Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Keef Wrote:

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

> Actually, the people that live near the plough

> (which I repeat, is nowhere near either END)

> probably shop in the sainsbury's, Val's, or go up

> to the forest hill sainsbury's.



Thank you - that is my point. The people from the station end don't really need to go to the Plough end as they have DKH Sainsbury's, Co-Op, Iceland and all the independent shops. And I describe that as "the other end" because anything further towards Forest Hill is mainly served by Forest Hill. A Waitrose/M&S would have a different impact in either place, as they are, in effect separate places.

Hi Silverfox,

Lunch times are the times my colleagues pop out for sandwiches which they generally eat while working.

Mean while I use this as the opportunity to dash on my bike to Tooley Street - my day job is a 5min cycle ride away - to hold those meetings that phone calls and emails can't quite replace. One day I'll wean council officers onto conference calls.

Keef Wrote:

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

> Especially given that the plough isn't actually

> anywhere near either end, but more or less in the

> middle. Why not put it on Lordship Lane opposite

> the Harvester, that would annoy a few people in

> the low lands.


While I accept that none of us NEED a Waitrose, that location would make me very happy. Pity that all the shops there are fairly small and occupied...

You can't take a vote on every decision. It's unworkable.


We vote every few years to elect those individuals we want to make these kind of decisions on our behalf. As part of that they may seek some consultation where practical.


In that sense they feedback tells James exactly what he needs to hear: that views are polarised, that it's likely to be a contentious proposal, and that there are serious concerns about the impact on other retailers.


A formal consultation will tell him nothing different: a 51% vote in favour is still a 'no' vote because that's the nature of politics.


This forum is an ideal place to seek those opinions, because as a public forum it attracts opinion formers: those people who will sway public opinion.


Regardless of Iceland and the Coop, if there would be one massive benefit to LL, it would be to tear down those awful bloody buildings they're in...

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> You can't take a vote on every decision. It's

> unworkable.

>

> We vote every few years to elect those individuals

> we want to make these kind of decisions on our

> behalf. As part of that they may seek some

> consultation where practical.

>

> In that sense they feedback tells James exactly

> what he needs to hear: that views are polarised,

> that it's likely to be a contentious proposal, and

> that there are serious concerns about the impact

> on other retailers.

>

> A formal consultation will tell him nothing

> different: a 51% vote in favour is still a 'no'

> vote because that's the nature of politics.

>

> This forum is an ideal place to seek those

> opinions, because as a public forum it attracts

> opinion formers: those people who will sway public

> opinion.


That's such nonsense though. Imagine having your neighbourhood?s appearance or opinions represented shaped by a sharp-elbowed, time-rich, computer-owning, bickering elite.


Whatever generalisation you make above, that?s just unacceptable and wrong.

Regardless of what anyone's part of, a small clique of people making/influencing decisions that affect the entire area on an internet forum is ridiculous. As is a councillor pitching questions to them as if they do.


I'm sure this forum would also vote for a Miele showroom if you asked them.

YES please!!


we have a lack of a good high level of food supermarket and items like M&S in the area...We have to go to Lewisham or Greenwich to retire food order to M&S when you organise a cocktail..not great

I would prefer a M&S and one less Sainsburry in ED...

or put a M&S in Dulwich village! (nothing really shop here to buy food )


Thanks

VALFR59 Wrote:

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

> > or put a M&S in Dulwich village! (nothing really

> shop here to buy food )

>

> Thanks



Oh no, then you'd get those dreadful aspirational people from East Dulwich flocking over to us!

VALFR59 Wrote:

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

> YES please!!

>

> we have a lack of a good high level of food

> supermarket and items like M&S in the area...We

> have to go to Lewisham or Greenwich to retire food

> order to M&S when you organise a cocktail..not

> great

> I would prefer a M&S and one less Sainsburry in

> ED...

> or put a M&S in Dulwich village! (nothing really

> shop here to buy food )

>

> Thanks


Apart from 'yes please' what does the rest of the post mean? It reads like gibberish to me.

Narnia Wrote:

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

> VALFR59 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > YES please!!

> >

> > we have a lack of a good high level of food

> > supermarket and items like M&S in the area...We

> > have to go to Lewisham or Greenwich to retire

> food

> > order to M&S when you organise a cocktail..not

> > great

> > I would prefer a M&S and one less Sainsburry in

> > ED...

> > or put a M&S in Dulwich village! (nothing

> really

> > shop here to buy food )

> >

> > Thanks

>

> Apart from 'yes please' what does the rest of the

> post mean? It reads like gibberish to me.


Am glad that it wasn't just me. Particularly confused about the "We have to go to Lewisham or Greenwich to retire food". When I "retire food" it just goes in the bin! :))

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...