Syringe Exchange/Methadone Services: Crystal Palace Rd

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Thank you AP - it was as I'd imagined it would be.

[Maurice]

And your blind acceptance of 'BARA bad' is as we expected it would be Chav.

[Sue]

My first impressions seem to have been right, then - nimbies who didn't want people to consider any issues contradicting their point of view :'(

Always amazes me what you find beneath the surface of many people who probably like to think of themselves as liberal and tolerant .....

[Maurice]

I've no care either way actually. But do believe 'mighty roar' had a valid point earlier that no one has addressed.

But equally i dont think you should either endorse or condemn this application without finding out the full facts.

Which is what BARA wanted to do after all.

Surely endorsing it purely because you sympathise with users and their predicament is as 'unfounded' and 'ridiculous' as the nimbyism you are so quick to villify?

Finally I think that this thread is missing the point about Mediquick's empire building in this area. Nobody identified a need for this service....they just want to expand their business. One of things you see on the forum all the time is the 'antichain' issue. Mediquick are trying to become a medical chain in South London and who knows where else. This is just one of their proposals and look how badly it's been handled. They didnt inform the local community of the application, and as pointed out before on this thread, they or the PCT had a duty to.

[AnotherPaul]

Maurice, what's your point. Should Chav disagree with herself to please you?

ap

[snorky]

a few basic facts to consider

Meth isnt injected

People using a NX are usually on a programme & most importantly, in the system - probabaly getting treatment and support

These same people are usually settled ( as in a fixed abode, rather than NFA )

the people who use jags and discard them randonmly are usually NFA . Outside the system/ Serious mental health problenms / not on a programme / no regular income. These dont use NX, they use outreach teams and fuields workers - different setup.

now an opinion - as we seem to be short of opinions in the thread.

this isnt about the DMCs expanding empire

this isnt about circumventing planning & consultation

This is about people refusuing to have the "real life" of SE London in their manor - its already there people - you may not see it, but ED has its problems and personalities- many of which have been around a lot longer than many residents tenure in the area

I find it very disturbing that chemists seem to be joining in this campaign by ratcheting up the fear factor - they are bothered about profits and their slice of the lucrative NHS cake - this has nothing to do with the morla side of the debate.

If a fishmonger started campaigning against the opening of another , sleeker fishmonger opening on LL , with better freezer capacity and modern tills - would you campaign agaionst it ?

You would laugh at them

this is what the chemists are doing people - they fear for their profits and are using this campaign for their own ends

dispense with the chemists ( hahaha ) they are bandwagon jumping for profit.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Maurice - BARA have given us all a lot of evidence, in their posts, petition and press releases, on which to base an asumption of their probable behaviour, so not sure how you can say any judgement I made on how the meeting may have been conducted, would be "blind acceptance of 'BARA bad'".

Also can you please answer my question:

If they were to decide to add another service, e.g an altenative therapy clinic, would you expect them to consult the wider community and do impact assessments on that service?

[Sue]

snorky Wrote:

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

>> now an opinion - as we seem to be short of

> opinions in the thread.

>

> this isnt about the DMCs expanding empire

>

> this isnt about circumventing planning &

> consultation

>

>

> This is about people refusuing to have the "real

> life" of SE London in their manor - its already

> there people - you may not see it, but ED has its

> problems and personalities- many of which have

> been around a lot longer than many residents

> tenure in the area

>

> XXXXXXXX

Yes I agree.

I don't actually have an opinion on the DMC needle exchange issue as I haven't read and considered all the background. I just don't like it when I'm being force fed misleading information and then asked to sign something.

However I did form the strong impression from talking to the people with the petition in North Cross Road on Saturday that basically they just did not want to live somewhere where they had to acknowledge the existence of drug users, and heaven forbid that their children should come to learn that the real world isn't all sweetness and light, organic food and expensive shoes.

I had the same sort of reaction from someone who used to live in my road (Ulverscroft Road) in relation to a rumour (or maybe not a rumour) that the number of housing association properties in East Dulwich were going to increase, and who felt that this was therefore somehow going to "lower the tone" of the area. He felt I would be concerned about my house value !!!

Riff raff, eh. Maybe we should put a fence round SE22, chuck out everyone who can't afford to shop at the delis or appears to be in any way "different" and only give the chosen few a key to the only gate in.

And no doubt they'd all still be queuing up with their Guardians at Budgens on Saturday morning.

Blimey, never realised I felt so strongly :)

[AnotherPaul]

BARA may have wanted to find out the full facts initially but have entrenched in a position which is informed by utter loathing of what might happen if the pharmacy opened and some needles were exchanged and methadone treatment was administered.

There wasn't much fact finding at the meeting last week. One of the BARA folk referred to us being there to listen and learn (or words to that effect) and yet what followed was a long, ugly rant against the perceived destruction of the local community.

Snorky's right, this is about denial of the truth. People in our society and community have all manner of vices and some, whether they like it or not, wind up as addicts. These people need compassion, understanding and the chance to get out of that hole they're in. That's what methadone programs are about.

The concerns of those supporting BARA are very real and it is perfectly correct that they express those concerns but what I saw at the meeting was - from the majority of speakers - was not simply the expression of concern rather it was an outpouring of fear and hatred. They didn't want to know, rather they wanted something they don't like the thought of to go away.

Maurice, it is not possible to answer the Might Roars point as that would assume it's ok to be a NIMBY and it's not.

[*Bob*]

Surely there must be a mineshaft in the middle of nowhere we can bring back into service?

The methadone can be lowered down to addicts via a bucket on a rope, once a week (once the surrounding fields have been checked for at-risk children and given the all-clear)

[snorky]

The gated & Disused railway tunnel bewteen Dulwich woods - crystal palace.

big enough for the vermin to huddle together for warmth in their undergrounmd midden and far enough awat feom ED to keep our precious vibrant area drug fiend free and the houses prices rising above inflation

remember Kids- Just say NO!

[AnotherPaul]

Like Zammo.

[Ko]

AnotherPaul Wrote:

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

> Wow, after snorky and I exchanged various ageddons

> last week this thread seemed to wither. Then BARA

> get out there and stir it up when there is nowt to

> stir. So?

Btw, my comments and opinions are my own, not Bara's (although I am a member of Bara and have amongst other things been involved in getting trees planted and trying to sort out uneven paving, drainage problems at the local shops etc).

AP - do you think my comments are stirring it up?? Everyone should be allowed to have their own opinion on the meeting etc.

Btw, I have found some of the arguments on both sides pretty ridiculous.

[AnotherPaul]

Ko, you don't seem to be stirring.

It was that stall and what was being said to passers by which seems to be stirring things up somewhat but I didn't witness it so will leave comments to others. I posted my opinions here today in response to the comment about asking the police to protect us (BARA) against trouble.

ap

[Ko]

Phew - good to hear AP!

[mightyroar]

I thought my point was fairly clear. but i shall reiterate:

Regardless of one's personal opinion on drug users and their predicament, This is clearly an ill considered site for the 100 hours pharmacy.

and CWALD, who knows the consultation process for an alternative therapy centre- perhaps it depends upon the licensing procedure for snake oil?

But as pointed out by Bawdy nan back on page one of this most impassioned thread, this is a pharmaceutical service and it is therefore a statutory requirement that consultation takes place.

[macroban]

mightyroar:

> This is clearly an ill considered site for the 100 hours pharmacy.

A 100 hour pharmacy ~within~ a medical centre dispensing prescriptions on site seem a preety good community benefit to me.

Do you want the medical centre closed because it is on an ill considered site?

[Sue]

macroban Wrote:

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

> mightyroar:

>

> > This is clearly an ill considered site for the

> 100 hours pharmacy.

>

> A 100 hour pharmacy ~within~ a medical centre

> dispensing prescriptions on site seem a preety

> good community benefit to me.

>

> Do you want the medical centre closed because it

> is on an ill considered site?

XXXXXX

Yes, good point. Why is it an ill considered site, exactly? Seems like an ideal site to me !!

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Mightyroar - "this is a pharmaceutical service and it is therefore a statutory requirement that consultation takes place."

Not being big on planning law, can you tell me what statute requires consultation on planned pharmaceutical services please.

[AllforNun]

Chav for leader ..of ....something....what about the lib dems their rudderless now and could do with some backbone and genuine intelligence

[AllforNun]

"If Macey's is the chemist in North Cross Road"

Just catching up with this thread and I am stunned. Maceys is 3doors down the road from the childrens bookshop and across the road from a shop that gets a better attendance rate than most schools....Hope and Greenwood.

Are we really still wasting our time when the real reasons behind BARA et all flipping out are pretty obvious. It's all very sad really.

[the-e-dealer]

Its NOTHING To do with planning Law

its Section 2 of the Fair Trading Act 1973.

However it IS proposed that Pharmacys that open for more than 100 hours are exempt.

[the-e-dealer]

HOPE THIS MAKES SENSE

18. The PCT must be satisfied that when a doctor wishes to apply to dispense, it would not prejudice the proper provision of medical, pharmaceutical or dispensing services locally. This is known as the ?prejudice? test. There is no ?control of entry? test for a doctor to pass. However, a chemist wishing to open in a rural area must pass both the ?control of entry? and ?prejudice? tests.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Most of the 1973 Fair Trading act has been repealed, and s.2 doesn't say what you quoted. Here is a link to what s.2 actually says http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=fair+trading+act&Year=1973&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1774511&ActiveTextDocId=1774516&filesize=4192

Do you have a link to the quote above, so I can read more of the statute to get a better idea of what it actually means please? I want to know what would be considered dispensing that could be prejudicial to the proper provision of medical, pharmaceutical or dispensing services.

This might be what you were talking about,

http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=8766&Rendition=Web

but it says something about the NHS Act. I'm gona have a read through now.

[the-e-dealer]

Here's part of the 2005 NHS Act

The ?control of entry? test (or ?necessary or

desirable? test)

2.12 As mentioned above, ?control of entry? is shorthand to describe the

system whereby Primary Care Trusts assess under regulation 12 only

whether the grant of an application is necessary or desirable for a new

pharmacy to dispense NHS prescriptions in order to secure adequate

pharmaceutical services in a particular neighbourhood.

2.13 Once an application is received, the Primary Care Trust invites, as

soon as practicable, a range of interested local parties to give views.

2.14 Views have to be made known to the Primary Care Trust within 45

days of the date the notification is sent out. This is extended from the

previous 30-day period for consultation4.

2.15 Primary Care Trusts determine applications under regulation 24 and

are generally free to determine them as they see fit. However,

regulation 12(2) requires Primary Care Trusts to take account of certain

particular factors. These include

? whether any of the services proposed are already provided within

the neighbourhood;

3