Jump to content

Lordship lane Co-op wants to open 23/7

James Barber
 Share

Recommended Posts

Mick Mac

Mick Mac

Posted
Posted

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> God forbid elected officals (elected by us,

> offically) should have opinions on things.

>

>



Indeed - and yes I do note your irony Bob. But why not wait to see what their eloctorate feel about the issue before lodging an objection?

david_carnell

david_carnell

Posted
Posted

Because we elect people to let them make decisions on our behalf, not expect them to consult us on EVERY issue.


It's called representative democracy.


James, in his capacity as a councillor, is absolutely entitled to register his discontent at this idea without having to conduct some sort of survey of the electorate. And he's still entitled to vote whatever way he wants regardless.


You are entitled to out an x in a box once every four years. Get used to it.

KalamityKel

KalamityKel

Posted
Posted

It would be more appropriate to actually email/contact the licensing department act the council not to email/contact James.


The idea that James is the main contact for such issues is incorrect, ridiculous and incredibly misleading on James' part.


If you want your comments taken seriously follow the proper channels.

Mick Mac

Mick Mac

Posted
Posted

sedm Wrote:

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

> I think it's great that James Barber highlights

> what's going on in the area so people can make

> their views known.

>

> Personally I'm pro a Co-Op opening 24/7 - I work

> shifts so would be very handy being able to grab

> some food on the way home!


Ok, so you will be.pleased that James Barber already objected to it then

James Barber

James Barber

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Despite the many who use this forum many don't. So it's a useful sounding board but in the end I have to act in what I consider the best interests of the area.


But I've highlighted how to comment for or against These applications.


For this decision a licensing sub committee of three councillors will decide on these two interconnected applications. I won't be one of them nor will my ward colleagues.

Mick Mac

Mick Mac

Posted
Posted

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I think Southwark council should organise a

> refurendum on the opening hours of Co-op's

> Lordship Lane branch.


Ha ha. I have never known James Barber's view to be swayed by anything expressed on this forum.


Yes he does deal with ad hoc questions well but on planning matters he makes up his own mind. Maybe that's what he is elected to do but I'd have thought he'd be interested in people's views and be flexible enough to adapt his views but personally I think he is rather stubborn. This is another example.

Mick Mac

Mick Mac

Posted
Posted
Ok. The world has changed a bit since the time when elected representatives had no means of testing the water on local opinion. And most do not hold up the pretence of taking into account the views of people on this forum. It is this double standard that I personally disagree with.
Sue

Sue

Posted
Posted

KalamityKel Wrote:

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

> It would be more appropriate to actually

> email/contact the licensing department act the

> council not to email/contact James.

>


xxxxxxx


But that is exactly what James has asked people to do in his original post in this thread!


He gave the email address of the licensing department for people to do that. He just asked to be copied in - obviously you don't have to copy him in if you don't want to.


ETA: So I really don't understand why you think he has been in any way misleading.

Michael Palaeologus

Michael Palaeologus

Posted
Posted

It does seem that when the Forum agrees with James, well that demonstrates the voice of East Dulwich. When the Forum does not agree with James, it is simply a useful sounding board that many do not use.


Is there any supermarket development (other than Waitrose) that James Barber would support? It would seem not.


A 24 hours Coop seems like a useful addition.

shaunag

shaunag

Posted
Posted
Personally wouldn't want to live next to 24 hour local supermarket, and wouldn't want my local corner shop to go 24/7 either. I'm constantly picking up rubbish from my doorstep from people dropping it, and its always worse on the weekend when people dump eg takeaway containers after a night out. Street cleaning probably better on lordship lane but the surrounding streets will see more rubbish from drunken munchies packets being discarded in gardens. Maybe wouldnt irritate most, but every day I'm picking up some lazy sods rubbish and it drives me crazy!
KalamityKel

KalamityKel

Posted
Posted

Sue Wrote:

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

> KalamityKel Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It would be more appropriate to actually

> > email/contact the licensing department act the

> > council not to email/contact James.

> >

>

> xxxxxxx

>

> But that is exactly what James has asked people to

> do in his original post in this thread!

>

> He gave the email address of the licensing

> department for people to do that. He just asked to

> be copied in - obviously you don't have to copy

> him in if you don't want to.

>

> ETA: So I really don't understand why you think he

> has been in any way misleading.


Sue if you're going to quote me please do so correctly.


By James asking to be copied in would imply his involvement in the application or indeed there is some influence to be had with the decision making, which, James has indicated he has no part of so aside from sheer noseyness why should James be included?

No doubt there are will be some that disagree agree with me *shrugs* and waffle on about all the good he's doing... blah blah blah. Yes making us aware is good but not to give a false impression.

Mick Mac

Mick Mac

Posted
Posted
I'd be in favour of 24 hour co op. I don't live in close proximity to it. But I'm not sure either that the availability of a local amenity should be dictated by very close residents. Not sure why that is the case when it could benefit a very wide residential area. As would M and S.
James Barber

James Barber

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I asked to be copied because it inform me should my original stance feel wrong. So far people copying me it about 3 to 2 for the Co op being open and selling alcohol.


Equally the number of emails we receive helps us decide priorities. We only have so many hours.

StraferJack

StraferJack

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't be against the proposed opening hours - but I am a bit doubtful they will be that beneficial to Coop themselves, and wonder if those opening hours will last.


I'm sure it will be beneficial to some people, but enough of them to warrant the costs of staying open that long?

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • Sue
      Dawson Heights again

      By Sue · Posted

      Did you try the emergency number posted above? It mentions lift breakdowns over the festive period outside the advertises times. Hope you got it sorted x
    • Sue
      Be careful in local shops

      By Sue · Posted

      People working in shops should not be "attempting to do the bill in their head." Nor if questioned should they be  trying to "get to an agreeable number." They should be actually (not trying to) getting to the correct number. I'm afraid in many cases it is clearly more than incorrect arithmetic. One New Year's Eve in a restaurant (not in East Dulwich but quite near it) two of us were charged for thirty poppadoms. We were quite merry when the bill came, but not so merry as to not notice something amiss. Unfortunately we have had similar things happen in a well established East Dulwich restaurant we no longer use. There is also a shop in East Dulwich which is open late at night. It used not to display prices on its goods (that may have changed). On querying the bill, we several times found a mistake had been made. Once we were charged twice for the same goods. There is a limit to how many times you can accept a "mistake".  There is also a limit to how many times you can accept the "friendly" sweet talking after it.
    • malumbu
      Bitey Fox.

      By malumbu · Posted

      Adapted not forced.  As have numerous species around the world.  Sort of thing that Attenborough features.  Domestic dogs another good example - hung around communities for food and then we become the leader of the pack.  Not sure how long it will take foxes to domesticate, but some will be well on their way.    Raccoons also on the way https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1j8j48e5z2o
    • Jenijenjen
      Excellent Christmas meal at Franklins!

      By Jenijenjen · Posted

      My memory, admittedly not very reliable these days, places the shop on the block on the left hand side just before Burgess Park going towards Camberwell. Have also found a reference to Franklins Antiques being located at 157 Camberwell Road which is on that block. This is a screen shot obtained from Google maps of that address which accords with my memory except the entrance door was on the right hand side, where the grey door is, rather than in the centre.

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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