taper

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But you'll recall with Tooting and Mitcham, for > instance, that there was already significant > development there, unlike on Green Dale. From the > planning committee's report: > "7.6 The development that has been undertaken on > the land has already significantly altered its > open character, which, despite its continued > status as Metropolitan Land, has taken on a far > more ?urbanized? character than was previously the > case." > > So why was it eventually approved by the Secretary > of State? > "7.4 The Secretary of State approved the > existing use and built development in 1997 subject > to conditions and a Section 106 Obligation (ref > 96/P0574). In reaching this decision, the > Secretary of State placed considerable weight on > the fact that if the development did not proceed > the club was likely to close, which would be a > significant > loss to the community. It was considered that the > provision of the stadium went well beyond what was > essential to outdoor sport or recreation and > accordingly could not reasonably be considered as > an appropriate use within MOL. Despite this it was > decided that the benefits that were gained by the > development in this instance outweighed the harm > to the MOL." > > Which is precisely why Hadley and DHFC are > concentrating entirely on the completely unproved > idea that DHFC would go under unless the > application goes ahead. And that is what we were > told with the 2003 Homebase application too, > incidentally. I know very little of that case, so thanks: that's interesting. Interesting that the SofS took into account the situation facing the club. Nothing I have heard suggests DH are in anything less of a parlous situation if this doesn't go ahead. Hadley pulled them about of a financial abyss a few years ago of course. There are other parallels there too. Greendale has been developed over the years: the astro-turf pitch, the tennis courts, the current and previous stadium on its flank, which alters the openness. Indeed the banking on Greendale is the remnants of the pre-1930s DH stadium. The Tooting stadium is pretty large, way more intrusive than what's planned for DH. I think the elements of the Dulwich Hamlet stadium to be built on MOL are 250cm high. highIt will be for Southwark to balance the various arguments. All signs are at present they'll reject. Peter John seemed implacably opposed even when the proposal was nascent.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > taper Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The designations are different and the proposed > builds are different. The attempt to link them is > > bogus. The thin end of the wedge aa argument > asinine. Modest sized and low impact in Football > > grounds have already been built on MOL in > London > > Reallly? Which ones? > > MOL policy closely follows the Green Belt policy, > which say that some development is allowed, such > as "provision of appropriate facilities for > outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for > cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness > of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the > purposes of including land within it". > > I really don't think you can call a closed off > private stadium "preserving the openness of the > Green Belt". An open-access football playing area > like Hackney Marshes would be a different matter. Bingo, I think that describes the new stadium proposal well. Moot though I agree. Let's see what Southwark make of it. Thamesmead fc, tooting and mitchams, qpr all have built similar on mol. This will be an asset for the community, well beyond what's currently there

The designations are different and the proposed builds are different. The attempt to link them is bogus. The thin end of the wedge aa argument asinine. Modest sized and low impact in Football grounds have already been built on MOL in London

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James has a point, though - what use are these > designations if they can be ignored at the first > hurdle? No, he doesn't. The issues are entirely different. There is no proposal to build housing on Greendale.

Well "MOL is MOL" is an impressive addition to the armoury. Doesn't quite top "3G pitches cause cancer" or Hadley arranging the Stonewall and FC Assyria games for PR purposes though.

My point is about James usurping this thread in his antipathy towards the Dulwich Hamlet development. On the thread created to discuss that development, he has made claims against the club's supporters which he has failed to back up with any evidence. Aren't you a little perturbed at the tactics being used to oppose the development?

Come off it James. Linking this situation with Dulwich Hamlet is fighting very dirty. This issue is about a school playground. Dulwich Hamlet is about the future health of a much loved local community asset over the sanctity of a derelict astro-turf pitch.

Article here too is useful. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/aug/05/air-pollution-should-stop-you-exercising

Indeed you should have expected it, because it's bollocks. But happy to be persuaded otherwise.

Slacker

That's how I started running to work. Easy way of getting miles under your belt.

That's certainly true. I knackered my hip flexor second time I went for a run. But you can build up your resilience and learn to run in a low impact way. I've had to do that because I am heavy (16-18 stone)

I've run to work for the best part of ten years. I currently run 10k to work three times a week; cycle the other two. I'm stout too; a wobbly Ron even. And in my late forties. It's a good idea if it works for you. Your journey is a guaranteed time and it means you're using time you'd spend on your arse on a train or bus getting fit. The impact on your bones tendons etc argument is nonsense - it strengthens them.

And now the season is done, it's time to look to the future. http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/dulwichhamlet/news/just-vote-yes-1608016.html

Thanks.

Can you file support for the proposal via the link?

I think disproportionate criticism of Israel can be a signifier of anti-Semitism. This is well recognised. We hold Israel to higher standards than other nations in the Middle East because it is a liberal democracy and it claims proudly to be one. But at times, this does become disproportionate and the language and tropes used are certainly anti-Semitic.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This may help clear things up for some people. > > http://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/news/item/statem > ent-on-labours-problem-with-antisemitism-from-the- > jewish-socialists-g?fb_action_ids=1015419463436857 > 3&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.VyJ65IREqRE.lik > e That really is mealy mouthed bullshit. Try this for a historical perspective from the left on left-wing anti-Semitism. http://www.thetower.org/article/the-holocaust-the-left-and-the-return-of-hate/

Empty East Dulwich on Monday. We're heading to the Essex badlands.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The issue of anti-Semetism has been bothering me > for a few days. It is not the same as > anti-Jewish, anti-Israel. Semites include Arabs, > most of whom are Muslims. Some journalists are > very lazy/ignorant. No: anti-semitism means an antipathy towards Jews. This is well understood. Semantic pedantry about the meaning of the term "semitic" doesn't alter that. If you don't think Livingstone referring to Hitler as a Zionist is anti-Semitic then you need your head examining.

Cheers.

You can't get this on Netflix right!?

Agreed, Stephen Govier shouldn't detract from this thread. I only brought him up because James Barber referred to Tweets from DH fans on Saturday, "antagonising nearby residents," adding that they made it clear "some fans really do not want to have anything to do with the local community." I think he was referring to Tweets inspired by Mr Govier's trolling. And if he was, he should say on here he was mistaken and retract what he said about DH fans.

Indeed. An inversion of the truth. On Saturday there were various examples of Mr Govier jumping in on the back of tweets about the game (not remotely aimed at him or on the subject of Greendale): at best to complain about the impact on the peace and quiet of DKH; at worst attempting to get someone sacked because of an innocent reflection about a terrace chant. All of this utterly unprovoked and pretty aggressive. In between there were various accusations about Chinese property developers, the Welsh, the gentrifiers of Urban 75 (!), drug-dealing in the ground, corruption in the Labour party (sic) and the upper middle classes that frequent this site. He has also targeted people who post about Dulwich Hamlet and made totally unprovoked comments.

It is very unpleasant stuff indeed from Mr Govier. Might James Barber clarify whether it is these Tweets he is refering to? It may be he mistakenly thought Govier was the victim. But he needs to clarify because he made quite an accusation about some Hamlet fans. And can Friends of Greendale clarify what role Govier is playing in their campaign?