Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

sally buying Wrote:

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

> If they do it could be like the old 1960's

> Saturday night fight after the fair closed between

> the locals and dumb-dumbs.

>

> Are one remember those days?


I remember last night fights between locals and the fairground lads (who always won by a country mile - more practice I guess).


Who are the dumb-dumbs ?!

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> wow, pretty ,much the entire of the common, once

> you account for those outside doing a whiteout.

> why did they change from the area at the back

> where its usually held, just to enlarge the event

> ?

> I think it's uncool in this area of the common.


It's a one off change of location, apparently because of the existing works on Peckham Rye to put in flood/drainage defences.

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> sally buying Wrote:

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

> -----

> > If they do it could be like the old 1960's

> > Saturday night fight after the fair closed

> between

> > the locals and dumb-dumbs.

> >

> > Are one remember those days?

>

> I remember last night fights between locals and

> the fairground lads (who always won by a country

> mile - more practice I guess).

>

> Who are the dumb-dumbs ?!l



Deaf and dumb lads. Quite why they stuck in my mind I do not know perhaps because they were on the fairground lads side.


In those days you ended up with a broken nose and busted pride but never dead.

Wonder how they will mitigate sound travel?


Aside from noise issue, which would not affect me personally, I'd rather use the common than more scenic parts of park, but understand for those who are closer to and use the common this will be a pain.


Not sure about the council's stated aim to let out sections of park for many more organised events, as a way to raise revenue, is a great move either.

In some ways it was better in the previous location, as that's an under-used section of the park anyway. Also the gentle slope gives a good view of the stage. But that area will be undergoing flood prevention works this year.


I have not heard of any of the acts at all (apart from A Guy Called Gerald, who I think rings a bell from the 80s), and I certainly won't be going, but it's a moot point really. You can't please everyone. I think overall we're lucky to live in a city that has culture, a music scene, etc. Maybe a couple of days of noise can reasonably considered as the price we pay for living in a vibrant city.

first mate Wrote:

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

> Interesting you say it is an under-used section? I

> see it used quite a lot.



We use that area almost every day, but I think it?s comparatively less used than the other wide-open areas, possibly cos it?s more heath-like and boggy.

  • 2 weeks later...

Fishbiscuits said - "Maybe a couple of days of noise can reasonably considered as the price we pay for living in a vibrant city."

Actually three days of noise - four this year, plus fencing off the area for setting up and taking down, so taking it out of public use for about a couple of weeks.

The licensing notices which have recently appeared on the park railings show that they are now applying to hold two or three events each year in the park or on the common.

I've not been to Gala but I have been to X The Tracks in Brockwell Park and On Blackheath and loved them both. It's a great way to do a festival without the camping and these events have a great community vibe. Let's not forget, every council has events on their common land for local people to enjoy. They are not private events as everyone can pay to attend - a private event would surely be by invitation only - so it is not privatisation of common land. Totally support your right to grumble, but let's let this go ahead.

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

    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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