JP Wetherspoons (The Vale)

[Cassius]

The Weatherspoons in Forest Hill is in an old cinema, I haven't been around here long enough to know if there was anything in the building between its use of a cinema or its use as a pub. I wonder if it had not been taken over by JDW it would have been knocked down and flats built there instead - and it is a lovely building. Also local pubs which cater to a different clientele such as the Dartmouth Arms are thriving even though there is a JDW less than 5 minutes away.

It is strange that people who are desperate for a chain such a M&S Food or Waitrose to come to ED suddenly get wildly defensive of independents when the chain doesn't suit them.

[binary_star]

sillysue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd have thought that about 50% of people in the

> country live on a below average income.

Well if income was like IQ and it was meant to form a nice, equally distributed bell curve, then yes by definition *exactly* half of the population would fall within the 'below average' income section. But it doesn't form an equally distributed bell curve, take a look at the latest government data, specifically the graph on p. 15 here:

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai_2009/pdf_files/full_hbai10.pdf

See how skewed it is to the left (that's the 'poor' end)? It doesn't matter which average we're looking at here (mean, median, whatever) most people are still below it. Ok, I'm going to go back to the grumpy old women thread to vent a bit as I'm getting a bit off topic.

[ianr]

binary_star Wrote:

> take a look at the latest government data, specifically the graph on p. 15 here:

> http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai_2009/pdf_ files/full_hbai10.pdf

Which is a 242 page 1.2MB PDF file of Households Below Average Income: An analysis of the income distribution 1994/95 ? 2008/09 from the DWP.

I'm attaching a copy of page 15.

[binary_star]

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Which is a 242 page 1.2MB PDF file of Households

> Below Average Income: An analysis of the income

> distribution 1994/95 ? 2008/09 from the DWP.

>

> I'm attaching a copy of page 15.

Thanks. And for those who can't even be bothered to open the gif, the answer is about two thirds.

[jollybaby]

Um average wage is just that -average. It isn't really that helpful a figure to quote when talking about adequacy of income. After all it is determined by what people actually earn rather than being a calculated figure over which you can expect to maintain a reasonable standard of living. Income follows a skewed distribution as said above so it is not surprising that there is an imbalance towards 'below average' but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone who is below average should be considered as living in poverty. Sorry to go off topic but this talk of averages is bugging me. Shouldn't we say low income instead?

[????]

In an ideal world would like no chains on LL full stop. They push up rents, push out the independents and without them the reality of SE22 - quite pretty but relatively small pokey housing stock and LL especially, actuallay a fairly average street (without its quirky shops and bars, etc) - would suddenly become very apparent indeed. Be careful for what you wish for.

[lofty23]

The Weatherspoons in Forest Hill is in an old cinema, I haven't been around here long enough to know if there was anything in the building between its use of a cinema or its use as a pub.

Well I went to a rave there in the 90's but I don't know if it was legally used for anything

[Amelie]

The Forest Hill JDW was a cinema and then a bingo hall; the inside is great but unfortunately JDW haven't done anything much with the pavement outside and this has not been helped by Lewisham Council's lackadaisical approach to street cleaning and maintenance, or indeed its lack of thought about what type of commercial premises should be granted licenses/planning permission. TfL sticking badly maintained bus stops smack bang outside only made a bad situation worse.

[Sue]

sillysue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > With the number of muggings etc in these parts of

> late, at least a JDW will give the police a good

> place to initiate their inquiries from.

xxxxxxxx

That's just an absolutely disgraceful thing to say (6)

[Frankie G]

Where are the present owners of the The Vale going to??? or are they going to run the JD Wetherspoons..........

[binary_star]

jollybaby Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Income follows a skewed distribution as

> said above so it is not surprising that there is

> an imbalance towards 'below average'

Yes, in a capitalist society this is to be expected, but there are differences. In the UK, two thirds of the population earn below the average - it doesn't have to be so imbalanced.

jollybaby Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone who is below

> average should be considered as living in poverty.

I don't think anyone has suggested that?

jollybaby Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry to go off topic but this talk of averages is

> bugging me. Shouldn't we say low income instead?

If we're talking about low-income, yes, but I think 'I earn less than the average person so I'm choosing a cheaper pub' is a perfectly adequate argument. And so is 'most people are on below-average income'. If you're going to quantify low-income and poverty like the gov, then only about a fifth of the population are actually living 'in poverty', but should we really need to be talking about 'poverty' when referring to popping out for a pint?

[DJKillaQueen]

People living in true 'poverty' can't afford to pop out for a pint anywhere!

[showboat]

sillysue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Resorting to name calling and at hinting at being

> racist when someone disagrees with you, seems a

> bit much for just offering my own opinion?

>

> I think you'll find that the 'city workers' around

> Tower Bridge et al. are only there because JDW

> typically offers a large amount of space, a

> quality that is sadly lacking from most drinking

> establishments in the 'city' portion of London.

>

> With the number of muggings etc in these parts of

> late, at least a JDW will give the police a good

> place to initiate their inquiries from.

Interesting point that you haven't considered - rents/prices in the City are so astronomically high that only the big chains can afford the big spaces. Small indie joints can't afford to even open there, let alone compete. Anyway, a lot of City drinkers aren't looking for a place with character - they want to get drunk, eat nachos and try it on with Frank/Fiona from the Purchase Ledger dept before staggering off to the tube/bus. Those that actually want a good pub in the City with real ale and a real chef know where they are and tend to avoid the caverns except at times like Christmas parties.

The assumption that JDW contains a high proportion of criminals and ne'er do wells is just... well, prejudiced at best. I'm not sure where you get this idea from. The average ED pub is out of the price range of many people. Perhaps you think that those on a low income automatically commit crime if they can or something... Or maybe you're just a bigot. I'm not sure.

Ialso think it's a intersting point made by ???? - people here want a Waitrose or M+S - but see a JDW as lowering the tone. Personally I think it's the price you pay for an area being as succesful as this. A little bit nimby-ish, me'thinks.

[The Minkey]

If they do tart the Vale up with a nod towards ED then it will probably attract a broader crowd than most of the current venues - which is a good thing, imo. I just can't see it as a threat to local business, those who prefer an indie atmosphere will continue to drink at the usual venues.

[Sue]

The Minkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If they do tart the Vale up with a nod towards ED

> then it will probably attract a broader crowd than

> most of the current venues - which is a good

> thing, imo. I just can't see it as a threat to

> local business, those who prefer an indie

> atmosphere will continue to drink at the usual

> venues.

xxxxxx

Yes exactly - it's good to have the choice!

[ImpetuousVrouw]

I undesrtand Skidmarks sentiments re owner occupier pubs, but when I wanted to take my kids out for a meal, the only option for me as a single parent with 4 kids and a granddaughter was Wetherspoons in Peckham.

The snobby remarks about the type of clientelle who frequent Wetherspoons are disgusting and I hope those sitting so comfortably in their ivory towers lose all they own in the tsunami of a recession that is heading our way, then they might be glad they can crawl out of their pit for a drink in the new Wetherspoons every 2 weeks when their benefit comes through.

[Bellerophon]

lofty23 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Weatherspoons in Forest Hill is in an old

> cinema, I haven't been around here long enough to

> know if there was anything in the building between

> its use of a cinema or its use as a pub.

>

> Well I went to a rave there in the 90's but I

> don't know if it was legally used for anything

Was also an Indian Restaurant up top, where one could go for after hours drinkies. (early 90's anyone remember the name ?)

[Sue]

ImpetuousVrouw Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The snobby remarks about the type of clientelle

> who frequent Wetherspoons are disgusting and I

> hope those sitting so comfortably in their ivory

> towers lose all they own in the tsunami of a

> recession that is heading our way, then they might

> be glad they can crawl out of their pit for a

> drink in the new Wetherspoons every 2 weeks when

> their benefit comes through.

xxxxxxxx

I completely agree.

[peterstorm1985]

Another thought on the client base, using my own experience of the Wetherspoons in the city, which has been pretty awful - full of loud mouthed, overpaid for what they do, out to get legless types - pubs are what the majority choose to make them. If they do take over the Vale, all it needs is for those who want it to be a nice pub to turn up every night, and spend lots of money (the crucial factor) and that's what they'll cater to. If you wave money at the same time as making demands you tend to find that the business brains behind the corporation take note. You don't have to spend huge amounts individually but you do need the cash running through the tills so if you're not well off just bring lots of mates.

[????]

I love pub chains...they keep all the W*nkers out of the decent ones

[Jah Lush]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I love pub chains...they keep all the W*nkers out

> of the decent ones

If there was a like button on here as on Facebook I'd definitely be prodding it. And this folks is what will probably happen. I can see into the future. Cheap drinks = arseholes who can't handle their drink. Loads of trouble.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Ok, so being poor means you're a w@nker and an arsehole.

Well done guys, that includes me and most of the people I know.

In my opionion, you've been stuck up your own arses for too long and forgot what life is like outside your fabulous fucking circle of cnuts.

[cate]

Yeah and don't forget people who shop at Lidl, Aldi and Pound Stores. How much are pints in Wetherspoons btw. I paid ?3.50 for one at lunchtime.

[????]

Nope IV - it was a statement about Chain Pubs, their ubiquity and their marketing led souless chain offers (most of which are actually more expensive than locals, Wetherspoons being an exception) I'm not saying cheap pubs=not my sort of people, just chain pubs...and yes, that includes Wetherspoons, and if you see that as an insult on the poor that's your own imaginary problem/battle.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

I have no problem with slagging off chain pubs - not keen on the comments slagging off their customers.