"Mamma Mia: The Party" coming to Coin Street?

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4
Current: 4 of 4
Tuesday 15 May 2018 8.36am
qwerty wrote:
Certainly am. And your bizarre example of the Old Vic is a very poor comparison.
And unlike you, I’m not basing any of what follows on preconception:

People aren’t objecting to this “for the sake of it”; there are very good reasons for opposing this inappropriately placed nightclub. Incidentally, can you provide evidence to support your sweeping statement that the local community who overwhelmingly object to MMTP are doing so “for the sake of it”?

It seems you’ve not taken on board legitimate concerns of the original intent for the land i.e. that it is meant for housing key workers. Truly affordable housing is scarce here and I find it incomprehensible that you live in the area yet are willing to step aside and relinquish residential land - our land - for the whim of an egotistical celebrity and a private developer (Coin Street Commercial Builders who incidentally are desperately needing funds to build a skyscraper full of private luxury apartments in Doon St, none of it cooperative/social housing. Oh, on community land again. Garden Bridge - ahem!).

Most people have no objection to the MMTP concept at all as long as it is not in a designated residential character area - which this proposal is.

To be clear, it’s not about being opposed to change which is what you breezily proclaim. The proposal is in the wrong location. Planning permission has been unethically sought using underhand methods by an aggressive team of developers who have bullied their way through the community and the planning process.

One can be progressive and be open to new ideas without stamping on people in the process; unfortunately that hasn’t been the case. MMTP and Bjorn Ulvaeus have blocked and alienated the community and it seems CSCB simply haven’t learned anything from the Garden Bridge fiasco in regards to shafting local people.

Anyway, you seem to be confused: on the one hand you say you feel threatened by the lack of social housing and on the other, you say ‘bring it on’ to private commercial developers. You say you take on board the “political points” yet the issues of covenants and intent of the land etc. are not political. It’s about democracy, equal opportunity and fairness. If you’re a fully signed up member of the local community then why are you advocating the exploitation of your neighbours and where they live (through no fault of their own)? Sounds like sour grapes. You’ve alluded more than once to the green eyed monster in you but this meek acceptance of an insidious seeping gentrification by unethical developers, really is a step (and a contradiction) too far.

Too right I'm confused, I can't work out whether your objections are based on what should become of the site, because of what was promised or the fact that there should never be a nightclub in that area because of the neighbours concerns. My argument has been based on the latter only.
Not sure where you get the green eyed monster bit. What did you do for the residents of the Heygate? Out there was you? I was. This gentrification lark's been going on a while.

Anyway, congratulations, though I wonder what long term effect these minor victories will have on the greater scheme. Perhaps they will just build even less Social Housing in central areas where there might be a conflict. Again, to be clear, a statement based on the logistics of the proposal and not to do with the politics and what was promised before.
Tuesday 15 May 2018 8.39am
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
qwerty wrote:
Certainly am. And your bizarre example of the Old Vic is a very poor comparison.
And unlike you, I’m not basing any of what follows on preconception:

People aren’t objecting to this “for the sake of it”; there are very good reasons for opposing this inappropriately placed nightclub. Incidentally, can you provide evidence to support your sweeping statement that the local community who overwhelmingly object to MMTP are doing so “for the sake of it”?

It seems you’ve not taken on board legitimate concerns of the original intent for the land i.e. that it is meant for housing key workers. Truly affordable housing is scarce here and I find it incomprehensible that you live in the area yet are willing to step aside and relinquish residential land - our land - for the whim of an egotistical celebrity and a private developer (Coin Street Commercial Builders who incidentally are desperately needing funds to build a skyscraper full of private luxury apartments in Doon St, none of it cooperative/social housing. Oh, on community land again. Garden Bridge - ahem!).

Most people have no objection to the MMTP concept at all as long as it is not in a designated residential character area - which this proposal is.

To be clear, it’s not about being opposed to change which is what you breezily proclaim. The proposal is in the wrong location. Planning permission has been unethically sought using underhand methods by an aggressive team of developers who have bullied their way through the community and the planning process.

One can be progressive and be open to new ideas without stamping on people in the process; unfortunately that hasn’t been the case. MMTP and Bjorn Ulvaeus have blocked and alienated the community and it seems CSCB simply haven’t learned anything from the Garden Bridge fiasco in regards to shafting local people.

Anyway, you seem to be confused: on the one hand you say you feel threatened by the lack of social housing and on the other, you say ‘bring it on’ to private commercial developers. You say you take on board the “political points” yet the issues of covenants and intent of the land etc. are not political. It’s about democracy, equal opportunity and fairness. If you’re a fully signed up member of the local community then why are you advocating the exploitation of your neighbours and where they live (through no fault of their own)? Sounds like sour grapes. You’ve alluded more than once to the green eyed monster in you but this meek acceptance of an insidious seeping gentrification by unethical developers, really is a step (and a contradiction) too far.
Hear hear.

Because you haven't lapped up gentrification at all, have you?
Tuesday 15 May 2018 12.38pm
boroughonian wrote:
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
qwerty wrote:
Certainly am. And your bizarre example of the Old Vic is a very poor comparison.
And unlike you, I’m not basing any of what follows on preconception:

People aren’t objecting to this “for the sake of it”; there are very good reasons for opposing this inappropriately placed nightclub. Incidentally, can you provide evidence to support your sweeping statement that the local community who overwhelmingly object to MMTP are doing so “for the sake of it”?

It seems you’ve not taken on board legitimate concerns of the original intent for the land i.e. that it is meant for housing key workers. Truly affordable housing is scarce here and I find it incomprehensible that you live in the area yet are willing to step aside and relinquish residential land - our land - for the whim of an egotistical celebrity and a private developer (Coin Street Commercial Builders who incidentally are desperately needing funds to build a skyscraper full of private luxury apartments in Doon St, none of it cooperative/social housing. Oh, on community land again. Garden Bridge - ahem!).

Most people have no objection to the MMTP concept at all as long as it is not in a designated residential character area - which this proposal is.

To be clear, it’s not about being opposed to change which is what you breezily proclaim. The proposal is in the wrong location. Planning permission has been unethically sought using underhand methods by an aggressive team of developers who have bullied their way through the community and the planning process.

One can be progressive and be open to new ideas without stamping on people in the process; unfortunately that hasn’t been the case. MMTP and Bjorn Ulvaeus have blocked and alienated the community and it seems CSCB simply haven’t learned anything from the Garden Bridge fiasco in regards to shafting local people.

Anyway, you seem to be confused: on the one hand you say you feel threatened by the lack of social housing and on the other, you say ‘bring it on’ to private commercial developers. You say you take on board the “political points” yet the issues of covenants and intent of the land etc. are not political. It’s about democracy, equal opportunity and fairness. If you’re a fully signed up member of the local community then why are you advocating the exploitation of your neighbours and where they live (through no fault of their own)? Sounds like sour grapes. You’ve alluded more than once to the green eyed monster in you but this meek acceptance of an insidious seeping gentrification by unethical developers, really is a step (and a contradiction) too far.
Hear hear.

Because you haven't lapped up gentrification at all, have you?

Have I? Any evidence for that? Or anything to justify your accusatory tone?
Wednesday 16 May 2018 10.47am
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
boroughonian wrote:
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
qwerty wrote:
Certainly am. And your bizarre example of the Old Vic is a very poor comparison.
And unlike you, I’m not basing any of what follows on preconception:

People aren’t objecting to this “for the sake of it”; there are very good reasons for opposing this inappropriately placed nightclub. Incidentally, can you provide evidence to support your sweeping statement that the local community who overwhelmingly object to MMTP are doing so “for the sake of it”?

It seems you’ve not taken on board legitimate concerns of the original intent for the land i.e. that it is meant for housing key workers. Truly affordable housing is scarce here and I find it incomprehensible that you live in the area yet are willing to step aside and relinquish residential land - our land - for the whim of an egotistical celebrity and a private developer (Coin Street Commercial Builders who incidentally are desperately needing funds to build a skyscraper full of private luxury apartments in Doon St, none of it cooperative/social housing. Oh, on community land again. Garden Bridge - ahem!).

Most people have no objection to the MMTP concept at all as long as it is not in a designated residential character area - which this proposal is.

To be clear, it’s not about being opposed to change which is what you breezily proclaim. The proposal is in the wrong location. Planning permission has been unethically sought using underhand methods by an aggressive team of developers who have bullied their way through the community and the planning process.

One can be progressive and be open to new ideas without stamping on people in the process; unfortunately that hasn’t been the case. MMTP and Bjorn Ulvaeus have blocked and alienated the community and it seems CSCB simply haven’t learned anything from the Garden Bridge fiasco in regards to shafting local people.

Anyway, you seem to be confused: on the one hand you say you feel threatened by the lack of social housing and on the other, you say ‘bring it on’ to private commercial developers. You say you take on board the “political points” yet the issues of covenants and intent of the land etc. are not political. It’s about democracy, equal opportunity and fairness. If you’re a fully signed up member of the local community then why are you advocating the exploitation of your neighbours and where they live (through no fault of their own)? Sounds like sour grapes. You’ve alluded more than once to the green eyed monster in you but this meek acceptance of an insidious seeping gentrification by unethical developers, really is a step (and a contradiction) too far.
Hear hear.

Because you haven't lapped up gentrification at all, have you?

Have I? Any evidence for that? Or anything to justify your accusatory tone?

Well lets put it this way, when the head of Charles Dickens school decided to steal a road from the local community, I linked that to gentrification (it was certainly done in the spirit of) and considered it a two fingered salute to the locals, including elderly and other "vulnerable"people that would have had to walk a long way to get to the Borough. You backed that whole heartedly.

I think the point I was making in response to your snidey "hear hear" was that you have benefitted from gentrification more than I ever will. I wont supply evidence for that, you mentioned on here that you are a local home owner.

and it's here here.
Wednesday 16 May 2018 12.31pm
boroughonian wrote:

I think the point I was making in response to your snidey "hear hear" was that you have benefitted from gentrification more than I ever will. I wont supply evidence for that, you mentioned on here that you are a local home owner.

and it's here here.

When and where do I mention I am a local home owner?
Wednesday 16 May 2018 12.36pm
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
boroughonian wrote:

I think the point I was making in response to your snidey "hear hear" was that you have benefitted from gentrification more than I ever will. I wont supply evidence for that, you mentioned on here that you are a local home owner.

and it's here here.

When and where do I mention I am a local home owner?

You have in the past. I have referred to you numerous times as "the home owning anarchist".
Wednesday 16 May 2018 12.45pm
boroughonian wrote:
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
boroughonian wrote:

I think the point I was making in response to your snidey "hear hear" was that you have benefitted from gentrification more than I ever will. I wont supply evidence for that, you mentioned on here that you are a local home owner.

and it's here here.

When and where do I mention I am a local home owner?

You have in the past. I have referred to you numerous times as "the home owning anarchist".


Well, show us where. You calling me a "home owning anarchist" doesn't make me a home owner, anarchist or not.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4
Current: 4 of 4

To post a message, please log in or register..

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

Proud to belong to

Independent Community News Network