Jump to content

Recommended Posts

the money shop on Rye Lane is becoming a delinquent centre. I for one am not happy about this as my son has been a victim of mugging to which on one occasion ended up in hospital with a broken arm so bad he needed surgery.

I know these centres need to be somewhere and I get they are trying to help reoffenders to stay out of trouble, however I don?t think this is the right area to do this. I see secondary school kids from schools in the area causing trouble as it is I don?t want more trouble to be attracted to my door step.

I feel for you, but there?s literally nowhere where residents nearby will welcome such a facility with open arms.

It (they) has to be located somewhere. What area we hold you consider the ?right area? ?

Is there going to be a consultation with locals where your concerns can be properly heard ? If not perhaps organise one.

I?m surprised it?s on a retail high st though, I?d expect rents to be high there.

I totally get these centres have to placed somewhere and nobody will welcome them, I just think these programmes should be within court areas- like probation type facilities. There is a probation centre within camberwell court, wouldn?t these types of programmes be better within that type of environment instead of right next to a betting shop and Tesco.
As a Probation officer myself, working with young people who are involved in crime, using the term 'delinquent' is not very helpful. You will find people involved in crime will not usually target people or properties right next to where they are getting support. At a guess, we have many people who offend in our community and we are none the wiser.

It wasn?t a word I used myself, it was a word that was used to describe what the shop was going to be by the construction workers.

Yes it is nice to have a support unit in place to stop crime being committed further, but being a mother of a child that was put in hospital due to being mugged I also know that it doesn?t matter what support you give SOME people they just go to these places because it was part of their punishment not because it was a choice of their own. The same boy who put my son in hospital is still round my area causing trouble after 6 months of visiting a detention centre. I know this doesn?t apply to every offender but I believe they wouldn?t all chose to commit to this support voluntarily

How come there have been 12 posts and the term NIMBY hasn't been mentioned yet? Maybe you should welcome this as part of Johnson reuniting society.


PS they have offenders in Dulwich Park with the orange community payback outfits on. I saw dog walkers, various boot camp exercisers, parents with young children etc etc and didn's see any mass panic.

From your last post, it sounds like it isn't so much the location that's bothering you, it's the concept of rehabilitation in general.


I'm sure many of them don't take it seriously. And if my kid had been hospitalised by some young thug, then I'd probably want the key thrown away too. But neither of these things mean that offender rehabilitation is not important...

It is more likely to be a service center for low level offenders to support them into a more constructive direction. Rye Lane is a retail area and these low level offenders probably already go there, for shopping if nothing else. So let me be the one to go there. Stop being a NIMBY Lcoe2. Think this through in a sensible way.


Edited to add, nothing on either the planning OR licensing registers. Given the existing licenses are for retail space, there is nothing as yet that indicates any change of use.

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> It is more likely to be a service center for low

> level offenders to support them into a more

> constructive direction. Rye Lane is a retail area

> and these low level offenders probably already go

> there, for shopping if nothing else. So let me be

> the one to go there. Stop being a NIMBY Lcoe2.

> Think this through in a sensible way.

>

> Edited to add, nothing on either the planning OR

> licensing registers. Given the existing licenses

> are for retail space, there is nothing as yet that

> indicates any change of use.


I live directly above it so not a retail area - there's 100s of us directly above and more across the street both ways - I'm a bit bad tempered when it comes to delinquents if they start and not the person they would want above them.


It's already been passed 19/AP/5796

Springer Wrote:

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

> It?s rye lane ffs were do you suggest they go ?

> It?s inner city London we live in not the

> cotswolds , maybe you should move if you feel

> unsafe



If they're quiet no issues


Like I said if they have mental issues here is not a good place for them - the area is not peaceful and tends to aggravate those with already emotional responses.


Edit: It's being set-up by Hillingdon - Boris's constituency so no doubt didn't want these people there.

Springer Wrote:

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

> It?s a wind up by the builders obviously


Well it's a joke that will rebound on them if it was. It is to be some kind of health center which I was OK with but I'd sort of forgotten about it - now I haven't. If it's been moved from Uxbridge due to political reasons I'll make them feel really welcome here.

> Like I said if they have mental issues here is not

> a good place for them - the area is not peaceful

> and tends to aggravate those with already

> emotional responses.


Hahaha, yes maybe we should have mental health checkpoints for people entering residential or shopping locations.


Oh dear, I really thought we had turned the corner on the mental health stigma problem, sad to see some of the comments here :(

sjsl Wrote:

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

> > Like I said if they have mental issues here is

> not

> > a good place for them - the area is not

> peaceful

> > and tends to aggravate those with already

> > emotional responses.

>

> Hahaha, yes maybe we should have mental health

> checkpoints for people entering residential or

> shopping locations.

>

> Oh dear, I really thought we had turned the corner

> on the mental health stigma problem, sad to see

> some of the comments here :(


Well they should have been open about it. It was supposed to be a Health Center - the shops are meant to supplement our social living as agreed with L&Q - they are for us at Co-Op House not general shops.


I argue enough with the students leaving the snooker hall at 4AM and that has just quietened off.

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/new-mental-health-drop-in-centre-for-young-people-coming-to-peckham-in-may/


Here we go - I don't see how this benefits the residents above as was promised me by Tower Homes 10 years ago. Are they part subsidising my huge rent portion.


I'll find out.

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

    • And the Sainsbury’s own brand chocolate mini rolls have gone from £1.15 to £1.40 overnight, so 22%-ish. I prefer them them to the Cadbury original because they have a lot more chocolate on them, presumably because they’re made in a less advanced factory. I would think that getting the Rizla thin coating of chocolate that Cadbury’s accountants demand onto a piece of sponge is quite a sophisticated operation. Discuss.
    • Another recommendation for Leon. He was able to come out to our electrical elergency within 24 hours of me contacting him. His communication was great and whilst he could not solve our problem, he was able to perform tests to identify this and did so quickly and efficiently. He charging  is very fair and his manner very pleasant. Both of these in contrast to some experiences I have had elsewhere.    happy to put my name to recommending Leon. His number is  07707 925039.
    • Other than acting as 'interested parties' Southwark Councillors have no responsibility for water issues. And no real leverage either. Considering the complete disdain with which Thames Water treats its own Regulator, and the government, (let alone its customers) I doubt very much whether an entire battalion of councillors would have much impact. What powers could they exercise?
    • That may not be so - many on this site are experts in many areas - you yourself claim huge traffic management (or similar) expertise for instance. And I think you will find that Southwark employees are unlikely to support criticism or challenges to Southwark policy - why, you don't and you apparently neither live in, or vote in, the borough. Do you, however, work for it, as you are such a cheerleader? If not, then you are the most passionate disinterested person on this site, as regards so many aspects, not just traffic.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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