gsirett

Unfortunately I do not think Tigersharks will be swimming in September or ever again. I am one of the members of Tigersharks who have been discussing the future with Alleyns and with Krys & Margrett (the club founders). After the initial bombshell, we had a number of meetings with Alleyns over the summer. Alleyns were prepared to compromise on their initial decision and offered to extend the notice period by one term (until December) This was done on the basis that we were prepared to discuss making changes to the format & conditions that Tigersharks had always hired the pool under. They did acknowledge that their initial handling of the situation had been poor. Unfortunately, we were unable to find a compromise that was sufficient for Krys & margrett and they no longer wished to continue the discussions as of a couple of weeks ago. As the club has been built around them and their ethos, we cannot see a way forward. A very, very sad end to a local institution

Don't think it is a financial decision. The club has always rented to pool from Alleyns and they were told that there was no option to re-negotiate. A 27 year relationship terminated with 2 weeks notice and no reason given. My only thought us that it could be a strategy: independent schools have, over the last few years, made a lot of the support they give to local communities - a cynic may say that was done (even partly) to prevent them losing charity status & paying VAT. So, it could be that Tigersharks is a victim of the school withdrawing such goodwill "if you dont scratch our backs, we wont yours" now such changes seem inevitable I really hope this isn't the case, because it would fly in the face of a number of their values

Me and my family are some of the many members affected by this short-sighted decision - and there's plenty of people in the pool when we go every week.: children learning to swim, families swimming together, etc From what i understand, absolutely no reason has been given by the school for pulling out for this 27 year relationship - so hard to know why they are trying to do this.

Another vote for Busters. Really friendly, professional and reasonably priced service. Repaired a puncture in 10 minutes for £10 - zero attempt to upsell me with new tyres (unlike some other places) - and a really nice guy

Leaeshold generally (not just with Southwark) and be a financial nightmare when the building is being managed by some distant organisation. I own a flat (1/4 in a Victorian block) - it used to be managed by a agent of the freeholder and as an example, to get a simple roof repair done, they would send a sureveyor, a safety guy, a project manager to "manage" 3 x quotes and then finally appoint somebody to do the work. We had the case of 2 missing tiles costing about 6k (1.5 k each) A few years back we (the tenants) took on the management ourselves under Right to Manage. The above example now turns into us getting a couple of local roofers to quote and a few hundred quid. Maybe takes 2 weeks You can only do RTM if theres enough people in the block interested and, it does involve a certain degree of work (which, ironically, can be outsourced to a management firm - but on your own terms) The key thing is: as homeowners we all try to get good value for anything we do. A distant management firm (whether the council or anybody else) isn't maybe as bothered about the value piece - as long as they tick their boxes.

We had the same problem on our street. It used to happen over night (or early in the morning) so it was difficult to identify who was responsible, but we think it was down to one serial offender. *most* dog owners are responsible, just a tiny minority who seem to think its OK to leave s**t outside peoples houses. We put notices up (attached) on every lamppost on the street about 2 months ago. That seems to have fixed the problem (although I have to admit, it could explain why there may have been an increase on Melbourne grove!) Serioously, I think these people just don't realise the offence it causes and unless theyre told so they wont stop . So, either challenge them in the street if you can and tell them how anti-socal this is or put up some notices Edited to say: naming and shaming is good IMO. However, you assume these people read EDF. I would suggest: if you see them doing it: take a photo of them and attach that to a notice on a lamppost.

Andy Lewis (former commewealth long-jump record holder) runs a training/club at Ladywell arena. My 10 year old goes - he is an amazing & inspirational coach Not sure if he has a website. His email address is [email protected]

poor you I ran a small business during the 2008 downfall and went without ANY pay for 6 months. Forget employer pension contributions Yes, everythings got harder for everybody. That's because our economy got smaller. Gordon Brown held it off with fiscal easing (which was the right thing to do IMO) but that does leave us with a large structural debt. Up to you: we can *try* to remedy that over the coming dacades or just leave it for our children and grandchildren to pick up Things are harder for everybody - they will probably continue to. WRT governments and bankers: remember, there were only a handful of countries worldwide that came out of 2008-10 unharmed. UK got hit hard because its a heavily service based economy with financial services making up a big part of that - but with careful management, hopefully we will not end up like greece. And while I'm at it: why does everybody always blame bankers? - I am not one, but this "shock, banker gets a big salary/bonus" nonsense doesn't fly with me. In 2011, the FS sector contributed nearly 10% to this country's GVA; between 2005-11, the FS sector contributed 122 BILLION in tax revenues to the exchequer[1] In hard times, we always look to blame others. [1] (source https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDYQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fbriefing-papers%2Fsn06193.pdf&ei=EMvDU7zvGIXW0QXm74DYBA&usg=AFQjCNEZiCnQQfOfYGl83B22ondDPz4_iw&sig2=8kaKBJxLk5eE8Nvt5mS_6g)

and provides an easy place for people like you to try and get free advertising I suggest that, in that you want to use this as a source of free advertising for your business that you make a donation to the people who operate this forum of, say, ?1000. Or do you think that all of the other businesses that DO help support this forum should fund your advertising

have finally binned Virgin media 6 x TV outages in a year (including one for a whole week) and a couple of phone outages then long hold times for support, lots of frustration with people who I struggle to communicate with. Then offers of pro-rated rebates for loss of service which often dont get applied. More stress trying to get them to follow through on that. My theory: virgin have capacity problems in a high-use area like this. Although they were the first to do fibre-to-the-cabinet, their network is now relatively old and cant cope have moved to sky for TV - from what ive seen so far, they seem to do the whole customer service piece much better some joker from Virgin phoned me up after I cancelled and promised me the earth for a huge discount. He also told me how hugely reliable they are and that sky will stop working if theres a breeze within a 1000 miles or something. I didnt take him up on his offer Virgin broadband has been fine, so sticking with that until I can get BT infinity sorted out

ground rent sounds about right. However, that is the one area where the freeholder (or their agent) cant rip you off(as its written in the lease) Watch out for OTT building & management costs - these can be genuinely higher than you expect (remember, you own a share of the building now - and new roofs aren't cheap) but they can also be used to fleece you. best bet is to look back through prevoius years accounts to see whats being spent and then cross refeence that against the state of the building

Well done you - you spotted a cyclist doing something stupid (and it is stupid to ride at night without lights) The other day, I spotted a man in a van doing something stupid. He was driving his van, on his phone and nealry knocked me off my bike. Lets start a thread now "ban van drivers from the road" In fact, we can start campaigns for both of these things. I love blaming the worlds woes on specific minority groups - its great

I fly a couple times per month and will go for: LCY, LGW , LHR in that order The only sensible option for LHR with luggage is a car/taxi whereas LGW and LCY are pretty simple on public transport For LGW: get a train from ED, Honour Oak or Forest Hill - change at Croydon WRT the hassle with kids,etc: we've been taking the train to LGW since ours were tiny. My other half was initially reluctant, but it really is easy (as long as its not rush hour) - and it means you can have a beer on the way home without worrying about the drive !

I've not been on the forum for a while and I've just read through this thread. Yet again, councillor Barber shows his true colours: a man on a campaign to change the world into his personal view of what it should look like, with little or no regard for those who voted for him. He now claims to be a friend of the Lordship Lane trader - hmmmm Here is a deputation that Clr Barber heard from the traders last year about controlled parking: http://southsouthwarkbusinessassociation.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/deputation-to-dulwich-community-council.html After listenting to that, he was one of only 3 (out of 9?) councillors to vote in favour of controlled parking.

Ditto peoples comments on clock house The Dulwich wood house is also youngs. It also had a major refurb (18 months ago?). It's got to be one of the worst run pubs I've ever been in - awful. Cr*p, overpriced food, ALWAYS Understaffed ( and badly staffed) Youngs need to work out that some farow&ball paint and a glossy menu doesnt make for a good boozer

Noooooooo....please not again Garnwba. Pleased your life is so much better now you can park outside your front door. Hope the CPZ hasn't had an undue effect on anybody else in your area and I hope it was implmeented with the support of the local community. Just reading back through your postings from 12 months ago. You argued the toss then too. Barber......give it up

I can't say this without sounding, well sensationalist ..... But right now, there is a rapist loose In the area ?

I saw the police cordon... Actually on glengarry road Can I ask how you know this ? Did the police tell you ? Have they arrested anyone ? There are a lot of people in this immediate area very upset and worried by this news. Worried for their safety My thoughts are with the victim

gedwina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > GSirett - what are your thoughts on the proposed M > and S? Your contribution to this thread so far has > been anti CPZ and James Barber bashing - nothing > really to do with M and S apart from a "feeling in > your waters" ? Please don?t derail this useful > thread into local party politics Gedwina First, you?re right and I do see your point: this is a thread about M&S and it is discourteous of me not to at least share my thoughts on that. To get that out of the way, I don?t feel strongly either way. The business that feels it can make the most money will be prepared to pay the most for the premises. The landlord will take the biggest bid. Not much will stop that. I don?t think M&S would have a major effect on our precious (to me anyway) local independents and I also don?t think its going to make any form of significant difference to parking, once the dust settles. In my defence: On this forum, I saw a certain local councillor maintain for 2+ months a veil of impartiality over controlled parking ?only wanting what was best? and then vote, my guess, purely based on his personal/party ideology (my guess would be the latter, as all 3 of the same party did the same). I see the same veil of impartiality being used again and I do fear that there is an attempt going on here to open up the whole debate about controlled parking again. Given the chance, this man will play on the fears of local resident and use that to build a case for a CPZ again...and do that VERY subtly (last time round it was due to ?significant requests? to have one. Turned out it was 34 people in 3 years). I think people should understand that history in this debate also. Gedwina First, you?re right and I do see your point: this is a thread about M&S and it is discourteous of me not to at least share my thoughts on that. To get that out of the way, I don?t feel strongly either way. The business that feels it can make the most money will be prepared to pay the most for the premises. The landlord will take the biggest bid. Not much will stop that. I don?t think M&S would have a major effect on our precious (to me anyway) local independents and I also don?t think its going to make any form of significant difference to parking, once the dust settles. In my defence: On this forum, I saw a certain local councillor maintain for 2+ months a veil of impartiality over controlled parking ?only wanting what was best? and then vote, my guess, purely based on his personal/party ideology (my guess would be the latter, as all 3 of the same party did the same). I see the same veil of impartiality being used again and I do fear that there is an attempt going on here to open up the whole debate about controlled parking again. Given the chance, this man will play on the fears of local resident and use that to build a case for a CPZ again...and do that VERY subtly (last time round it was due to ?significant requests? to have one. Turned out it was 34 people in 3 years). I think people should understand that history in this debate also. Oh ,and he is prepared to give out as much dis-information as suits his case.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi grisett, > And we also had people at the January meeting who > trade on Grove Vale saying it would help their > customers. Really ? I don't think any of the 150+ people and other 9 councilors in the room heard ANY traders saying any such thing. Anybody else remember that ? or is it just councillor Barber? We did hear the lady from the cafe on Grove Vale also begging you not to vote in faour. That cant be who you mean surely ? We all KNOW what the intentions were (including you) and we all also knew that the likely knock-on effects ("edge effects", damage to trade, etc) outweighed the likely benefits.....thats why I think the other 15 councillrs voted against. I guess you didn't quite get that ?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------ > My interests are purely to ensure a healthy and > vibrant area serving the local community. Is that why on January 24th you, and your two lib dem colleagues, were the only councillors out of 18 (across two community councils) to vote IN FAVOUR of a CPZ in our area? Despite the fact that the local traders association pleaded with you not to. This was based on solid evidence of CPZ's decimating small retailers on high streets. A representative of the LL traders assocaiotn stood in front of you and made this speech : http://southsouthwarkbusinessassociation.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/deputation-to-dulwich-community-council.html and you STILL voteed in favour. How does that fit with your objective to ensure a virbrant area ? Funnily enough on that issue, you spent 2 months telling everybody on the ED forum that you would only wanted what was best and you would go with the will of the people.......then you did what YOU wanted

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark Council has an agreed Green Travel Plan > with Goose Green School July 2011. > During the bout of planning applications for this > school I asked that a Green Travel plan be a > condition but Goose Green School was already > preparing one and didn't need any nudging. James The school may be a good place to look first (although careful not to make them some form of scapegoat) My wifes a teacher at another local school and I know a good percentage of the teachers have to drive. This is because there is an expectation that heavy boxes of books,etc will go back/forth with them every night. My wife REALLY would rather walk to school, she simply can?t So, it could well be that there is a ?practicality discourse? between the schools green transport plan and what it?s staff are actually doing (I?ll presume that there is for the rest of this post) I?ve seen transport/environmental plans for many businesses over the years. Often, they are simply there to tick the box and are never measured in their effectiveness. So, what could be done? My presumption is then that the schools plan is actually failing? I guess somewhere it says that x% of staff journeys are made by public transport. Is that being mearued? Is it being audited?. Is it that they?ve put the plan together, got it stamped & filed it away? Could be. OK, so a school probably hasn?t got the time to do that audit/check (too busy teaching our kids) ......so why don?t we (the community) offer to do that audit for them? I for one, would happily give up some time to work with a school to see if they were performing against their plan. So, lets presume that they?re not.......what to do? We (the community) ask the school to hit certain KPI?s (both in terms of sustainable transport and reduced parking congestion) . They must be reasonable. The school will then have to work with its staff to achieve this. Things like rucksacks designed to carry books, changing policy around taking work home,etc could all be used. To a certain extent, that?s for the school and their staff to work out, but at least we?ve got them thinking about it: maybe even committing to it All of this could be done voluntarily, but when it comes to planning, whats to stop soutwark compelling organisations to regularly audit and publicise their transport plans? We then take this model to, say, the hospital (my guess, the biggest contributor to ?commuter? parking). Again, I guess the PCT has got some sort of green/transport plan buried in an desk drawer. Lets ask them if we can audit it. Lets ask their staff if they drive. Lets tell them if their plan is failing or not appropriate. Lets get them to incentives their staff to stick to that plan. It won?t work with all their staff but I BET nobody at that hospital has been given any instruction or guidance EVER that they should not drive to work After the hospital (and this is where it could get controversial) we could take this out to the business community of ED. (the key point: it?s voluntary, it is not a CPZ) . James: you could create some sort of scheme that businesses sign up to...instead of ?carbon neutral? it could be ?car space neutral?. It?s voluntary and businesses can proudly put the ?car space neutral ? sticker in their window. People could then choose if they wanted to do business with somebody who isn?t in the scheme. (even foxtons would soon get onboard if it brought some extra footfall) William rose, for example would not be able to achieve it (they have delivery vans,etc I guess). But thats fine, we all know that and think its quite reasonable so still shop there. Something like this would take some work and would need to be led/administered....I?d suggest our councillors could lead and if we could all put a little of the same energy we put into battling over that b**dy CPZ then it really could work It would HAVE to be voluntary.

[out of office reply] Gsirett has left the thread. Please direct all parking related enquiries to your local councillors

gsirett Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://rosieshimell.mycouncillor.org.uk/ > > This blog says it all. > Lots of content about local issues? - no > > Lots of party-political bickering and sniping at > opposition councillors? ? absolutely > > The Lib Dems will save the world from the evil > labour empire. "these aren't the droids your > looking for, they're our local councillors" Ahhhhh........droid number 3 has some clear and independant views. Quite different from his collegues: http://jonathanmitchell.mycouncillor.org.uk/ [sorry to quote my own post, coudlnt click edit on my phone]

http://rosieshimell.mycouncillor.org.uk/ This blog says it all. Lots of content about local issues? - no Lots of party-political bickering and sniping at opposition councillors? ? absolutely The Lib Dems will save the world from the evil labour empire. "these aren't the droids your looking for, they're our local councillors"