Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Wot, like the first post on this thread ?


"There is concern that this will attract drug users to the area, affecting safety (particularly at night) and leading to an increase in anti-social incidents. Others areas which have had pharmacies with similar services opened, have seen a rise in drug addicts present, used syringes discarded on to the streets and trouble caused by the people present. "


BARA wrote that... but who is BARA ?

To those of you that were expecting this story to appear in this weeks Southwark News...


I apologise, as it will not. We had to pull it due to a number of stories breaking on deadline day that took a precedence, It is online at www.southwarknews.co.uk...


Once again, sorry for that.


Please feel free to call me at the office on 020 7231 5258 with any comments or queries...

Maurice


"sweeping insults of academia in general" coming from you ....well what can I say....how's your love for Peckham ?


Ted


As for academia I am confused, are you saying that you get a qualification and are then not swayed by any form of peer pressure or politics....is that what you are honestly trying to tell us ?

Charmingly put, but you are probably right that this issue has lost its momentum - largely due to the fact that a mutually acceptable solution has now been reached.


The fact is however, that this thread has attracted (as far as I can tell from browsing) more views and postings than any other on the EDF. The only ones that come anywhere near are: New Secondary School, Attempted Abduction and Cafe Nero and they are way behind.


People have been able to hear about and discuss this issue in a way that, whatever the best endeavours or intentions could ever have been of the PCT or any other organisation seeking to consult, would not have been possible by a normal letter posting exercise.


This is a good thing I think. I also tend to the view that the discussion on the EDF has been more balanced and representative of the community at large than is usually the case at public meetings or at the community council.

TedM and Maurice


Dr Jane you well educated friend recently quoted in the Southwark News " I am glad that the other pharmacies have agreed to stay open longer to serve the NEEDS of the community in regards to the needle exchange'


Blimey would you believe it your whole "Except that the PCT's Dr jane Fryer, medical director of the Primary Care Trust (I know, she's probably a real ignoramus, huh?) is on record as saying there is no need for a service" argument collapses into oblivion, shame it does not take your patronising clap trap with it........NEEDS being the key word.....just incase you can't see through all your sht isht er ......straw

Having seen off the threatened competition by the DMC, how many of the local pharmacies have now increased their opening hours to compensate for the local community not getting a 100-hour pharmacy? How many of them now open on Sundays?


Care Chemists 104 Grove Vale SE22 8DR

Day Lewis Pharmacy 34 Forest Hill Road SE22 0RR

Foster & Sons 14 Forest Hill Road SE22 0RR

Macey (EyeKent) Chemist 43-45 Northcross Road SE22 9ET

National Co-op Chemists Ltd 115 Lordship Lane SE22 8HU

Sadlers Pharmacy 389 Lordship Lane SE22 8JN

Tanna Chemist 46 Lordship Lane SE22 8HJ

  • 2 weeks later...
Christ are they mainlining fish now ? These councillors really no how to party, lets get this bleedin facility up and running quick. If the fish stocks start to dry up and they all get strung out, whos going to skew the Cleener Greener fund to re-ashfelt northcross roads path ?
  • 3 months later...
The pharmacist on Northcross rd is still rubbing his hands with glee as he was very worried that he may lose business if that pharmacy at Dulwich Medical Centre were to open and did he have something to do with the petition i wonder?

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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