BrandNewGuy

. (Edited: wrong thread]

But Hadley's plan depends on building all over the existing ground and moving DHFC onto MOL. And we don't know what they intend to build as they haven't revealed it. How can Southwark respond otherwise at the moment? What is there to discuss?

Pink Panther Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich Hamlet FC played on the site of the > proposed new ground (i.e. the current astroturf > pitch) for around twenty years up to 1931, when > they moved to the vast ground that partly occupied > the site of the current ground. So there has > already been a fully functioning football ground > with a stand, ancillary buildings etc. on this > site. You can still see banking from the old > terracing to the north and west of the current > astroturf pitch, so it is factually incorrect to > say (as many people seem to be doing) that no part > of Greedales has ever been built on, or that the > current astroturf pitch and floodlights are the > only development ever to have taken place there. The history is not very relevant as it's now designated Metropolitan Open Land regardless. And Hadley's plans for redeveloping DHFC's ground laughably suggest that the pitch, stand and all the ancillary buildings, approaches etc for DHFC will fit onto the space that's now occupied by the knackered astroturf pitch. I've no objection to tarting that up, but to suggest that DHFC could move to just that footprint is crazy. To build even a metre beyond the current pitch would be to encroach on MOL, which the Council have said is a no-no. I sympathise with DHFC supportes who see Hadley as the saviour ? which thus far financially they have been ? but they should remember that Hadley's priority is not the long-term welfare of the football club but making tens of millions from building on the current DHFC site.

I can't believe they wouldn't be interested, given what I assume has been very successful for Caffe Nero.

Twirly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People who don't say "excuse me" or make any > polite request when they need you to move, usually > on the bus or train. I agree if it's on a bus, but on a train so long as I haven't dumped anything on the seat next to me (and I don't), I see no problem with leaving the window seat free ? you can just walk past me, which is not the case on a bus.

My money's on Costa Coffee.

Curmudgeon Wrote: > A field one day a year for a couple of years when > the school is closed does not fulfil charitable > status requirements in my opinion But it's not your opinion that matters, is it? As has been pointed out umpteen times, this is not a test of charitable status. You might not like that (and I'm not sure I do either), but that's the way it is.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I very much doubt the present ground will be > developed for housing. That's very much what Hadley want, otherwise they wouldn't be interested in the site or 'saving' the football club. They laughably think they can move the current ground to the imprint of the current badly maintained 'all weather' pitch, thus not encroaching on the open land. This is nonsense, of course, as one glance at the plans will show.

Call me a maverick, but I'd recommend hopping on a train to Ostend (15-minute journey)? great bars, restaurants, cafes, shops and a fine promenade, None of the medieval prettiness of Bruges, but better at everything else and far cheaper.

Ice Age Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Am I the only one to find the title of this thread > annoyingly ignorant? > > The cuckoo is a remarkable creature and perfectly > entitled to take its place in the natural world. > The secret to its success is, of course, brilliant > mimicry. > > To take its name and use it as a slur against > private schools is really quite inappropriate from > a logical perspective. And as pointed out previously, Alleyn's was here before any of the state schools, so suggesting it's somehow muscled in parasitically and 'starved' them is disingenuous.

Tommy Cooper: "I had a good education ? my first school was special and the other was approved."

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BrandNewGuy Wrote: > To be fair, the irk thread has only been around > for less than a fortnight, give it a chance. No, I want to strangle it at birth :-) > BTW (personal Q, sorry), do you ever think about > updating your user name? You must be practically > part of the establishment by now, surely? It's a Neil Young thing... "She's got a brand new guy. Looks like she's never coming back to me." Now back to your normal programming :-)

People using the ?things that have irked me today? thread when they should be using the ?Tiny Little Things That Cause You Irrational Rage? thread.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So the Half Moon is closed, Latest news I heard was more positive about the pub reopening, but Dulwich Estates are pressing ahead with the plan to convert the top floors to flats. That could, of course, spell the end of live music there...

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes voters have been portrayed as being loud > anti-English despots, when in fact culturally it's > not unusual for Scottish people to be fired up by > pretty much most things, and for it to be politics > is great for democracy. That's entirely wishful thinking. Let's see whether or not in six months' time (regardless of the referendum vote) politics with a capital 'P' is firing up Scottish people...

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At about 9pm it was utter chaos at Goose Green in > all directions. Took more than 10mins to negotiate > from the Bishop to the roundabout and up to Ondine > Rd. Crazy. Zippo's Circus were on the move. Ironically, the huge trucks managed the Goose Green roundabout fine - it was a couple of caravans that got stuck...

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Although I despise the politics of the SNP and > other nationalistic parties, I do sympathise with > the anti-westminster sentiment. > If I were a progressive Scottish socialist I would > see the opportunities that would arise from > ditching London and going down a new route But that's such a short-term and contingent reason for breaking a three-hundred year union. What if (and it's a big 'if', admittedly) Westminster was currently under a mildly redistributive and non-belligerent Labour government ? would you want independence then? Basing the future of the union on tactical advantage seems to me to be wrong and potentially dangerous. > you could eventually leave behind the old guard of > fading British imperialism ... which benefited much of Scotland as it did much of England. Glasgow is an imperial port city whose wealth was based around the benefits that empire brought, including, in the early days, slavery. In that, it's no different from Liverpool, Bristol or, to an extent, London. Scotland's engineers, scientists, bureaucrats, shipbuilders and sailors were all vital cogs in the imperial project. > It's all rather > painful hearing the London elite singing the > praises of the union when it's tended only ever to > benefit that city anyway. See above.

Screen 1: 105 Screen 2: 86 Screen 3: 53

This from July 31st. So the workers rejected their union's recomendation? "A long-running pay dispute by south London cinema workers over demands for a living wage is set to be resolved. Union officials will recommend workers at Brixton?s Ritzy venue accept of a new offer by cinema owners Picturehouse, following months of industrial action. Staff are being offered an immediate pay rise from ?7.35 an hour to ?8, rising in stages to the London Living Wage of ?8.80 in September 2015." http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/agreement-reached-in-ritzy-cinema-living-wage-row-9641254.html

No. You can buy a ticket, though, from either of the machines or the ticket office.

Because if you keep on moaning at the Council, they sometimes do something. Don't complain and they won't do anything.

Apparently so: "Passenger watchdog welcomes decision to extend contactless payments to National Rail services in London Published on 12 August 2014 London TravelWatch has welcomed the announcement from Transport for London (TfL) that contactless payments will be extended to National Rail services in London that participate in Oyster Pay As You Go (PAYG) later this year, in addition to the Tube, DLR and London Overground. The agreement between TfL and train operating companies comes just weeks after the independent passenger watchdog warned that failure to include national rail in the scheme would be confusing and unfair for passengers. " http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/news/view?id=487&x[0]=news/list

spanglysteve Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If they do continue to LB why not just run it full > service in that case. It would only add a couple > of minutes for the train to disembark. No need to > run full service back (allowing time for boarding) > as presumably the demand is far less leaving LB in > the morning. It's those few minutes that add to congestion at that time in the morning.

spanglysteve Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't really see the point of stopping services > short at SB. In reality, who is choosing to ride > to SB and then continuing their journey from > there? Well some people are - I see quite a number of people normally get off at SB. Plus others want to go to QRP to change to the Overground. The short-stopping trains in fact do carry on (empty) to LB then come straight back out empty ? as there's obviously nowhere to turn round at SB :-)

No, but there's no reason to think they won't when the works are completed. The two morning trains are stopping short at South Bermondsey because of rush hour congestion at LB due to closed platforms.