London SE1 community website

One Tower Bridge

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Current: 7 of 14
Friday 6 February 2015 3.01pm
As I said - that is irrelevant. The whole point of including social housing in these developments is for social inclusion (and so the rich aren't living in gated communities). This development is clearly totally failing in that regard. Probably because the councillors sympathise with the developers who fear their buyers won't want to mix with the poor. Frankly it's disgusting and not what our beautiful city should be about but is rapidly becoming.
Friday 6 February 2015 3.12pm
As far as I read the poor and the rich have no shared areas?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto

As the poor are the minority I'd say in this case their small private minority quarter is the ghetto.

You get a grip.
Friday 6 February 2015 3.22pm
As opposed to, say, Neo Bankside, where the related social housing was allowed to be put in (iirc) Lambeth?

...if you press it, they will come.
Friday 6 February 2015 3.49pm
AndrewEvans wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto
As the poor are the minority I'd say in this case their small private minority quarter is the ghetto.

And I'd say you're simply cheapening the word and forcing a frankly laughable comparison with the various examples of true ghettos shown on that Wiki page.

Also, maybe think about calling all these future social tenants something other than 'poor', since it might only be safe to assume they're 'not rich'. Given your your apparent penchant for euphemism might I warn you against using 'peasant'? You've already labelled there future home a ghetto.
Friday 6 February 2015 3.52pm
suziq wrote:
hhrca - which part of my comment was whining (with an 'h') and which part was taken out of context (not contents)? It was a comment / observation and your rather unpleasant, confrontational response is uncalled for

Suziq, you wrote "Yet again this continuing assumption that everyone who lives in social housing is on benefits."

I never made any such assumption.
So why did you suggest I did? The only person who made that assumption is You.

If you find responses "unpleasant" and "confrontational" then why not resist trying to smear a poster in this forum.
Good try though. Better luck next time.
Friday 6 February 2015 4.09pm
To be sure only the worthy poor will qualify for such a bargain. They will be sufficiently grateful and well behaved - but at the same time cautiously cordoned off from the rich in their ivory towers.
Everyone is a loser in this situation except the developer.
Sunday 8 February 2015 12.21am
James Hatts wrote:
The story has now hit the Guardian and the Independent.
Pleasingly both papers mention this website

Quoting the source for a story is the correct acknowledgement honest journalist should follow The Indy and The Guardian did the right thing in mentioning this site.
Sunday 8 February 2015 11.24am
I am going to see if I can attend this ' meeting ' re. new proposals for the garden and take a Guardian journalist. Anyone fancy it?
Monday 9 February 2015 8.45am
By way of proof that the spirit of apartheid has wider applicability than racial discrimination. Only in London 2015, the lowest common denominator is class. How long before other commercial and public facilities require proof of income to use?
Current: 7 of 14

To post a message, please log in or register..
February at a glance
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions