Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I can assure you pressure groups, in particular this and the SE5 Forum, have had little if anything to do with it. This has been on the cards for some time. You can't really expect a few emails in the last six months prompted such a quick turnaround? Deluded.
For the trust to put those properties up for auction took quite a lot of effort. I couldn't sell my home in six months - surely you can appreciate this was something on the table for years. I do appreciate you think sending a few emails is 'lobbying', but it is naive. Lobbying takes years, and many have 'lobbied' on this before. But it makes sense, and the trust knows that, and they've been working on trying to do it for a very long time. To applaud yourself and any lose confederation of people who sent the odd email is a bit over the top.
No Alan. You seem to love causing online mischief but aren't so good at taking your own medicine. You are gloating about your efforts to 'lobby' on something when all you really did was send a few emails and post on a few sites. Something you excel at. Now you are taking credit having gleaned it's up for auction thanks to someone who does know what is going on. Hardly a victory for some well oiled community lobby. It is actually a victory for the trust who has been working on this for ages.

I'm not sure I understand the arguments relating to property.


I hope that the old days of selling everything off for short term gain are over. Selling off the Windsor Walk property were never going to be a long term solution of not having enough funding to keep the Maudsley's acute services open.


Sadly, we are talking about some of the most vulnerable members in our community. They may be small in numbers being admitted, but I find it distressing that these people will have to join the queues at the A & E of King's.


You don't see these people able to challenge these clinical decisions at the high court.

I think 'these people' have had the full force of community spirit behind them. The SLP hasn't covered much else. With such sun shining on the decision, I have to believe it is justifiable.


The truth, as I understand it, is mentally ill individuals will have 24/7 access to emergency care. It may not be the same as before, but I don't think it means we'll see distressed individuals having to wait in long queues in a Victorian styled hospital with damp walls and flickering lights. I think the decision is defencable and sound.

"I can assure you pressure groups, in particular this and the SE5 Forum, have had little if anything to do with it. This has been on the cards for some time. You can't really expect a few emails in the last six months prompted such a quick turnaround? Deluded."


What's the source of your knowledge on the issue, and what's worked and hasn't worked in terms of influence, Mo? You give the impression of being very informed. Are you connected to the Maudsley, in some way?

No but I know someone who is. This has been on the cards for some time. A trust owning old properties takes a hell of a lot of time to sort out and get to market. As for pressure groups, that's not brain science. There are no effectual pressure groups in Camberwell, save the Society and the ad hoc Baths Group. The SE5 Forum has accomplished zilch and is on life support. They certainly didn't do anything re: this project. Alan may have posted something there and a few folks emailed, but I know the Trust was grateful for the support of something long in the pipeline.

"No but I know someone who is."


Ah, really just hearsay then; particularly about who and what did or didn't influence decisions regarding Windsor Walk, either directly or indirectly, through the lobbying of officials, politicians or others.


I'm not sure it's wise to make claims that people or groups have accomplished 'zilch' or have no influence, as mere mortals such as you, and probably most of the rest of us posting on this forum, can never really be in possession of all of the facts regarding that, unless you yourself are an insider and at the very top, which, of course, you've confirmed you are not.

I'm simply applauding the Maudsley, which has been working on this for quite some time. Surely anyone agrees such a sell by a Trust takes time. As for my assertions re: community groups, I stand by them. If you think they are poor assertions, then you'll agree Alan's leap that a handfull of folks sending random emails over the last months - then after a lull they see the place up for sale on a website (noted by someone else on another website apparently) - somehow means they won a long fought battle through massive lobbying. Perhaps we are both making shots in the dark.

"I'm simply applauding the Maudsley, which has been working on this for quite some time."


And I'm simply suggesting that you should do so without appearing to put down the efforts of others.


"Surely anyone agrees such a sell by a Trust takes time."


It also took time for the properties to reach their current state of neglect and disrepair, under the stewardship of...?


"As for my assertions re: community groups, I stand by them."


Good for you Mo, the band on the Titanic played on regardless, as well.


"Perhaps we are both making shots in the dark."


I think I suggested that. However, that doesn't mean that lobbying those people who are responsible for decision making is necessarily futile, by whatever means or by whom it is undertaken.

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

    • In what way? Maybe it just felt more intelligent and considered coming directly after Question Time, which was a barely watchable bun fight.
    • Yes, all this. Totally Sephiroth. The electorate wants to see transformation overnight. That's not possible. But what is possible is leading with the right comms strategy, which isn't cutting through. As I've said before, messaging matters more now than policy, that's the only way to bring the electorate with you. And I worry that that's how Reform's going to get into power.  And the media LOVES Reform. 
    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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