BrandNewGuy

Clown slugs?!

I walk to work (ED yo Borough High St) when the weather's clement. Through Green Dale, Camberwell and Walworth. Perfectly pleasant back streets, lots to see and not many fumes. With the bonus that I'm not smelly when I get into the office. Takes just over an hour.

There's a big Costa Coffee on Denmark Hill near Camberwell Green - where Woolies / 99p store / Peacock's used to be. Seems to be very popular and not obviously full of toffs.

The Evening Standard's error, not the Peckham Lido people. Still, who needs proper journalists, eh?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Would have thought the whole thing could be done > electronically by now. > > The technology is not quite there yet... both in > terms of security and authentication. Estonia have > online voting.. they have the authentication part > sorted by means of a mandatory smart ID card, but > the security is still a big concern. A friend is a senior Electoral Policy bod in Whitehall and has for a while been privately frustrated about the lack of progress with e-voting. However, he says the issue is not so much with online security (if you can bank online and feel 99% safe, then you can certainly vote online). The issue is really how full of holes our traditional voting methods are, so to demand a very high level of security for e-voting will expose the current system for what it is, eg I can wander into a polling station and impersonate someone very easily...

The toy shop thing was perceived by those campaigning (rightly or wrongly) that public pressure might have made the landlord relent or comnpromise, hence being noisy about it. In this case, as an 'outsider' I'm not sure what I'm supposed to add. Proper process needs to root out what went wrong and to punish those at fault. I could add a 'me too' post about how terrible it is ? which it is ? but I don't think fifty posts like that are going to be particularly useful. These residents need information, political support and action ? more power to them.

Buzzards have occasionally been seen around Sydenham Hill Woods ? and the population is increasing significantly in southern England outside cities.

Recycled paper bought and printed locally is not necessarily any more wasteful of resources than digital communication. Consider the massive server farms around the world and all the infrastructure that entails ? it's been estimated that some 10% of the world's electricty goes on powering the digital economy. And then consider the resources and environmental costs of phones, tablets, PCs, shipping, cabling, marketing etc etc. In that light getting several thousand flyers printed up at your local print shop doesn't look quite so bad.

Snap! Always a wonderful sight and sound. They've been very consistent in arrival time over the last couple of years ? May 9th amd May 8th in 2015 and 2014.

Far too many unanswered questions about the future running of the Club to say that this is the only option. As exemplified by this: "...?A strong YES vote sends an emphatic message that our Club is gearing up for a safe and secure future under some form of supporter ownership." Er, so it's emphatic, but only about 'some form' of supporter ownership. That doesn't fill me with any confidence, given the rocky history of the club's management. And to say that supporter ownership will be 'dead in the water' unless members vote yes is unsubstantiated arm-twisting. The plain truth is that the club has not seriously explored any options that weren't already put on the table by Hadley Property Group.

DHFC lost 3-1, alas. Blustery game, hundreds of Hamlet fans made the trip. Here's to next season!

DHFC on Twitter gives frequent updates:

Of course you can, taper. But I suspect you knew that already.

No confirmation re tickets yet. No official coaches, though ? too short notice.

Hi James, Please can you update us as to the situation with the old garden centre site next to the station. This has been going on too long. Would we be wrong to infer that: 1. The project has ground to a halt because Morrisons are no longer interested in taking a retail unit; 2. The new library will not be built; 3. Those hoardings blocking much of the pavement will not be removed any time soon?

Probably won't be all-ticket ? their biggest crowd this season was 331, in a 4000-capacity stadium. Hoping for coaches, otherwise it's a drive and no beer...

Two held after PC run over by Land Rover in Dulwich http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36147937

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A good idea, but I didn't have time to trawl round > looking, and I suspect any boxes from a gift shop > round here would have cost as much as the > chocolate, if not more!!! But Sue, you could have finally used one of those really useful East Dulwich shops that sell little boxes, ?6 greetings cards and tiny cushions :-)

We have longer to make our comments known. I received this from the case officer in reply to my query as to why we only apparently had 12 working days in which to give comments: "The validation date is the point at which the Council received all of the required information to enable the application process to start. It is not the start of the public consultation period, which has not yet begun. The formal consultation period will run for 21 days from the date of the neighbour consultation letters, site notice and press notice, whichever is the latest date. We also always accept letters after the formal close of the consultation period and I am already accepting representations before it has started." The web page is still misleading, as it states: "Standard Consultation Expiry Date Wed 11 May 2016" So watch this space for full dates. In the meantime, however, you can still go onto the site to comment or write to the planning committee.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agreed, Stephen Govier shouldn't detract from this > thread. Indeed and to answer some previous points: Yes the club has had a chequered history with regards to finances and ownership. But why is the one plan that maximises the property developers profit at the expense of Metropolitan Open Land the plan which should be supported? No, the areas of MOL to be taken by this scheme are not just the 'strips' around the current astroturf. And they are also include the astroturf itself. The overriding principles of Metropolitan Open Land are no substantial development and no harming the 'open' nature of the area. The current scheme falls a long way short on both counts. And whatever its past, Green Dale is indeed a vaulable area for both local people and wildlife. Southwark Council would not be in the process of designating it a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation otherwise ? with more than 40 species of birds and 60 species of plants and trees recorded on site. Compare this with, say, St Francis Park to see the difference. And as someone who both enjoys Green Dale and has been a regular at DHFC for more than 20 years, I hope we can get back to discuss the application and not fall into the 'us versus them' trap. Incidentally, the application still has not been validated by Southwark Council so isn't strictly speaking 'live' yet and it seems the uploaded documentation is incomplete too.

I can confirm that he is not a member of Friends of Green Dale and thus is not in any way speaking on our behalf. I will respond more later but am currently practically offgrid...

Southern Rail and Southeatsern now have a "Priority Seat Card" for those who fulfil their criteria: https://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/download/19055.4/priority-seating-application-form-large-print-version/ In the FAQ: "Does this guarantee me a seat? No, this does not guarantee a seat. Priority seats may already be occupied by other card holders or passengers with a similar need for a seat." So, in other words, it could still all kick off ;-)

Hi Admin, there are now two active threads in 'General ED issues / gossip...' to do with the planning application at DHFC. Would it be possible to lock 'Exhibition of the proposed redevelopment at DHFC' and refer forumites to 'Planning application submitted for new DHFC stadium' instead? That should avoid any confusion of threads. Many thanks!

It will take months before anything starts. Please take some time to contact your local councillors and MP about the application and let them know your concerns. And you can comment directly on the application here ? even though it hasn't been validated yet: http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9565663

There are now a whopping 236 documents uploaded. Not quite Panama Papers, but this is going to take some time to go through... http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=16/AP/1232&system=DC