Cllr Johnson opposes Avalon House conversion

Green Councillors Darren Johnson has written to the Lewisham Planning Service to oppose the application to convert Avalon House from a care home to a hostel. His letter says:


I am writing to echo the concerns of many local residents in my ward who have contacted me to express objections about the above application for a change of use.

While it is vital that there is adequate provision of hostel accommodation for homeless people, there are legitimate concerns about an overconcentration of such establishments in the Manor Avenue area. Residents are rightly concerned that change of use from a care home to a hostel would increase the transitory nature of what is a residential area. With the previous care home the residents there were an established part of the community. However, temporary hostel accommodation of the type proposed would cater for a transient population and could have a detrimental impact on an area where there are already a significant number of similar
establishments.

I fully accept that as a borough we need to ensure sufficient hostel accommodation for those who need it. Indeed, in my role as a ward councillor I have been closely involved in the work of one Brockley hostel and know the invaluable work it does in providing temporary accommodation and support for young single homeless women.

However, I am also aware that a balance needs to be struck between different types of accommodation if we are to have stable and secure communities. A further hostel in an area that already has a significant number would undermine that balance and would not be in the interests of the local community.

I therefore urge that the application be refused.

97 comments:

Greg said...

This is much more of an important statement to the debate than that which was receievd from the Mayor.
This is what Sir Steve Bullock's department had to say about a growing and very public concern with some of these hostels:

"In order for you to receive as detailed a response as possible on this matter Steve has asked that I forward a copy of your email to the Office of the Executive Director for Regeneration who have responsibility for this area. He has asked that officers send you their comments directly on this matter and that our office receives a copy of the response sent to you."

In other words, No Bullocks tossed the ball right back!

It is these officers, none of whom apparently live in Brockley - or Lewisham for that matter - who have played fast and loose with the shape of a community in which they do not reside.

One can almost hear Bullock say: Bunch of nimbys! An overused expression that gets nothing positive done.

Hooray for Councillor Johnson. Much respect for him nailing his colours to the mast.

Anonymous said...

and a balanced calm response rather than demonising the proposed hostel users.

Ray Otter said...

Brockley is well arty and right-on when it comers to organic caffs and delis, yeh, but it's good to nimbyism running strong 'n' proud regardless of the local Guardian readership.

Anonymous said...

I thought Hugh was moving to Ealing?

Anonymous said...

Greg said:

"none of whom apparently live in Brockley - or Lewisham for that matter"

Greg, have you checked your facts or are you making this all up as you go? I thought the Executive Director for Regeneration actually lived in Telegraph Hill.

TC said...

I think we need more detail on the "overconcentration" in Manor Avenue.

How many Hostels are there already?
How does this compare to other roads in the area and Lewisham as a whole?

Only then can we decide on the level of Nimbyism being shown

mb said...

Goodness knows what David Starkey would make of it all.

Anonymous said...

The Head of Regen is not a council officer. He's a consultant. He's also moving.

Mo said...

The councilor said "in the Manor Avenue 'area'." An important point.
Someone already said there were twelve plus. If that's NIMBY then I'm one.

Anonymous said...

It they are houses rented through housing associations from private landlords to provide ´supported housing´then they are not registered are they?

Confused said...

Not sure I understand the argument. Are we arguing that is good or bad that he does or does not live in the area? Living in the area could well be a conflict of interest. The decision makers should be looking at facts, objections and applying guidelines in a dispassionate manner. Not lving in an area would be better, no?

Actually, in the same way cllrs represent all those living here. Whether in hostles or not, good to see that cllr Johnson recognises that.

Anonymous said...

Funny how they have the money to run a hostel, but not a care home.

Headhunter said...

"Brockley is well arty and right-on when it comers to organic caffs and delis, yeh, but it's good to nimbyism running strong 'n' proud regardless of the local Guardian readership."

Yes, but as someone has pointed out there are already at least 12 hostels in the Manor Ave area (conservation area). How many "organic caffs and delis" are there? Let me see, we have what 2-3 on the east side of Brockley station, 1 on the west side of the station.... ummm... I think that's it.

Despite all the belly aching and heart felt pleading from the "good honest fare" AKA fried chicken crowd, there really isn't much...

Anonymous said...

Headhunter said: "Yes, but as someone has pointed out there are already at least 12 hostels in the Manor Ave area (conservation area)."

They have not provided any support for that figure. Whether or not it is a conservation area is irrelevant.

George said...

What support can they supply to an anonymous person? Oh, I know, let's pop those files around to anonymous at anonymous so that he he or she can check them then make a decision and write in support or against anymously? Get off your anonymous backside and ask the council where they are!

Headhunter said...

"They have not provided any support for that figure. Whether or not it is a conservation area is irrelevant."

Well someone listed at least 6 hostels in the conservation area somewhere on this site a week or so ago, or may be on the South East Central site, so there are at least 6. They're generally in the cons area because the buildings are big enough to be converted into mass accommodation. Not much point trying to house the homeless in a 2 or 3 bed terrace and trying to call it a hostel!

hill of beans said...

Which came first, the chicken shops or the organic delis? The Brockley Bean vegan/vegetarian co-op in Coulgate Street, on the site of the Broca, was here when I moved to Brockley 26 years ago. So was the care home on Manor Avenue..

TheOracle said...

BROCKLEY HOSTELS [SOME]

60 Adelaide Avenue, SE4
19 Breakspears Road, SE4
21 Breakspears Road, SE4 1XW
52 Breakspears Road
61 Breakspears Road, SE4
86 Breakspears Road, SE4 1TS
299-301 Brockley Road, SE4 2SA
14 Coulgate Street, SE4 2RW
12 Tressillian Crescent, SE4
41 Tressillian Road SE4 1YG
90-92 Tressillian Road, SE4 1YD 24
Rokeby House, Upper Brockley Road SE4 1SY
66 Wickham Road, SE4

I think I'll stop there.

Anonymous said...

PHEW!!

Anonymous said...

How does the Coulgate St resident deal with the "nightmare" of crossing the street when it has cars parked on it?

Maybe that's what put them into a care scenario in the first place. Real trauma. Ask Brockley Nick or Headhunter!

Slim said...

Call a spade a spade. I don't want no hostels round our way.

anne-marie said...

gosh that's alot of hostels...

Headhunter said...

"gosh that's alot of hostels..."

And apparently that's not all of them, just a selection... The other question is, why is Lewisham Borough required to house homeless people from Brent? Haven't we got any of our own to deal with? Do we need to import them?

leveller said...

But crucially note there are none actually on the 'Manor Avenue area' so let them have 1 and be done with it.

Headhunter said...

What constitutes the "Manor Ave area" then? I have lived on Manor Ave for 5 years and I woudl certainly consider Wickham, Breakspears, Tressillian and Upper Brockley Roads to be in my area, all those hostels listed are within 10 mins walk of Manor Ave, most within 5 mins...

leveller said...

Breakspears' according to the list supplied have 5, Manor Avenue has 0. So share the load. You guys rejected a nursery so you have form regarging Nimbyism.

Anonymous said...

"I don't want no hostels round our way"

Aside from the double negative, does a hostel only become a problem when someone becomes aware of it? This is like a NIMBY version of Shroedinger's Cat

Headhunter said...

Oh I see, so by "Manor Ave area" you mean simply "Manor Ave". Because Breakspears has 5 hostels, Manor Ave should have at least 1? So is it now a national requirement that every street have at least 1 hostel despite the fact that there are others in the close neighbourhood? Are there any hostels on your street, if not I nominate the house next door to you for the next hostel... Sorry mate but you need to "share the load"...

Richard said...

What Manor Avenue has and had, besides hostels, is a number of remand units (two burglars at present)- via the housing associations - foster care for difficult children (private), and a former care home that we all felt proud of. (And we want it back.) There are also a number of units for those with mental health issues, or seeking asylum, or with drink-related issues, etc.

Clearly we do our bit, how about you?

The use of 'units' is the form adopted by the housing associations.

If NIMBY means sharing the weight then we are NIMBYS.

Yeah, let's make it the new N word.

Anonymous said...

Greg, the Executive for Regeneration (Malcolm Smith)does not live in the borough of Lewisham.

TheOracle said...

Sorry all, forgot to add:104 Upper Brockley Road.

Thene there's 114-116 Manor Avnue which will go through, it's a done.

1-3 Ashby Road, which was turned down at council and on appeal. The owner has craftily changed it from an office to residential (assisted by the Exec Director of Regeneration actually?)to ease it through the use classes later.

Anonymous said...

Brockley hostels
and which road was in the top ten most burgled in december?

name said...

When you shut your door and put the radio or tv on you won't even be aware of your neighbours whomever they may be.

These people have pretty much nothing they are homeless and are we in Brockley going to be so selfish to say "go elsewhere you are not wanted"? Is that the type of people we are here?

Anonymous said...

Tell that to the people in Breakspears - five burglaries on Christmas Day. Nine helped it enter the national figures - and rising!
Name, where are you this Christmas? What's your road?

lester said...

councillor johnson's just playing a crafty two sider. he knows it's gonna happen will stand up and say theres too many while knowing its council policy. hes got no power on this, it's labour who you take this fight to as its there mates making the doe. forget this lot if you said you wanted it they would scream against. some are council officers winding you up.

Headhunter said...

That's true, Breakspears Rd was mentioned as one of the most burgled roads in the UK in the news back last Dec....

Anonymous said...

I think there is one hostel at the bottom of Cranfield Road

Anonymous said...

Such disgusting disregard for human life. If others were drawing a correlation between, say, black people and burglaries, they would be rightly crucified. Why are such damaging - and very NIMBY - mindsets being tolerated here?

Completely and utterly disgusted of SE4.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Anonymous said...

To be honest, the anti brigade worry more than the hostel dwellers.

Lester, do you have ANY idea how the council works? Or what a cllrs is?

L said...

Anon 21:56 - I totally agree with you! Sadly we are in a minority, it seems.

What makes people think homeless people who live in hostels = burglars and other criminals? Do you actually have any figures or research to support that statement? Do you know how people end up homeless? Would you turn away the woman who had to leave a home after her partner was beating her up? Or the man who lost his job through no fault of his own and couldn't afford to pay his rent in the private sector any more? Or the young guy from Romania who paid all his money to come to Britain after he was promised a job here and then found out it was all a scam and he had lost all his money and documents and was now on the streets in the winter?

You should all consider volunteering for Crisis Christmas at Deptford Reach this Christmas to gain some perspective.

Anonymous said...

Anon 21.16 "Tell that to the people in Breakspears - five burglaries on Christmas Day."

It is very uncommon for burglars to burgle the roads that they live in. Too much chance of being recognised by somebody.

House of fun said...

If there is a disproportionate number of hostels in that area then that's not right, they should be distributed. I suspect however that some of the posters on here just don't want them anywhere, well sorry, we can't shoot them.

What's the betting that the people who despise anyone who has to use a hostel are the same people complaining that the rioters have lost respect for each other and are selfish etc....

Cllr Johnson is right, we DO have an obligation (we do you know, we are a civilised country and are safer if we do so rather than chucking them out on the streets) but need to distribute them in a more sensible way. Not just tin the first available property or where a private provider decides he can maximise his profit.

Trumpet said...

House of Fun. Agreed.

Few here propose executing bad people. I don't speak for everyone mind. But this kind of moral oneupmanship is undeserved. It's important to have balance. "L" and the like just don't get this, or want to. They would rather make it about your prejudice rather than the need to have an input about a community's future, and the fears and concerns surrounding bad decisions. They stand on the shoulders of genuine concern, whilst displaying their prejudice, childishness, and lack of genuine concern. This after all is their playground.

But now is a time for grown ups.

Getting the balance right, true equality, oversight of govenment, that's the key. Neither is achieved by mocking the concerns of others. Good people don't want to shoot bad people, or to be accused of it. (An extreme metaphor constantly used as a trump card, just like "NIMBY". Boring, and lazy.)

The mention you make of private business exploiting the situation is hugely spot on. And a look at the Members' Interests Register of councillors may be informative. These are available online, and those amongst you who cry out for 'all the facts and figures' in the matter can research - you may learn something.

Of course there is nothing wrong with councillors sitting on the boards of organisations that profit from council funds, as long as they do not profit financially themselves be it via a spouse or family member, and even then with a certain set of strict controls.
Does Lewisham have such a set of controls other than the compilation of a register few here study?

One control is public accountability via sites like this. (Though reading much here I doubt it.) The other avenues of democratic accountabilty that are available to all but the lazy or unconcerned lie in the physical world, and not online.

There is too a failure to connect with a vociferous and active electorate by the council, and merely viewing them as the troubelsome NIMBY just doesn't cut it. It raises suspicions.

Neither is there a need to go down to Deptford in order to learn that there are many ills in this society: NIMBY isn't one of them.

House Of Fun said...

Thanks L, I made a satirical point (perhaps undeserved) you respond with a pompous patronising opening. We're both bad people.

I agree with most of what you say, but SOME of the posts do suggest that we have no responsibility to those in need and that they should all just go away to some unspecifed place or fate. A very selfish, inhumane and I believe ineffective solution to a problem.

Balance and an equitable distribution of sites but lets leave the heat out of the argument. People are a complex mix of good and ill, some of the hostel dwellers may simultaneously be feckless and in need of support - life is hard when we have grown up problems without easy answers, I'm sure you'd agree.

Anonymous said...

House of fun

Yes, but should Brockley be the unspecified place or fate.

Exactly what is being provided for the people being sent to the hostels.

What are the move figures for this group of very vulnerable people who are usually on licence agreements and shifted frequently from one place to another.

Danja said...

And a look at the Members' Interests Register of councillors may be informative. These are available online, and those amongst you who cry out for 'all the facts and figures' in the matter can research - you may learn something.

The register of interests does seem to appear on the LBC website. Can't you just make your point?

Danja said...

That should have been does *not*.

Trumpet said...

Just go to Lewisham's Website and click on Members' Declarations of Interests.

For the truly inert amongst you, and purely by way of example of the checks you can conduct. Go to....

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/StatementofAccounts20092010.pdf

See "LEWISHAM STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS 2009/10
12. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS"

For example, and to which absolutely no wrongdoing whould be implied, the following small comparison:

Councillor Anderson is a committee member of the Marsha Phoenix Memorial Trust to whom Lewisham paid £0.231m in 2009/10.

Councillor Hall is a member of the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust to whom Lewisham paid £3.69m in 2009/10.

Just look up the hostels in Brockley, 12 of more, then compare these with the councillor board members, and gain some insight.

Danja said...

What are you afraid of - libel?

Tressilliana said...

Anybody can be a member of an NHS Foundation Trust.

http://www.members.slam.nhs.uk/default.aspx

Being a member doesn't imply having anything whatever to do with deciding how the money is spent. It's just a way of keeping informed and showing support for the Trust.

The South London and Maudsley NHS Trust had income of £369.3m for 2009/10, the last year I can find figures for on the net. £3.69m of that came from Lewisham Council, apparently - about 1%.

Looking at Lewisham's annual report, most of the other declarations of interest are for committee positions in charities and community groups. They may get expenses reimbursed but that would be all in most cases.

Not really a smoking gun for anyone looking for evidence to support a theory that Lewisham is manipulated into approving planning applications for supported housing by councillors who are raking it in as paid employees or shareholders of the organisations running the housing.

Danja said...

Right, I've found a list of declarations by a very non-intuitive route. Maybe I've missed something more obvious.

http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/mgListDeclarationsOfInterest.aspx?XXR=0&DR=01%2f01%2f2009-13%2f01%2f2012&ACT=Find&MID=0

Trumpet said...

Then it's accountable - for you at least.

Why the other person speaks about fear of libel is beyond me.

You can use the information available to 'follow the money' and decide for yourselves if it is being spent appropriately.

Profiting from a position on a board can be more than just monetary'. Noble cause corruption can still be corrupting.

In that instance it can be helpful to see how a Committee is stacked; those councillors in mental health and hostel provision may be approached with caution by those anti 'hostel' residents because there is obviously a conflictual interest.

However, the sex offender unit in Breakspears may challenge this partisan approach.

kolp said...

It really is not wise to be publishing addresses of this nature on a public forum. People do not need to know where these places are located, just take the normal precautions that would normally do with vulnerable family or friends. Please be sensible here.

Danja said...

Because you are making vague insinuations, rather than actually making a case (which would involve naming names and supposed conflicts).

The only explanation I can think of for that coy reticence is that you don't actually have much to base the insinuations on.

Anonymous said...

Personally I do not care where they are. What I care about is that they are hosted in a £1.5m house with my tax money.

It is a fake socialist economy to think that just because a house is empy and available the Council shoudl use it in whatever way they want.

The Council has a duty to maximaise the potential of its assets so that they can minimise the amount of tax and the can provide the best services money can buy.

I am a strong believe that Lewisham Council should sell all victorian houses they own to private families (not developers) and use the millions they raise to build new proper, cheaper and cheaper to maintain hostels in a cheaper area. If you are jobless and homeless, I am not sure you have the need to be in zone two, 10 minutes to London Bridge and Canary Wharf.

Trumpet said...

Danja, how absurd.

I do not need to name names or defend any 'insinuations', wherever they may be.

If you cannot see that there may be a conflict of interest with a person sitting on a Board of a group that owns hostels then you are lost in a world of make believe.

My post is to those individuals out there with a brain and who wish to establish a conflict of interest, or not.

Anonymous said...

Can you libel a public official?

Brockley Nick said...

Please don't insult one another and when it comes to the boundaries of libel, let's not try to test them on here please.

Anonymous said...

What insult! What libel! It's just some Telegraph Hiller having a go at a BrocCon!

Trumpet said...

I'm sorry, Brockley Nick, was that directed at me?

Brockley Nick said...

Everyone. Thanks.

Trumpet said...

Could you outline the libels or insults, in order that we can then follow your lead.

... said...

please sir permission to go the toilet sir!

Brockley Nick said...

It's a polite and straightforward request for everyone to be civil to one another - it's not aimed at you or anyone in particular and I see no reason why it should be controversial.

Mungo said...

Was this article written by someone from the Conservation Area?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/interiorsandshopping/8681914/10-tips-for-your-room-at-university.html

Danja said...

Your other example, Barrie Anderson, is no longer a councillor. However, I note that Darren Johnson is also on the board of the Marsha Phoenix Mission. Given the topic of Nick's story that doesn't support your insinuations at all really does it?

This isn't to suggest that there isn't a bias in the system, but if you are going to suggest it is due to money you are going to have to do a bit better. But then I think you know that, which is why you left it in the realms of nod and wink.

Trumpet said...

Danja, you seem to understand how planning works - and then you don't. Why is that? What is it that holds you back from reasoned debate?

You should know that a ward member, Councillor Johnson, cannot sit on a Committee that determines an application on his ward - offering him up as an example does not convince.

In no way does the councillor's view impact on his board membership of the Marsha Phoenix Trust either. No one here is calling for its closure. Neither does his view on the increase of hostels do any damage to the one that he represents.

Where conflicts of interest may arise (in fact often do) is if councillor Johnson sits on Committee and decides the issue, either in favour of his ward members or in favour of his hostel. He would in fact rightly declare an interest and leave the room before the vote, etc. He does not need to do so in this case.

Again, since no one is calling for the demise of ALL hostels, there is no conflict of interest for Councillor Johnson. He may, if he wishes, speak freely, and he does so now. A common sense response, wnd one that you ignore time and time again. Why is that, do you have a conflict of interest that you should declare?

Danja said...

Your examples, such as they were, to back up your baroque conspiracy story were an ex-councillor with links to Maudsley and another councillor with links to MPM.

As for accusing me of having a conflict - heh! Tell the docs you need more lithium - maybe the hostels will come in handy for you?

TheOracle said...

APOLOGIES IF OVERLONG, BUT PERHAPS YOU CAN RETHREAD.

Road Traffic Acts Notices:
Result 2 of 76 notices from the most recent publications

Date: 17 August 2011 Issue Number: 59882 Page number: 15767
Publication Date: Wednesday, 17 August 2011 - LONDON GAZETTE

Notice Code: 1501

Road Traffic Acts

London Borough of Lewisham

ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984

THE LEWISHAM (WAITING AND LOADING RESTRICTION) (AMENDMENT NO. ---) TRAFFIC ORDER 2011

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Lewisham Council propose to make this order under the provisions of section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

1. The general nature and effect of the order will be to amend the parent order, the Lewisham (Waiting and Loading Restriction) Order 1990, to provide for the following restrictions (‘m’ = metres):–

No waiting at any time at–

[Edit... a number of roads actually, but including):

Geoffrey Road north side within 10m west and 6m east of junction Manor Avenue;

Manor Avenue both sides within 15m of junction Geoffrey Road, measured on west side;

Where will residents park?

Brockley Nick said...

Thanks Oracle - may be worth a new thread, but I'm not clear on this. Is this application directly related to Avalon House? If so, why would new restrictions be necessary?

Or is it just to address traffic problems at the junction? If so, what is the problem it is supposed to fix?

George said...

"Fifteen" meters! Isn't that 50 feet! That's 100 feet of car parking spaces in Manor Avenue alone! Nooooo!

TheOracle said...

Nick, no... it would appear not as these are far reaching changes which are also being introduced in other roads too. A lack of joined up thinking I suppose.

See here for full list:

http://tinyurl.com/3cpeluk

Brockley Nick said...

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

One of the big problems with this issue is that it seems to be impossible to obtain a complete list of Hostels in Brockley- the type of hostel and its residents,without this it is difficult to form an opinion about any plans for further hostels.
If there are 12 hostels already in Brockley and 5 on one particular road it would seem we have reached and possible exceeded saturation point - the lack of openness and access to information only helps to arouse suspicion and anxiety over the issue.

kolp said...

The fact that you don't know how many hostels they are in the area would indicate that they are not bothering you and therefore their prescence shouldn't factor in your decision* about an additional hostel being here.

A hostel is just a place where other humans live. As per an exchange I had yesterday on here, you can't really dictate who or what types of people move into an area.

The hostels that house people that may pose a risk to the community take that risk into account in how they are run and designed.

I hope this helps to ease your anxiety and distress over the issue.

Anonymous said...

Kolp:

If you do have a problem with any of the hostels and their occupants where do you go, I have had problems over the past few years with some of them concerning criminal damage and anti-social behaviour and there is a big reluctance on the part of the staff to give any contact numbers etc - and the police have been involved, so not knowing where they all are doesn't meant they are not a problem.

Erebus said...

What Kolp and Danja mean is anywhere but where they live. The latter residing in pepys road, which is largely protected by the senior council officer living there. It's called Nimbyism by stealth.

Danja said...

We have at least two hostels on Pepys Road, which I know about by personal observation (rather than some obsessional research exercise).

I'm not on either side of the fence on the Brockley conservation area issue. 12 sounds a lot, if that is accurate. It does seem to me that it would be sensible to spread facilities for people with social problems around so that no one community takes more than its fair share.

My point was just that the wind instrument was blowing a load of hot air

Danja said...

You really shouldn't do that with your sister, by the way.

Anonymous said...

It all depends who else lives on your road, if you have senior politicians then you have security available within minutes, otherwise tough!

Trumpet said...

Danj, the fact and figures for twelve hostels (more in fact) are well researched.

Perhaps, following your own advice, you should provide evidence of where these Pepys Road hostels are. I doubt you know or have them.

But if there is any wind blowing, it's your own flatulence.

kolp said...

If I have a criminal damage issue with someone, I'll report it to the police and I'll leave the detective work to them, it's not for me to be hunting down addresses. I don't get your issue there.

and btw to the other post, I live on a bit of road that houses arguably the worst of the worse when it comes to transitory and potentially anti-social residents...


Students... feel my pain!

Anonymous said...

Potentially anti-social is different to actually anti-social.

Danja said...

Now, now, don't be such a bassoon.

I haven't seen evidence that all 12 are hostels, just assertion so I'm not going to repeat it as fact when I don't whether it is or not. That's not at all to say that there aren't that many.

As for Pepys rd, one of them is the other Marsha Phoenix Mission house. The other is further down the road. I have no idea who owns or runs that one and my evidence is anecdotal only, from the behaviour of the many - ever changing - residents.

I'm not about to start naming house numbers, as I don't think that is appropriate or necessary.

kolp said...

"Potentially anti-social is different to actually anti-social."

Yes I am aware of that, as should be you.

Trumpet said...

Danj, How much lawyer work do you actually do by the way, given the frequency of your posts here? Does your firm know? Do your clients?

Danja said...
"Because you are making vague insinuations, rather than actually making a case (which would involve naming names and supposed conflicts). The only explanation I can think of for that coy reticence is that you don't actually have much to base the insinuations on."

When the evidence in support of insinuation is given Danja ignores it.

When Danja is then asked to supply evidence in support of his or her own insinuations, Danja, who claims to be a lawyer???, then says: "I'm not about to start naming house numbers, as I don't think that is appropriate or necessary."

Why?

Could it be that Danja doesn't accept evidence because he (or she?) is incapable of displaying empathy? (Cyber psycho comes to mind here.)

It is not enough to say that 12 is a lot - and then use 'if true' as a get out clause.

On the other hand... come down from Mount Pepys and knock on doors. That way the facts will stare you in the face. So get off your lazy backside and join the physical world.

Oh, and bring that regeneration 'friend' of yours with you! It may open both your eyes.

Anonymous said...

Marsha Phoenix Memorial Trust is in Tressillian Road Brockley

Rod said...

Kolp, how do we know that your road is 'arguably the worst of the worse' for students. Do you want us to do the detective work to accept this statement as fact?

kolp said...

"how do we know that your road is 'arguably the worst of the worse' for students. "

Erm is that what I wrote, I don't quite remember, could you remind with a quote what I acutally wrote, so that I can answer your question. Thank you in advance.

Anonymous said...

kolp said...
If I have a criminal damage issue with someone, I'll report it to the police and I'll leave the detective work to them, it's not for me to be hunting down addresses. I don't get your issue there.

and btw to the other post, I live on a bit of road that houses arguably the worst of the worse when it comes to transitory and potentially anti-social residents...


Students... feel my pain!

24 August 2011 15:09

Danja said...

My clients don't have any reason to care Bassoon, as they only get billed when I am working (not merely at work). There's not much room for secrecy in an open plan office, and if my firm knows to know more, they can look at the server logs. And to cap it all, I am on holiday today.

There is a difference between you insinuating that unnamed councillors are bent and refusing to say what that was based on, and me "insinuating" that two houses in Pepys Road are hostels. Presumably you can accept that?

Anyway, you have a point - a lot smaller than you made it, but I should have been less categoric, and just said that I think that two of the houses on Pepys are some form of supported housing/hostels. That's based on the thin evidence of my own observation of residents, so there's no reason for you to accept it if you don't want to.

It looks like I leaped to an incorrect conclusion about MPMT - their second stage appears to be on Erlanger, not Pepys. L&Q own one of the Pepys Road properties I am thinking of (from pp application), and I made 5 from that. No doubt it is on Erlanger is no doubt because Pepys is protected by bent cronyism. :roll

You are reading too much into the 12 comment - I just don't know and am not about to start knocking on doors, which would be a pretty mad and creepy thing to do. I'm just not going to cement the 12+ as an established fact by repeating it as one when I don't know either way.

Trumpet said...

A lawyer who does not accept information that may assist in forming a conclusion or judgment that counters her argument? Interesting.

kolp said...

The use of the word "arguably" when making a point is not stating a fact, it's more a statement of plausibility. So no, I don't want you to accept the statement as fact. What might be more helpful, is if you consider the perception of students versus the perception of hostel dwellers paying particular attention to the transitory nature of both groups.

Danja said...

I don't know whether to accept it, Bassoon. That's because it is (for me) assertion, not evidence. Those who did the research presumably have evidence, but I haven't seen it.

You clearly don't know much about lawyers, law or the legal process if you think that there is some sort of inconsistency there - but that's no bad thing at all (the not knowing, not the rubbish you spouted).

Brockley Nick said...

I've met Danja. I can confirm he has a face.

Telegraph Hill is only round the corner and this blog specifically caters for that area.

casual observer said...

Perhaps it’s time to put the trumpet down now, eh.

Danja said...

Oh, ok I misread, they think I live in New Cross. Well, wowza, that's been such a secret. You still made your neighbour up.

And I have nothing against a campaign to have hostel provision looked at, as I have consistently said. If there are 12+, on an anecdotal level it sounds high. I do not know how it compares with other areas with similar suitable housing stock.

You seem to have a problem with not having everything you say not being taken at face value and being questioned. You need to get over that if you want your campaign to succeed. And drop specious and frivolous accusations of dishonesty which you have nothing to back up.

Latest Tweets

Brockley Central Label Cloud

Click one of the labels below to see all posts on that subject. The bigger the label, the more posts there are!