Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Brendan Wrote:

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

> It really could do with an indoor public swimming

> pool. I feel London is generally under catered for

> when it comes to indoor pools.


There's one 100 yds away from it!!!....you don't like to travel too far do you ;-) Of course it is dire, but you didn't express any requirements of a certain standard of hygiene! ;-)

Brendan Wrote:

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

> I know about the East Dulwich Baths I just think

> the area could do with another one as there are

> significantly more people living here now that

> there were 100 years ago.


But, can they all swim?

Brendan Wrote:

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

> I know about the East Dulwich Baths I just think

> the area could do with another one as there are

> significantly more people living here now that

> there were 100 years ago.


But that one is never full up, of people I mean, so why build another? Also, now as we're more mobile "the local baths" is not necessarily the place the locals swim. (If they have any sense...)

Keef Wrote:

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

> Okay, so it's a smoking/gambling/cheesy disco/lap

> dancing/porn shop/shooting range/guitar

> studio/record shop/opium den... I want to live

> there!


I already do...sounds like my flat.>:D<

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • It required legislation to identify the beneficial owners of properties in the UK held by overseas companies - and these still haven't been properly disclosed - ownership of things isn't just a google search away - and to suggest otherwise is not to understand how capitalism works. Unless you (cyclemonkey) do have access to that knowledge and would like to share.
    • "Mysterious owners" 😆  If only there was a powerful search engine at our fingertips to find out such deep secrets.        
    • It's the "due to commercial reasons" line again that is vexing. Last year it seemed, although there was a similar level of objection, that the reasons were commercial - Gala didn't appear entirely prepared to run 3 more events, or more likely didn't have sufficient interest from other promoters / organisers who could 'sub-let' the site as with Brockwell Park (I believe?). This year they appeared more organised, had another year to plan & prepare, to the extent they actually had names for two of the three new events which indicated to me that they had third party promoters / organisers in place.  So yes, it does make you wonder whether the repeated level of objection, combined with the impending elections, led to the council 'advising' that maybe they shelve it again? I'm afraid I can't see the whole extension application just being a ruse to guarantee permission for the 'regular' event. Gala are a commercial venture with ambition - every festival's business plan is to expand, expand, expand, year on year on year. Gala won't give up until they have taken over the whole park for a Summer of Raves, and the mysterious owners are on their yachts counting their ££££
    • Thanks for that. Maybe forthcoming elections have stymied the 7 day request? If Labour get back in, do we think GALA will try with greater success in 2027?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...