrifying those kinds of transport services.

Plenty of people have kids and don't have cars mikeb. You see them on buses all the time ;)

Some won't be happy of course, until we see the return of Wessex, Mercia and Middle Anglia ;)

I hope that includes those who are arguing for their right to keep their cars outside their own homes too Jimlad? How many of the journeys those cars make could just as easily be done by public transport and/or on foot. It is very easy to be righteous on this stuff.

Given his problems with alcohol use and what seems like some mental health challenges too, I would say he needs more than just housing. other posters have mentioned that he has been housed in the past and failed to stay housed, and that he is known to various support services now but refuses to take any help offered. He needs help from a range of services, but he has to be willing to take it too.

A jar of duck pate. We are vegetatians!

It is good they have found all the drivers. I expect there will be charges. But that won't bring this poor lady back or make anything easier for her family at this terrible time for them. Very sad.