Jump to content

Recommended Posts

the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

So please

> don't bury your heads in the sand and hope your

> local environment will always be nice - it takes

> work.


xxxxxxx


Yeh, especially now it's full of bright blue wheely bins (6)


:))

- "the smokers slowly pickling themselves outside the Palmerston itself" and polluting the roadway for passer bys and the seats intruding onto the pavement - never thought or cared about either but since the Palmerston wishes to throw stones....

ibilly99


I'm not sure we can be accused of throwing stones. Simply raising our concerns and asking for other's opinions. I'm sorry you see it that way.


With regards to the seating on the pavement. Our boundary extends to the point at which the seating ends (You'll notice our cellar hatch and difference in paving marks this point. That's why the seating is narrower than standard benches so as not to protrude further than the boundary allows. I'm not going to address the smoking issue because it's ridiculous to level that at us when it's the same for every establishment.


Otta


I was unaware of the proposed advertising plans at The Bishop. That's not to say that others in the company were not, I personally cannot comment though. Sorry.

I have never noticed the advertising on the wall, but then again, I only ever sit outside at the fab Palmerston when the weather is nice and hot. I'll be coming in this weekend so will let you know my thoughts (for what they're worth) on Monday.

I also think an eyesore and have reported it.


...but Southwark have signed a dealcwith JCDeceux for 80 free standing advertising displays on our pavements. The first for Eadt Dulwich is planning app 11-AP-3314. http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9542256

This is the very thin end to a very long wedge leading ultimately to a Blade-runneresque dystopian future for ED. Ads for Cash not Cuts.The smokers on the Palmerston council regulation sized benches truly have a bleak future to look out on to. A previously award winning Turneresque wall turned into a harlot whore of Babylonian excess. BTW Palmerston you need to paint your upstairs windows they're looking a bit shabby.
I noticed these last night while sitting in the Palmerston, so it's not just the smokers outside who'll be looking at them!- they are an eyesore especially after so much effort has been made to make that stretch of road look great with the old photos.

if the ads are too distracting/spoiling the mood, you can always gaze upon Londis or Iceland instead, from exactly the same seat and with minimal effort


Aesthetic beauty restored - ahh...


More seriously, I generally don't love advertising in public spaces, and most of the examples on the wall are hideous. However, it is on a very unlovely wall and I can't say, in all honesty, it makes that corner look worse

the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> And they will have to get planning permission. And

> the reason Southwark Needs the money is because of

> the Cuts by the Liberal Con Government. So thanks

> again James.


xxxxxxx


Why are you constantly dissing James Barber in your posts, when he does a lot for East Dulwich and its residents?


Or have I taken your post the wrong way?

  • 1 month later...

I don't believe this advertising conforms to the rules around advertising.

I suspect even Straferjack would be alarmed if advertising was a free for all and allowed anywhere!

I've asked enforcement officers to check this wall - some time ago and will chase.

Thanks James - East Dulwich can rest easy in their beds that slightly larger than normal advertising will be banished from non-descript 1970s blank walls.BTW I mentioned it to the Hog Roast folk on Saturday and they said they had never noticed it despite spending all day looking at it. Continual exposure to aromatic pork fumes have obviously clouded their otherwise sound judgements.
  • 2 weeks later...

ibilly99 Wrote:

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

> BTW Palmerston you need to paint your upstairs

> windows they're looking a bit shabby.


You're not wrong. Plans are in motion to tidy up the outside of The Palmerston. The upstairs being a priority.

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...