Jump to content

Recommended Posts

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> It's like Christmas - thanks for the time off work

> and everything but I'll skip the mass/celebration

> thing if it's all the same



You're so cool. Best not bring the little one townt house at christmas though.

ortmann80 Wrote:

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

> Well my contribution to the wedding is my middle

> finger pointing upwards!!!!!!Why not just have a

> street party at the weekend down one of the side

> streets for FUN



Well yeah, isn't that the point? We dot have to wave flags and say Gawd bless .'em. It's just an excuse for a piss up.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> BUT if anyone is thinking of holding a street

> party you'll need to get cracking as the noticing

> etc of closing a road and getting police, fire,

> ambulance agreement takes 6-8 weeks and the that

> bank holiday is only 14 weeks away.


And Southwark Council charges hundreds for the privilege... For the Queen's golden jubilee (2002), councils were requested not to charge people for closing residential roads for street parties. We had a fine one on Trossachs Road with much food, booze, music and bouncy castling - and there wasn't any flag-waving, just a great chance for neighbours to get together and have a good time.

Hi BrandNewGuy,

I'm sorry about your experience in 2002.

Council officers under the Lib Dems were directed to find a way of not charging for street party street closures and persauded local papers to provide a very low rate for the legally required advertising of the street closure. If you ask residents of Upland Road they've been having great street parties for a number of years and it is now much cheaper than your describe or when they orignally started.


I'm sure the Labour led administratino would be equally supportive of street parties.

If anyone finds problems with the councils support please get in touch with me straight away to try and smooth things.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi BrandNewGuy,

> I'm sorry about your experience in 2002.

> Council officers under the Lib Dems were directed

> to find a way of not charging for street party

> street closures and persauded local papers to

> provide a very low rate for the legally required

> advertising of the street closure. If you ask

> residents of Upland Road they've been having great

> street parties for a number of years and it is now

> much cheaper than your describe or when they

> orignally started.

>

> I'm sure the Labour led administratino would be

> equally supportive of street parties.

> If anyone finds problems with the councils support

> please get in touch with me straight away to try

> and smooth things.


James, you misunderstand. The main reason we had one in 2002 was because the Council waived the cost:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2011010.stm


If we could have that again this year (or for next year's Diamond Jubilee), I'm sure people would be more willing to hold street parties. As I said, you don't have to worship the royals to enjoy the party ;-)

I think a street party is a lovely idea. As you say, not all those attending have to be pro Royals, a large majority of people would simply enjoy the whole community coming together and doing something out of the ordinary. I for one have never been to a street party! It sounds great....


Although maybe North cross road would be better to avoid disruption..?

I definitely agree that there would be better options than LL.


I too have never been to a street party, and I'll admit, I like the idea of going a bit old school. I care not either way about the royals, I'm not a big fan, and I'm not anti. I couldn't give a toss about the wedding, but if there was a big street party on that day, I'd be there, and I'd try to enjoy myself.

Anywhere other than a residential street would be a pain to organise... why not just have your own party in your own street or small group of streets? Much more fun than a big 'official' impersonal event. C'mon Southwark, waive the charges for shutting a street!


And it needn't have much to do with the Royal Wedding - non-believers 'celebrate' Christmas, so I don't see why republicans can't have a p*ss-up on a Royal-related public holiday ;-)

ironjawcannon Wrote:

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

There is far too much of

> our money wasted on the outdated royals as it is.


'The Royals' cost us 62p each last year - and for that paltry sum they've delivered some excellent entertainment: Camilla got poked with a stick and Phillip asked a female sea cadet if she 'worked in a strip club'.


I'll buy that for a dollar.


Personally I can't wait for Charles to become our head of state. It's gonna be GREAT.

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

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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