pk

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rather like your hyperbole about uptight, over- > entitled nimbys. > > Not at all I thought you?d decided to agree to differ Or was that only if you get the last word?

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pk, let us agree to differ; you think residents > who found the sound levels uncomfortable should be > ignored, I think > some sort of compromise should be explored for > next year. Or to put it another way: I think is that talk of forcing people out of their homes at great expense, suggestions that people are trying to tell people who know what circles are that they?re squares and that people are being subjected to torturous noise abuse is over the top and takes away from any sensible message You think it?s useful commentary, apparently But agree, let?s agree to differ

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What on earth is a portaloo? Like those things > used on building sites? > > Louisa. Yeah and at festivals funnily enough You get urinal ones out on the street in shoreditch and soho etc, that are just put out on busy nights (probably)

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve heard horror stories about the > shoreditchification of the area around PR station. > Out of towners weeing in the streets after a night > on the tiles. It?s disrespectful when others have > to live and work in the area. > > I don?t know what the answer is Portaloos maybe?

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The moment well to do (and let?s face it) mostly > white people miraculously ?discover? previously > ?neglected? working class London neighbourhoods, > these issues occur. Twenty years ago no one would > have dreamt about having a festival in our back > yard. But surprise, surprise the moment the trendy > fashionable types want to live in and spend time > in our neighbourhood, we all have to be ?thankful? > that a private company is using our public spaces > to host these events for these people. Regardless > of the noise and environmental costs for > residents. > > You may think I?m banging the same old drum, but I > think I have a valid point here. At what stage do > residents get to have a say on what happens in > their own back garden? Are our high streets now a > free for all for out of towners to defecate and > vomit in after a night of partying? Does our park > only get partially annexed once a year or maybe in > time money talks and they can have the whole space > for various times during the summer? > > The old elephant in the room, the G word strikes > again, but we all have to keep pretending that?s > not relevant, and that we should all be grateful > people come here to have fun and new > shops/restaurants should now only cater for their > tastes and not anyone else. > > Louisa. So if rich white people are the problem And the consequences could be untold sh*tting in the street, ethnic minorities and working class people being unable to buy anything or eat out and the loss of all the park What?s the answer?

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry pk, it is minor in your view. compared to a million people on the streets in notting hill or three nights in a row for two weekends in a row (one gone, one coming) on a much bigger scale in victoria park or many nights with 70 thousand people in hyde park or many other music events held in London each year I'd say it was, as outdoor music events go, minor in fact i'd say it represents some middle ground between having a multiple huge events (as some places do) and having no event at all, as there are people who want less noise and earlier finishes, there are those that would rather see more such events on the rye and ones that go later and louder - maybe the current event represents a compromise? > Clearly you have no inclination to take any other view seriously I'd didn't realise the talk of squares being circles and torturous noise abuse and people being forced out of their homes at great expense was intended to be serious! > I would add, that at a large scale event, like a music festival the majority > will naturally live further away, if not in a > different borough, and clearly will 'suffer' > minimal impact. I'm sure you've got no idea where the majority of people who listened to music on the rye came from (in the unlikely event that you've got any facts, please share), but obviously some people came from out of southwark/London/England just like people from southwark attend events in other boroughs, towns, countries and 'suffer minimal impact' when in e.g. hackney or reading or overseas that's how the world works - people live somewhere and sometimes do things or go places nearby and sometimes go further away. maybe even you sometimes visit other areas? I think that's a good thing and that people should be accepting of people coming near to where they live even if those people enjoy themselves and 'suffer minimal impact', sometimes they might suffer more 'serious' impact when southwark residents 'suffer minimal impact' by visiting an event elsewhere I must be very fortunate as despite living in various locations over the decades of my life, some close to and some further from parks, I've managed to avoid the serious impact of music events

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I fail to see why this should be > something you could not support. applying your views above, surely you think that it's because I think that square is round and that using torture tactics to drive people from their homes is good? but in reality, I don't support it because I have a different opinion to you and because I think that talk of square being round and of torture and of driving people out is over the top nonsense and because I think that the benefits of thousands of people enjoying a day or two of music in the park is worth the relatively minor level of inconvenience and annoyance suffered by locals, of which I'm one, for about 0.5% of a year

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > if a proportion living close by felt the noise was loud > to the point of unbearable there should be greater > efforts made to reduce it next year. Some seem to > feel it was louder than last year. > But what if a proportion, maybe even a bigger proportion, think it was fine? > As for the 'over-entitled'... well pots and > kettles and all that. > What is it you think I?m claiming to be entitled to? It?s not my event, I?m just suggesting that for two days a year I don?t believe that people are being forced from their homes or that it?s a terrible imposition on those close by many of whom attemdded

TheArtfulDogger > > I have friends who live on the carnival route and > every year they board up the windows and go away > for the weekend as it effects their lives > massively And a few thousand people in a park with no road closures is comparable to a million people in the streets with extensive road closures? I?d of thought carnival was best used as an example of how this really shouldn?t be a big deal > > I think if Southwark did an honest consultation > (yeah I know an "honest" one would be a first) > that there would be a large number who would ask > for events like this to be deeper into the area, > possibly on the playing fields where the circus > goes just because of the noise pollution or not at > all > >but the area they used is less used for other purposes and better isolated For sound - as by the large school building on the road side, in a dip in the ground and more trees to break the sound?

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Residents living close by have no choice in the matter, > unless of course you feel that in order for you to > have a good time they should be forced to vacate > their properties for the whole of the bank holiday > and pay up to stay somewhere else? > > you really think that people who choose to live near a park should then get to choose what goes on in the park? and that people were 'forced' to vacate their homes for the whole weekend? sounds like uptight, over-entitled nimbyism to me i know that none of the many friends and family of mine who live nearby felt forced to leave, whether they attended the event or not!

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > TheCat Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Cryptic words but you're a cuuuunt....... > > > > > > > > > We can all do that > > > > Nothing cryptic > > > > Classy response tho > > I like how you didnt respond to the multitude of > rational responses, you chose the one > pisstake...speaks volumes..... But I did respond to pretty much all your other reponses?! Feel free to have the last word, I?m out

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cryptic words but you're a cuuuunt....... > > > We can all do that Nothing cryptic Classy response tho

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Good post Malumbu. Not sure if I agree with all > your thoughts Brilliant! Complimenting your own post, even tho you?re not sure if you agree with yourself! Or have I missed something?

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You described the poster as such. Don't Try and > hide from it.... It?s there for all to see, maybe you got too outraged before you got to the second line?

> > Sure. So let me use your logic to comment. You're > no doubt a classic black (I guess), woman (I > guess)...therefore always wanting to play the > victim and emotively tell everybody else how they > should be living life..... > > For clarity people, I think the above statement is > disgusting. But it applies the same logic which pk > used in his/her opening gambit...... It doesn?t follow the same logic at all I didn?t describe anyone as a classic white man I described feeling entitled to determine what is and isn?t racist probably from a position of little direct experience as classic white middle aged male arrogance on the subject of racism, like comparing what the guy who posted it on reflection described ?utterly racist? to calling monkey nuts monkey nuts

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it sounds like you're after a fight, I'm not. if someone calls someone out as being biased (or implies the same) and the someone asks why, I can?t see how the person who asks the question is the one who?s after a fight

Mark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it's best read in full rather than bits of it being pulled > out to sway biased points of view: > so what's the bias that you're suggesting the I (presumably) suffer from?

"the centuries slurs equating simians and people of colour. Racism at it's basest.? ?The picture in context as presented was obviously shamefully racist.? "I am aware black people do not need a white man to tell them this.? D. Baker 2019

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > TheCat Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > pk Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > malumbu Wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > > > > > Oh I do miss the time when we could be > more > > > > open > > > > > in taking the mick out of the Royals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and in being racist, presumably? > > > > > > > > classic white (I'm guessing) middle aged > (I'm > > > > guessing) male (I'm guessing) arrogance, > > > thinking > > > > that they're best placed to tell everyone > the > > > > reality about racism - whilst clearly not > > giving > > > a > > > > sh*t about/ridiculing those affected > > > > > > > > > WOW...and you're claiming its 'other' people > > who > > > are prejudiced....????? > > > > > > your hypocrisy it astounding. > > > > there's no hypocrisy there, thanks > > > A watertight reposte..... > > I concede to your infallible logic thanks, I'm glad you concede I guess that you realise that there's no logic in what you said so the logical response is indeed to dismiss it out of hand

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > malumbu Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > > Oh I do miss the time when we could be more > > open > > > in taking the mick out of the Royals. > > > > > > > > and in being racist, presumably? > > > > classic white (I'm guessing) middle aged (I'm > > guessing) male (I'm guessing) arrogance, > thinking > > that they're best placed to tell everyone the > > reality about racism - whilst clearly not giving > a > > sh*t about/ridiculing those affected > > > WOW...and you're claiming its 'other' people who > are prejudiced....????? > > your hypocrisy it astounding. there's no hypocrisy there, thanks

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Oh I do miss the time when we could be more open > in taking the mick out of the Royals. > > and in being racist, presumably? classic white (I'm guessing) middle aged (I'm guessing) male (I'm guessing) arrogance, thinking that they're best placed to tell everyone the reality about racism - whilst clearly not giving a sh*t about/ridiculing those affected

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > And Farage managed to p*ss everyone off in > Brussels yesterday, and he wonders why he has been > excluded from involvement in the negotiations! to see a super smug UKIP bullsh*ter goading those that rightly called out the Leave campaigners as liars really was depressing to watch something I'd hoped never to see and I'm ashamed to show the world - UKIP have 1 MP and he's there acting like he speaks for the nation he definitely doesn't speak for me

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ELL2 is great for a minority of people who live in Southwark. > the Loss of the SLL will harm many more Southwark > residents and local hospitals. you got any actual facts or figures around this? i'd imagined that it was the other way round

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes KK made an assumption which may or may not be > correct. To go from that to calling him a racist > is over reaching IMO. even when the assumptions are that the black victim of a beating (or their supporters)is a "bruvva" "wannabe gangster who's never worked for anything himself" and who is "used to getting their way through rough talk and intimidation" and "brought-up on gangster hip-hop and dominating people" you think that this is ok? and anyway i said racist or ignorant or illogical - and i reckon that at least 2 of these three are probably true based on this thread

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pk I am not naive, I think you shouldn't be > chucking allegations of racism at people in an > effort to make yourself look so enlightened. you asked me a question - albeit rudely and with a stupid illustration of why KK wasn't racist (in your opinion) (although he admits himself that he's made assumptions about people, seemingly based on racial stereotypes) i answered so why can't you respond to any of the substance of what's been said rather than going on about looking 'enlightened'? what does that mean anyway?