Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It doesn't stand to reason that everybody who lives near a pub and gets naffed off with the noise is an idiot/didn't see it coming/hates pubs/publicans. I lived next door but three to a very busy pub in Shoreditch for five years, and the constant pissed-up arguing, and daily tide of fag ends/urine (mostly from people I knew...) does get you down. That's not unreasonable. Landlords asking and then expecting drunks to be quiet, considerate, Plod-fearing citizens who whisper considerately after dark is a tough ask. Ask any honest landlord, and they'll tell you that a "please be considerate to neighbours when leaving" sign only tends to work if wedged in a drunk's kisser.


As for total sound-proofing, anything is possible, but it's pricy, and the law doesn't dictate catacomb-esque levels so landlords won't do it out of the kindness of their hearts. Why should they? They firefight complaints as and when they happen, as it's cheaper. It's bread and butter to them and the odd grumpy old sow won't result in any pub closures.


Soundproofing boozers


For me, the hardest thing to live with is the noise from punters, especially in the summer. Why? I could hear all my mates having a laugh every time I had my front room windows open, and found it impossible to stay in!:))

herrd Wrote:

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


> the odd grumpy old sow won't result in any pub

> closures.

>


xxxxxxxx


Well it's resulted in restrictions to Jamie's license, which is likely to impact on his custom I would have thought.


It seems extremely unfair to me when so many people wrote in support of him, compared to the grumpy old sow in question who could only drum up the support of two or three others, after quite a protracted campaign apparently.

You can read some detail about the Hooper's Tooley Street music licence review session on the Ivanhoe Residents Assoc facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ivanhoe-Residents-Association/316393255069392.


The verdict is in - some time curtailment and new restriction on allowing people out to smoke in Malfort Road.

Bloggsy08 Wrote:

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

> You can read some detail about the Hooper's Tooley

> Street music licence review session on the Ivanhoe

> Residents Assoc facebook -

> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ivanhoe-Residents-As

> sociation/316393255069392.

>

> The verdict is in - some time curtailment and new

> restriction on allowing people out to smoke in

> Malfort Road.


xxxxxxx


We know - it's already been detailed on this thread :)

I've gotta say that if the number of people calling for it to be kept the same all drank in the pub, the new owners wouldn't be changing it at all. You can count the customers on one hand on most nights which is a shame because its a really good pub. Only thing I would say is that it is a bit blokey.

I live pretty close to the pub so it would be good if the new owners did announce what their plans were because keeping the neighbours in the dark wont help you getting them onside!

Sow? Not nice.


The Hooper's ruling seems fair - in ye olden dayes there would have been no question of live or recorded music after 11pm, or people outside after that time, because we would all have been chased out by the cry of 'TimeGen'lmenPleeeeeeese' by that time. Tessa Jowell, gawd bless 'er.

I probably found out lots of useful information on Friday, but sadly it all turned into a hazy blur that finished with my waking to kebab strewn bed.

I seem to recall that the new chap was jolly nice, happy to inflict my music on the punters and was in no particular rush to chase us all out at the end of the night which is always appreciated by everyone except my liver.

The changing of Hoopers licence is totally fair and long overdue, and it now falls in line with that of other pubs in residential areas. There wasn't just one 'grumpy old sow' complaining about the pub it was pretty much the whole street and they had all tried to sort things out with Hoopers in person and got nowhere. It seems to me it was a much better sob story for Hoopers to blame one person and make it out to be 'one woman's grudge against the pub' as this would get more of their patrons to write in support.

tikkiuk Wrote:

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

> The changing of Hoopers licence is totally fair

> and long overdue, and it now falls in line with

> that of other pubs in residential areas. There

> wasn't just one 'grumpy old sow' complaining about

> the pub it was pretty much the whole street and

> they had all tried to sort things out with Hoopers

> in person and got nowhere. It seems to me it was

> a much better sob story for Hoopers to blame one

> person and make it out to be 'one woman's grudge

> against the pub' as this would get more of their

> patrons to write in support.


xxxxxxx


I suggest you get your facts right before you make a fool of yourself posting on here.


ETA: I am guessing from one of your other (few) posts on this forum that you are one of the very few people who complained:


http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?6,816899,820954#msg-820954


ETA: Have you actually read the letters of support for Hoopers? If not, can I suggest that you do, and then perhaps you can come on here and respond rationally to the points made in them (but you won't, will you?)

Point taken Administrator, but I think the bullying started a lot earlier on in this thread.


I am a close neighbour of the pub and know the people involved personally, including Jamie and the person being gleefully vilified on this forum (no, I'm not her). If I were, I would be devastated to see the woeful misrepresentation of events/and her character on this forum.

WarrenPeace Wrote:

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

> "Sue", your comments smack of vicious bullying.

> You are utterly wrong in your persistent targeted

> criticism of one person. But perhaps "liv round

> the corner " gives you a special insight into

> noise from Hoopers?


xxxxxx


Pardon?


What exactly in my comments "smack of vicious bullying"?


Where have I engaged in "persistently targetted criticism of one person"?


I would genuinely like to know.


I have read all the letters relating to the complaints about Hoopers, both those from the people (very few) complaining and those (many) from the people defending Hoopers - many of whom live in the same street as the original complainant.


I have also read the letters from the Met, the Southwark Noise Control team, and other interested parties.


All this took me some time.


As I said, I would like the people using this thread to moan about Hoopers to do the same, and then to respond in a rational manner to the points made by the people defending Hoopers.


Or does that "smack of vicious bullying" as well?


Some people's idea of bullying seems very odd to me. As admin says, if you think bullying is taking place then report it. If Admin agrees then they remove the post. Seems fair enough to me.

How can you "misrepresent somebody's character" when he/she isn't represented or identified anywhere on here or elsewhere? Likewise, where is the "vicious bullying"? How can you bully, "persistently target" or "gleefully vilify" somebody who isn't named/identified or even involved in this thread in any way?


I'm getting off this tedious thread, it's gone way too Rumpole of the Bailey. No, make that Hyacinth Bucket... Why don't you just all go to the CPT - remember what this thread was once about? - have a drink together, kiss and make up.>:D<

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

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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