Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Worth a look as the proposed conservation area covers a slice of East Dulwich.


I can't see who wrote the Southwark Document, but some of the structure and text is very similar to the English Heritage report of 2009.


Ths post is not an endorsement of English Heritage errors.


John K

Bumping this because the Southwark conservatiom area proposals affect East Dulwich residents, and as this thread is in the fast-moving lounge it was already buried on page two.


Way back in 2009 when English Heritage published their Historical Assessment all you had to do was send them an email and they'd post you a "FREE" hard copy of the report. By nearly return post you got a very well produced A4 size book printed on good quality paper with all the colour illustrations. If it were a commercially published book it would retail at around ?30.


English Heritage has suffered severe budget cuts and I don't know if they still provide this "free" service. Nevertheless it might still be worth a try in case they have some space copies stuffed in the back of a cupboard.


John K

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

    • the same complaint was made about usa news stations 4 years ago.  its an old story. Its quite shocking how intelligent people are so easily manipulated. I
    • With slightly less respect Headnun I have  watched the 1 hour video - he said what he said and he did what he did. And his faux-wink wink “no violence people” fools no one but fools. Are you a fool?    the bbc told the truth - and it’s a straight up lie to say otherwise. Did they edit and cut to the chase to make a point? Absolutely  and correctly  he was not edited to say things he didn’t say  I cannot believe you watched the entire video and are trying to say the bbc edit somehow misrepresented what he said and Back in the real world - did the nutters who showed up at the white house materialise because of a bbc edit ffs - have some self respect and recognise what’s going on 
    • Friends and family in the 'States always say how wonderful it is to be in Britain and see our news coverage.  It's all partisan out there. The BBC manages to simultaneously p off the left and the right so must be doing something right.
    • From the BBC: "The conclusion of that deliberation is that we accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologise for that error of judgement." What is wrong is editing someone to make him say something they didn't.  With respect Sephiroth, this is something I know a bit about and I have encountered, over the last decade, people in programming editing contributors to make them say things they didn't, the end point being to hang them out to dry. It's happening more and more and it's my job to make sure that people on TV are not mis-represented, but shown in their true light so that viewers can make up their own minds. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes and how hard some us fight to keep things impartial.  It's also worth mentioning that I have personally lost work because of Trump suing US networks, and that's one of the lesser reasons why I'd like to see him gone.  But broadcasters have a moral obligation to tell the truth and that's the hill that most decent professionals in the industry are willing to die on. Otherwise, how can the viewing public trust anything that's beamed into their living rooms? 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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