BrandNewGuy

The good news: Dulwich Hamlet's first home game of the season is tonight ? a friendly against Crawley Town, kick off 7.45. The not-so-good news: it's ?11 to get in (?5 concs), which I think is daft.

I went straight to the door when the fishman came ? didn't want to keep him whiting.

It is, but presumably it has to show up at some point for accounting purposes.

El Presidente Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BrandNewGuy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > None of these will be 'affordable', so it will > do > > nothing to help homelessness or affordability. > > http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/e > conomics3.asp Nicely patronising. Thanks. Next time someone mentions the housing crisis to me, I'll just say, "Supply and demand." Conversation over.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Following a last minute planning discovery > > Asleep on the job? That's a bit unfair. Unless you are personally a neighbour and see the physical application on a lamppost, there might be no way that you get to find out about an application. Southwark's online planning portal is utterly unreliable ? I'm signed up to receive new or amended planning applications for one or two postcodes and it only alerts me to a fraction of them. Southwark show little interest in putting it right.

None of these will be 'affordable', so it will do nothing to help homelessness or affordability.

Developers want to block off part of the proposed Coal Line path with an inappropriate development ? where the Peckham Spike project used to be. The New Southwark Plan proposes safeguarding a route through the area for the Coal Line, which this development would make impossible. If you wish to object, you only have until Saturday 15th July to do so. More here: http://www.peckhamcoalline.org/blog/urgent-the-coal-line-is-under-threat-from-developers

Formally, yes it is. Meadow Residential (and before them Hadley) have said that they will immediately buy out his stake if and when their planning application succeeds. But having sorted out the club's debts, the developers control the running of the club and Nick takes no part in it.

Nice bit of business for DHFC in the sale of Ethan Pinnock ? earlier figures quoted were, I believe, way off the mark, but anything like a ?50,000 'windfall' is very good news for the club: https://www.londonnewsonline.co.uk/26867/dulwich-hamlet-set-bank-50000-defenders-switch-barnsley/ Perhaps less welcome is the suggestion from an 'insider' on the Urban75 DHFC forum that any sell-on fee money will go straight to Meadow Residential, the property developers who control the club, rather than directly to the football club itself. This seems to be in contrast to the details given last year about the club's financial structure that suggested that all transfer-related and directly football-related monies went to the football club: "Dulwich Hamlet FC Ltd - Owned by Nick McCormack, run by Meadow Residential - Receives all match day income, (except for the Bar income) - Receives FA prize money and Transfer fees - Receives all Sponsorship" The reason I bring it up here is because the suggested parlous financial state of the club has been a major part of Meadow Residential's (and previously Hadley's) argument for the proposed stadium move and ground redevelopment. As with the queries about increased gate receipts and proper club accounting, I hope that this sell-on fee isn't kept obscure for the sake of talking down the club's current position. Financial transparency would get rid of any lingering doubts either way, but I'm not holding my breath. Similarly, and it's a trivial point, but I was irked by the detail from the club committee that its allocation of FA Cup final tickets was taken up by Meadow Residential rather than the club itself. A small matter, but one that smacks of 'droit de seigneur'...

Elphinstone's Army Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BrandNewGuy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > There's no problem getting on the 8.30 at the > > moment. A seat or two free in most carriages > and > > plenty of standing room. > > > Were you on the 8.30 train this morning? I was in > the front carriage with a million other standing > commuters, luckily all showered and clean clothes > - a few alighted at Peckham Rye, but more took > their places. It was packed tightly - the notion > that there are seats available at that time on a > busy commuter line seems fanciful. Yes I was. Four carriages back. Don't get on the first carriage!

There's no problem getting on the 8.30 at the moment. A seat or two free in most carriages and plenty of standing room.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now being replaced by something nobody > really wants. Well, that depends on how many people use it, surely?

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How frustrating.... I don't think Royal Mail was > ever going to listen to locals or their posties. > They'll be doing a lot of redeliveries! Indeed. Hit them and their shareholders in the wallet. If the package isn't urgent, get them to redeliver for free: http://www.royalmail.com/personal/receiving-mail/redelivery

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not a strike, it's an overtime ban. > Yes, it is probably not going to last forever, > but, if previous experience is anything to go by > (have we all already forgotten that trains used to > run every hour in the morning rush hour for most > of last summer?), this has the potential to cause > severe disruption for a long period! Well industrial action then. But you're suggesting that ED is a poor place to live because of its transport connections. Our transport connections IMHO are fine. When they're disrupted, they're not. Same as anywhere else.

Of course the strike isn't going to last forever :-)

But that's industrial action, not a long-term change in the service. It makes sense to timetable the effects of industrial action for as long as it lasts.

Better drink beer until they're finished ;-)

No, it's genuine https://twitter.com/kctmo/status/837708770411151360

Six storeys. Here's the relevant bit of what the Council said in its submission to the Planning Appeal which set out five reasons why they would have refused the application if they had gone on to determine it: "Height, scale and massing of the residential development 8.11 The proposed development provides 155 flats in buildings up to 6 storeys in height. The site is located in the Suburban Zone under the Southwark Core Strategy, where development is expected to reflect the local character. The Southwark Plan defined the suburban zone as one which should retain a more open character with larger gardens often associated with houses rather than flats. It is the Council?s case that the housing development does not respond positively to its local character and that the scale and arrangement of the blocks would be overbearing in views across neighbouring open spaces. If the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused planning permission for the following reason:- ?The proposed residential blocks, by reason of their height, scale and massing would result in an overly dominant and visually intrusive development which would be out of character with the prevailing built form of the locality. It would be overbearing when viewed from the adjacent open spaces and appear as an alien form within the local townscape. It would therefore be contrary to saved Policies 3.11 ?Efficient Use of Land?, 3.12 ?Quality in Design?, 3.13 ?Urban Design?, and 3.27 ?Other Open Space? of the Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policies 11 ?Open spaces and wildlife? and 12 ?Design and Conservation? of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policies 7.4 ?Local Character?, and 7.6 ?Architecture? of the London Plan (2016)?. 8.12 The Council will present evidence to demonstrate that the housing blocks do not positively contribute to the local townscape, and whilst the townhouses lining the southern edge of the block could be successful, the height, form, and singularity of the flatted blocks dominate views across Greendale and St Francis Park. Where at present the long views are dominated by trees, the new blocks would be much more prominent and give the site a highly urbanised character. Whilst in some parts of the borough this form of development would be entirely appropriate, it has not taken sufficient account of the special characteristics of the suburban location within which it would sit."

And talking of low tax agendas, don't forget Guardian Media Group's shady dealings with regard to avoiding tax: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2012-05-16/has-the-guardian-exploited-tax-loopholes-to-save-millions

Dark Star's fine 3.8% Hophead for ?3.70 in the EDT. Probably not the cheapest, but very good value.

Beulah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^I rode over Blackfriars Bridge this morning > during rush hour - was total chaos. > The queue backed up almost halfway. > There was some ex-squaddie fat head - City of > London PCSO type - near the gates at the northern > end who was there to presumably make sure no-one > was hurt - he was just shouting at everyone. It was chaos yesterday afternoon too. I was on a 45 bus that took 20 minutes to crawl from Southwark Station to the bridge. Got out, walked and caught the 45 ahead of the one I was on.

And on Blackfriars Bridge, the northbound bus stop is now cut off from the road by the new barrier and is closed. Presumably permanently.

And we should be cautious about this youth effect until the numbers have actually been crunched. When David Lammy last night tweeted about a 72% turnout among 18-25 year olds, I wondered exactly how he could have got that information so quickly given that it didn't factor into the exit poll. Turned out it was a made-up figure. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40220032

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On the subject of the right-wing press, this > result was a massive two fingers to them and the > belief that they sway/win elections, that they can > get away with systematic character assassinations. > With the influence of social media growing by the > day, that's not the case anymore, people can get > their news/opinions from a variety of sources. Yes > Corbyn has his faults, but nothing warranted the > bile that was spewed at him and others. A victory > for hope not hate... Much as I detest the gutter press, the social media liberal-left can't believe both 1. that these evil papers control the thoughts of brainless morons and 2. that these morons can somehow turn round and stick their fingers up at the billionaire press barons. FWIW I think the influence of the tabloids is very much exaggerated ? I never believed that it was The Sun wot won it in '92 and most readers of tabloids read them because they reflect their views not because they're looking for political guidance.