Gimme

To all those who have said they are never being bothered by aircraft noise in ED: you are either deaf, have grown up with it or live in a part of ED that manages to avoid being directly under the flightpath. We unfortunately are not deaf, have not grown up with it and live in the part of ED which has 747s or other big planes whining directly overhead sometimes every 90 seconds (FYI - there seems to be a path down Barry Rd then cutting over Goose Green as you can see plane after plane following the same path; you never seem to see planes going directly over Dulwich Village end but it might just be lack of sight-line to that area...). For years after we moved to ED we were plagued by the noise particularly at 4am or on a sunny summers day when in the garden. For some reason we aren't so bothered by it but still aware (probably used to it more now or have forgotten what sunny summers days are like...). Thanks for pointing everyone who does get bothered by the noise in the direction of the consultation Splendid. Hopefully lots of people input to it so the Govt (who probably don't live under a flightpath therefore probably don't know that there is a problem) can see how many people in London are against increasing noise pollution in the name of "economic growth"

Seasonal holiday on April 29th sounds good... that sounds like we'll get it every year! Here's hopin'!!! Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As (also) a republican should I be asking the > surgery to refer to the bank holiday on 29th April > as a seasonal wedding?

You never hear about greedy people taking irresponsible levels of debt on do you... Is it really true that so many people were too stupid to see past what the bank was offering and realise that they couldn't afford the loan...? Just like people blaming teachers for their children being stupid (because "NO WAY could my child be stupid given that they share my genes"), it is much easier to blame bankers for irresponsible lending (because "NO WAY could I have possibly have been so stupid as to have not been able to work out my finances. It must have been a clever scam..."). If the bank won't lend on a property, shouldn't that be a warning sign that maybe you shouldn't be buying that property... Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > PeckhamRose Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But I still feel it is up to the buyer to make > their choices, don't you? > > After ALL we've heard about greedy bankers, > irresponsible lending, etc, etc... you really > think this is true?

Presumably he was visiting Caffe Nero (boom boom) nic32 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Robert de Nero just passed me on the junction of > Lordship Lane and Milo Rd. He had about 5 security > men with him. They asked me what busses went to > Lewisham. I suggested the 185. Is that the right > bus? I hope so.

If everyone ignored rules we'd have chaos. Sainsburys created these spaces for a reason. They should either take action against abuse of the rules they set on their property or not bother in the first place. I'm sure they want mums with kids in to pay a fortune for the weeks groceries. If they drive away customers by not enforcing their own rules they will lose out. Quaverflava - go be sarcastic somewhere else. You aren't funny, haven't contributed anything to the discussion and come across as slightly childish / insecure / unhappy.

Is there also going to be a street party for the 'other' Royal Wedding on the 30th July (Zara and Mike)? If not, why not?

There's a "surge" of these muggings apparently: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23930782-surge-in-iphone-muggings-on-londons-commuter-trains.do

James Barber said: Equally, very very few people praise anything or anyone when things go well. But boy does the council and officers get brickbats when it goes badly. Unsuprisingly this can make council officers very cautious and wary of outsiders. And caution can result in lack of initiative leading to poor service and poorer preceptions of value for money. Do you think one of the problems is that the interface to the public (i.e. the people who answer calls) is staffed by people who are undertrained, ineffectual and has no interest in those who phone the council? And what about the ignorant, rule breaking civil enforcement officers? Parking on dangerous corners and double yellow lines in order to ticket people is never going to make the council seem like they have competent employees. The only people I've seen who do the council credit are the guys who pick up litter, who seem to be dilligent and thorough despite having a difficult job. Oh, and James Barber of course, who does try hard to work for his constituents. In regards to the humps in Matham, Chesterfield and Ashbourne, the council Public Realm department run by Des Waters are proving that they couldn't organise a p*ss up in a brewery. The discussions have been ongoing for over 2 years. They've now been given most of the funding from Cleaner, Greener, Safer Southwark budget, they've had a consultation result with a very high majority in favour and yet seem incapable either of communicating what they are planning to do to any of the residents or of actually executing the job. Useless.

I'm sure you have carnell knowledge that we are not privy to.... :) david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has anything changed since the Labour > administration too over? > Or is it still the same useless people taking a > long time to do very little but under different > political guidance? > > You do know how local elections work, right? You > don't elect council workers or local authority > staff. You just vote for the councillors > themselves, who last time I checked, don't man > help-desks mainly because they have other jobs > during the day and do council work in their spare > time. > > As for the staff themselves.....pay peanuts, get > monkeys. And of course I've never met an > ineffective private sector worker. My office is > like an episode of the Apprentice. Actually, scrap > that. That's even worse.

What a total pile of b*llocks the Southwark Transport Plan is. We live on a rat-run. We pointed out on endless occasions that the Southward Transport Plan states an objective of identifying and eliminating rat runs. Southwark Council are not interested and have not done a single thing about this issue. They also say a lot of things about improving pedestrian and cyclist safety on Lordship Lane and other major routes (which was copy and pasted from the 2008 Southwark Transport Plan), without actually doing anything they stated they wanted to do. They are not in the slightest bit interested in implementing a transport plan. They are only interested in looking like they are planning to do something, while in fact avoiding doing anything. If Southwark want to save money perhaps they should look to save money on b*llshit documents rather than cuttting actual services.

Public stocks on Goose Green containing red-handed shoplifters. With supplies of mushy tomatoes provided by a hag with warts on her nose. That's what we need. None of this new fangled pictures of shoplifters in windows nonsense...

Suggestion for savings at Southwark Council... get rid of their 'help'line. I've phoned this on a number of occasions, found the staff to be ignorant and uninterested, and have never ever had anything done as a result of a call to the main switchboard (e.g. flytipping reports - they just don't bother). Total waste of breath, money and time. FYI - If you ever want anything done at Southwark council, find out the name of the senior person in charge of the department, and phone or email them directly (repeatedly). Funnily enough, that seems to work in the end. Actually, thinking about it, generally, Southwark Council are unresponsive, bureaucratic and plodding. Has anything changed since the Labour administration too over? Or is it still the same useless people taking a long time to do very little but under different political guidance?

My point was that someone has been killed. When you log on to the forum to see if there is any more news about what happened, you dont expect to find petty silly disputes being started about who said what, whether something was funny, silly comments about whether Sainsbury's is to blame or not and all sorts of rubbish. Why not keep silly discussions and mini disputes to the Drawing Room or the pub. Gimme Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why don't you all stop being so silly. > Sainsbury's wouldn't have stopped a fight after a > party. > Neither would more police on the beat. > These things happen in our metropolis and there's > nothing that you or I or the average beat > constable is going to be able to do if someone > takes a knife to a party and decides to use it. > > Some of the comments on this thread are pathetic. > Stop using the death of someone to spark internet > forum jibber jabber. > > And James, you should know better. You don't have > to try to solve everything that happens by looking > into it.

Why don't you all stop being so silly. Sainsbury's wouldn't have stopped a fight after a party. Neither would more police on the beat. These things happen in our metropolis and there's nothing that you or I or the average beat constable is going to be able to do if someone takes a knife to a party and decides to use it. Some of the comments on this thread are pathetic. Stop using the death of someone to spark internet forum jibber jabber. And James, you should know better. You don't have to try to solve everything that happens by looking into it.

I thought the comment on Pretty Traditional was interesting. Not saying it isn't expensive but I always come out of there with two massive bags of veg and change from a tenner. It seems really cheap. But may just be out of touch. Perhaps you can get 3 massive bags of veg in Peckham... If wallet is too heavy, head to The Cheese Block. A visit to the cash point is usually required after any trips to Cheese Block (great cheese though, no complaints there...) tomchance Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Best veg - Rye Lane markets are great for cheap > stuff, a lot of the seasonal stuff comes in from > farms around London's fringe; Peckham Farmers' > Market every Sunday morning outside Peckham > Library; Pretty Traditional on North Cross Road if > your purse/wallet is feeling a bit heavy! > >

Some fair points there Huguenot but Balham has a heck of a lot of small independent shops, delis and restaurants as well as those you mentioned. In particular, Bedford Hill is full of small trendy clothes and gift shops these days. Maybe the appalling shops stick in the memory better. The one brownfield site near LL is the site next to Dulwich hospital. Makes total sense to sell this for development and put the money into refurbishing the hospital. My personal view is that I'd rather see the empty shop sites (e.g. Threshers and pharmacy next door and stationary shop next to EDT) filled first before seeing another supermarket. And no more bl**dy estate agents!!! (note for estate agent employees: we have some very nice existing estate agents... we just don't need any more!) Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I see your point on Balham Gimme, but... > > ...thinking about Balham Hight Street, I don't > remember it for being a LL? I remember a > Wetherspoons, an amusement arcade, a Woolworths, a > McDonalds, a Boots, a WH Smith, a Greggs, (an M&S > Simply Food), a Carphone Warehouse... > > In a short, a bit of a dump. > > Is this proposal for a store actually on LL with a > carpark adjacent to the store that could benefit > other independent retailers? > > I can't think of a large brownfield site that > meets that requirement (as there was in Balham - I > lived there when they built it)

Sticking a Waitrose next to the Dulwich Hospital would just be competition for Sainsbury's. The independent food shops thrive in ED in spite of Sainsbury's. One thing you'd need to have with any supermarket site would be parking. In Balham the Sainsbury's there got planning permission only if they opened their carpark to anyone rather than just their customers. This allowed people to go to Balham High Road and to park easily, which probably benefited the shops on the High Road. So in conclusion, maybe a Waitrose would be a good thing as long it had parking which could be used by all shoppers, not just Waitrose customers. And also a quick agreement with Huguenot... A lot of local debates about local issues seem to take place in church halls with a few people in attendance so having a debate on a forum with 15000 people using it seems much more representative.

Are there any organisations around ED that collect donations of food, toys etc for any of our less fortunate neighbours at Xmas? If so, please can you let us know the details.

You can get an excellent quality door for ?400 quid (or less) and as Dickensman says, a tradesman will fit it for a couple of hundred quid (or less). The ?950 you were quoted for a temporary door is as much of a robbery as the burglary was.

ahoward3 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > East Dulwich Mind is a rip-off. > Half of the clothes I have ever owned are from > charity shops, but this particular shop is > ridiculous and I've never known anything like it. Rubbish isn't it. Charity shops that aren't really cheap. When their whole purpose is to give people cheap clothes as well. Don't you think that the Big Issue is a waste of money these days as well... You could get something to read on the bus for a lot less in a newsagent instead!

What in the devils name are Harem Pants????

marianne1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought the original purpose of charity shops > was to help those in need of help?? People who > would like to clothe themselves and their children > in fairly decent clothing because they cannot > always afford to buy in chain stores and like to > dress in reasonably fashionable clothing. Believe > it or not, there are still people out there on the > minimum wage who need to decide between food and > fairly fashionable clothing - this is where > charity shops come into their own. Their main > purpose should never be merely to make a profit! > This was never the original idea of Oxfam et al - > although in this materialistic world, perhaps > things have changed .... This is a very interesting point of view and one I never considered. Perhaps you are right. On balance, PeterStorm is probably right in that charities don't care about clothing people cheaply as long as they are increasing their funds but perhaps there is a subsidiary effect of providing cheap clothing to those who need it. Although there is perhaps also a view that people of limited means don't NEED fashionable clothes, and it is just aspirational marketing that makes them think that they do...

Hi James, Any news on the speedbumps and 20 mile an hour zones for Matham, Ashbourne and Chesterfield? It sounded like it was floundering on the rocks of bureaucracy despite the overwhelming response to the consultation backing speedbumps and speed restrictions. Is this the economic version of a philibuster? The longer the council ignore this, the closer they get to the next budgetary year when they can just say they have no money for anything? I know you are fairly close to this so wondered if you'd heard anything? Am considering bombarding the officials in charge of this with correspondence and passing out their email address to the neighbours in the hope that they get fed up and decide just to get on with the work that was consulted on. Perhaps you could get a response straight from the horses mouth to save a bit of time an effort? Thanks again Gimme PS Hope your office hasn't been stormed by students this week!

Sally81 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did a little trawl of the charity shops this > weekend. We picked up a picture that we love from > St Christopher and it was a fabulous, affordable > price. The stuff in Mind is definitely too highly > priced. We all know it's for charity, but most of > us go in hoping to find a bargain and people know > when they are paying over the odds. There is a > jacket in there that was mine at the moment. It > wasn't expensive in the first place but it is > priced at more than I paid for it new! > Also, I do find the staff in there really awkward. > They don't encourage me to buy at all. It has a > strange atmosphere. Amazing isn't it. A charity shop that is highly priced and you are paying over the odds!!!! Next thing you know and they will be trying to make a profit to further the goals of their charity. I think the best thing might be a trade war between the charity shops to drive prices down to the bone so that people can acquire goods at bargain basement prices. It's in the name 'C-H-A-R-I-T-Y' shop. They aren't there to give you the best bargains, they are there to make profits that can be used to help people. If you want bargains, go shop in Primark and fill your boots with sequined tops made by child labourers in sweatshops.

wilson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > OH Dear, feel bad as they are a good local > restaurant. > Ordered a take away on sat evening, and much to my > horror > choked on a small staple. > > Called the restaurant, and they didn't seem to > bothered > ask me what I wanted them to do! What an pointless post... Unless you name the restaurant, it surely doesn't count as General ED Issues / Gossip ... it just counts as a boring detail in your life or at best a short pub story... Are you going to name names?