Brockley Bites - Bumper Xmas Edition

Raise the roof at Rivoli

Muireann emailed us today to tell us about an event she'll be part of next week:
I have an event that may (or may not!) be of interest to other Brockley people. I'm in the Raise the Roof Singers - we rehearse and perform at the Horniman in Forest Hill but next Tuesday we're venturing into Brockley territory at the Rivoli Ballroom:

Singing and Salsa Celebration, Tuesday 11th December.
The Rivoli Ballroom. 350 Brockley Road, London SE4.

Come and hear us sing come and see us dance. Then hit the dance floor and party!!
Doors open at 8pm. Tickets on the door £10 concessions £8
It'll be a short set from us, and a demonstration from the Horniman's salsa evening class and then salsa 'til late. We are also doing a couple of free concerts (Sunday 9th at the Horniman, Saturday 15th at St Augustine's, One Tree Hill, both at 2.30).

Brockley recognised by culinary establishment

Darren emailed us to let us know that two of Brockley's finest have made it in to "the UK's most authoritative restaurant guide":

"Last week I received my new copy of the 2008 Hardens London and UK restaurants Guide. I was pleased to see that both Le Querce and the Babur are included. The Le Querce review states that it is "the best Italian food you will find for the money", giving it 1 out of 5 for food, 2 for service and a 4 for ambiance. Babur has been in for the last couple of years and scores 1 for food, 1 for service, and 2 for ambiance. In the London wide overall survey of meals of £34 or less, it comes second. "

The scores sound pretty stingy, but then we used to think that only having one Michelin star was rubbish. And if you're Hugh, it probably is.

Save Catford

Anonymous local man fears Catford turning in to Islington and argues against redevelopment because it won't stop crime on estates and could lead to the closure of some pound shops.
So if you think Catford is great just as it is, click here

Social Housing office opens on Mantle Road

Residents of Brockley's stock of social housing now have a one-stop-shop to access all their housing maintenance and estate services needs since Regenter B3 opened its new offices on Mantle Road, simultaneously kickstarting the take-up of commercial space on the west side of the station.

Regenter was awarded the £165m project to refurbish and manage over 1,200 local authority homes in Brockley by Lewisham Council in June 2007. The project consists of two phases: a refurbishment phase currently being carried out by Higgins Construction Plc with completion due in 2010; and then an operational phase with its delivery partners Pinnacle and Equipe, who will provide neighbourhood and estate services, repairs, maintenance and life cycle replacement throughout the remaining 17 years of the concession period.

Thanks to Kate (who knows a thing or two about this subject) for the tip-off.

New cycle lane for Brockley Rise

According to the News Shopper, Transport for London has pledged "£578,000 for the London Cycle Network. Also more cycle lanes, including in Brockley Rise and Whitburn Road, and better facilities for cyclists."

Thanks to James, who spotted that one and is soon-to-be-resident in the area. Our daily chatter helped to win him round to Brockley's charms and not even the great £10,000 voting scandal of 2007 could put him off. Remarkably, he says he wants to get involved in local community activities, despite the fact that his email address clearly indicates that he works in financial services!


Monkeyboy said...

Actually the scoring system is arse about face, the ratings are as follows....

1 -- Exceptional
2 -- Very good
3 -- Good
4 -- Average
5 -- Poor

I'm amazed the barge hasn't made it into the guide.

Pete said...

The Curse must be good if it gets the same score for food as Babur.

GT said...

I believe the Darren in question may be my husband (who has an endearing habit of misleading people, usually me, into believing the opposite of what he actually means). As monkeyboy points out 1 is actually the top score so I will apologise on Darren's behalf for any confusion caused.

Ross said...

[i]"Anonymous local man"[/i]

no more anonymous than 'brockley jon' or 'brockley nick' surely?

[i]"fears Catford turning in to Islington"[/i]

as the 5th most deprived area (islington) in the whole of the UK, is it not a fear that any socially responsible & concerned citizen should be allowed to have?

[i]"and argues against redevelopment because it won't stop crime on estates and could lead to the closure of some pound shops"[/i]

this is truly pathetic reporting of my position, a cursory glance through what's written would lead any reasonable person to the conclusion that I am not against redevelopment, in fact i voice the need for it quite often on my blog, I am however against the type of redevelopment which is largely funded by public money, fails to provide even the minimum legal requirement of affordable housing, and ignores the existing problems of poor substandard housing provisions in the borough and the added negative social byproducts caused by it

[i]"So if you think Catford is great just as it is, click here"[/i]

again, pitiful reporting of my position, i challenge you to find one quote or phrase which suggests that i think catford is great just as it is

truly, truly abissmal reading of the situation, you should be ashamed of yourselves

Anonymous said...

you spelt abysmal wrong...

Brockley Jon said...

Nick, looks like your journalism skills have won you another fan ;)

I told you to stop reading News of the World...

Ross said...

"you spelt abysmal wrong..."

that comment had roughly the same level of engagement with the substantive points of the issue as the original blog posting had

Brockley Nick said...

Hi Ross

Glad you like it. My email address (and thus, real name) is readily available on the site. I based my comment about your anonymity on the fact that Andrew Brown commented on how it might be helpful for someone who sought to campaign on an important public issue to explain who they were. You declined to give any further details about yourself.

As for the rest, I read what you had to say and reached my own conclusions. I've included a link, so others are free to judge how sensible and constructive your arguments are. People regularly disagree with me, as you can see from a number of the more active threads on this site. That's what makes for healthy debate.

If you want to lead and shape public debate about such an important issue, you need to be able to deal with (mild) criticism without immediately launching in to abuse. Your campaigning style is like the good people behind the anti-Lewisham Gateway website.

Anonymous said...


No need to get uppity. I was only pointing it out to you. It undermines your argument a little if you struggle with the spelling.

Ross said...

"you need to be able to deal with (mild) criticism without immediately launching in to abuse."

from where i'm standing i think it's you that needs to be able to deal with mild criticsm more than me to be honest

and if abuse means correcting the pitiful reporting capabilities of someone else's position, then i'm happy to be an abuser

Ross said...

"It undermines your argument a little if you struggle with the spelling."

good point, solid substantive thought through positions are worth nothing unless they are spelt 100% correctly

Anonymous said...

This site's not trying to lead a political campaign. That's the difference. That, and this site has a bit of a sense of humour.

Ross said...

it's definately a joke, yes

Anonymous said...

Ross "solid substantive thought through positions are worth nothing unless they are spelt 100% correctly"

your thoughts might as well be worth nothing if nobody takes you seriously, which I can't, when you display such a bad attitude. Your approach to this argument is abissmal (sic).

Ross said...


max said...

I have read through Ross's website and found it extremely informative and very well written.

By the way, I remember having heard reliable rumours that English Partnership was having problems with coming up with a plan that could satisfy planning rules because it's basically 500 plus flats in a cul de sac and that's not possible. I know that the Council had even thought of purchasing or facilitating a purchase of some houses the other side of the railway to demolish them to build a bridge to connect the development to other roads.
Now thanks to Ross's research we know that the proposal basically says "let's build it and to hell with the consequences".

To anonimoos: Maybe I'm wrong but I think that I'm not the only one in Lewisham to have both a good sense of humour and an attention span wide enough to be able to read Ross's writings.

Anonymous said...

could you explain what you're talking about re: building a bridge to the development, and is there a link to Ross's website?

ross said...

could be this, on page 58 of the transport assessment document where it talks about vehicle access to the site

"An at-grade vehicular linkto Doggett Road, via a level crossing arrangement, would be unacceptable to Network Rail
both in operational and safety terms. The provision of a new vehicular
bridge, although technically possible, was also discounted due to visual
impact that such a structure would have on the adjacent residential properties. The amount of space occupied by the landing ramp within the site would also make any development of the narrow site unviable."

link to site

max said...

Wow, it made it into the papers, I heard about it quite some time ago, maybe 2 years ago.
I had not heard anyway of the possibility of a level crossing.
Now, considering that that would be almost straight in front of a primary school's gate I wonder what is it that they smoke there.

ross said...

i know, it's mental isn't it, but what's even worse is this statment

"The amount of space occupied by the landing ramp within the site would also make any development of the narrow site unviable."

so the main reason for them not doing it (in their eyes) is the fact that the space taken up by the landing ramp on the site itself would take up too much space and not allow as many houses to be built on the site!

no concern for anything else around the site like!

Anonymous said...

Ross / Max

Sorry, can you be clear please? Are you saying that they are building a level crossing or they are not building a level crossing? It sounds as though they aren't. Please can you clear that up?

Also, when you talk about building a "ramp" to the site, do you actually mean a road bridge big and tall enough to clear a railway track safely? If so, no wonder they rejected that idea.

The site is one narrow strip between two railway lines - very unforgiving site for a residential development. Aren't you impressed that they've found a way to make that work and to fit so many badly-needed new houses on a brownfield site?

ross said...

they wanted to build either a level crossing or a road bridge over the track, but weren't allowed to do either, so they are not

i'd be more impressed if public money was prioritised into first sorting out existing problems in the community (sub-standard housing, anti-social behaviour, climate of fear etc in the estates) rather than focus on providing new luxury homes for people commuting into the city. Additionally they fall well short of the amount of affordable housing that should be provided for in schemes like this, and in addition they have made no attempts to ensure that investment in the local infrastrcuture (transport network, public transport, roads etc..) is made so that the pressures put on it by the development can be absorbed without impacting on the existing community

lewisham is already performing abismally in terms of it's obligations under the London Plan to provide decent affordable housing and this scheme follows in those footsteps

it's a massive transfer of money from the public to the private sector and a reciprocal transfer back of risk from the private sector to the public sector

Anonymous said...

Thanks Ross, so can we forget carping about what they are not doing and concentrate on what they are doing?

I'd hardly describe the development, sandwiched between two railway tracks, as luxury homes. They look-like decent-standard homes for small families on modest incomes and starter flats for first-time buyers, together with the affordable housing. Maybe they should include a bit more affordable housing in the mix, maybe that would make it uneconomic and the development wouldn't go ahead at all - that's the kind of game of bluff that always happens with these kinds of developments, but it's not a prime development site, by any means, so the developers could threaten to walk away if they're forced to build more. Then the Council loses out on developing this site and has to look at other parts of the borough.

Obviously, Milford Tower needs sorting out, but that's really a separate issue.

Out of interest, what public money's gone in to the project? How much? What do you mean by transferring risk back to the public sector? Please be specific?

ross said...

well what they are not doing is kinda relevant to the discussion in this instance, given that access to the site was originally seen as being a problem and the bridge/crossing was seen as one way of resolving the problem, the fact that they can't build this now but are still going ahead with the development anyway is a point that should not be lost

in terms of public money, english partnerships a publicly funded quango which bought and owns the land of which will be used for the development, and is funding the whole planning process, from buying the land, to funding the investigation studies to funding the swathes of development documentation that needd to be submitted to the council for planning permission, the whole thing is publically funded, however ownership of the site and revenues associated from it will flow to the developers, so next to no risk for the developers but (effectively) guaranteed revenue flows from it, i.e. they get all the profits and the taxpayer takes all the risks (for example if the scheme is rejected all the money that has been spent on investigations & development proposals/plans etc over the last few years will be public money that's lost, not private. we're always hearing about how the private sector are entitled to the profits that they make because they are the ones that take the risks, this, like many other cases, is a load of shite, public risk-private profit is the actuality of the situation)

so, given the considerable help that the private sector is receiving from the public on this, not just in pure financial terms but in access to key decision makers in the council and help in pushing the development proposals through the bueracracy, i'd say there is considerable ground to push both the council and the developers to meet the minimum legal requirements for the provision of sustainable affordable housing which is currently set at 50% (we'll put aside the fact for a moment that even this is too low, this scheme offers something like 35% affordable homes but claims to offer 57% which is crap and even aknowledged within the developers own planning documentation.

you say milford towers is a seperate issue, but why is it? we're talking about the prioritisation of the spendingof public money in the borough, milford towers needs investment or knocking down and rehousing of residents now, this is a more pressing issue for those who live on and around the estate, to those who are scared to go out in the evenings and lock themselves in behind their doors in the evening - why should this be seen as a seperate issue, it's an issue relating to the council living up to its responsibilities and one that they should be pressed on when attention is attempted to be diverted to other more 'shiny' issues like the greyhound site development

call me old fashioned but i'd prefer resources are prioritised into alleviating existing problems in the area rather than building new homes laregly for city commuters who don't even live here at present. but that doesn't seem to be how things are done these days, the considerable problems with milford towers, crime & anti-social behaviour for example seem to be subjected to a 'containment' policy by the council and the police, i.e. as long as these issues are contained within the estates and not allowed to spread out to the more affluent areas then there is no inertia to do anything about those problems and instead attention is turned to the kind of schemes we are discussing now

Anonymous said...

But the public money you've mentioned from English Partnerships wouldn't be available for Milford Towers, so it is separate.

Monkeyboy said...


A general point regarding 'risk'.

I work on projects that are publically funded. All construction projects have a financial risk. Some of those risks are bourne by the client, some by the contractor. If the client changes requirements or have told the contracotr to make assumptions while planning permisions are going through that may be a 'risk taken by the clent to speed up the design. On the, other hand for example, if the principle contractor has quoted a fixed price for the plumbing and the plubing contracor goes bust then the principle contractor may have to pay a highercost and loose some profit.

You seem to have a very naive view that all private contractors sit around in oak panelled offices chewing cigars while they try and fleace starving orphans, not true. (well mostly not)

St Pancras was on time and on budget. The motivation for the contractor were eye watering abatements for being late - thats the risk they carry. Do you have evidence of the Catford contractor being given an abatement free contract?

(holds breath for angry tirade....)

max said...

To anonimous about the ramp and level crossing: no, they're not doing it, but the problem is not that they rejected the idea, it's that they came up with the idea in the first place, worked around it and went as far as asking Network Rail what they think about it. Can you imagine the next stage? A public consultation to ask the parents of Holbeach Primary what they think of a level crossing in front of their children's school.
Thanks to Network Rail this didn't happened but it's indicative of the sort of things that English Partnership would do to be able to build as many flats as a site can physically accommodate.
That land needs developing, I pass by there most days and it's a great site, it may not be prime land but it's very good, there's schools, a station and it's overlooking a fabulous park, there's potential for something really good only that the pressure from government to build as much as possible in London can bring undesirable results and if planning rules say that 500 plus flats cannot fit there then maybe they should scale down the development or think about a different use of the land rather than disregarding he rules because they are the government and they can do what they want.

Anonymous said...

Quango in "considering and consulting on various options and rejecting the unworkable ones" shock.

Government in "trying to build enough homes to try and accommodate a growing London population" shock.

Which of these do you consider the greatest scandal?

max said...

I did not say "shock", in fact I'm not even surprised, only that if planning rules apply to the the goose they should apply to the gender too.

max said...

Sorry, I should have said that, although I am not surprised I still find it funny that people at English Partnership think about putting a level crossing in front of a primary school, that's not a quango considering which options are workable and which are not, that's somebody that either forgets to activate the brain before going to work or that smokes a lot of pot on the job.
Again, I'm not shocked, only amused.

ross said...

"But the public money you've mentioned from English Partnerships wouldn't be available for Milford Towers, so it is separate."

i'm sorry but this is a poor retort to my arguments - this takes the view that regardless what is done with a pot of money in cannot be criticised because of budget bifurcation. this kind of approach renders impotent any attempt to approach social & public spending from a most needed and socially responsible basis, it provides a convenient cloak to hide behind when loads of public money can be pored into projects where private capital stands to gain from it, but on the other hand sums of money are not made available where it's most desperately needed (because it won't turn a profit). i don't see why our criticisms should be restrained in this way, now before anyone else comes on and accuses me of naivety in terms of the way council budgets work, i'll say that the problem of milford towers has been around for some time, it's not something that has just suddently sprung out of thin air, so there's no reason as to why appropriate budget should not have been allocated towards this area and in priority over schemes (like the greyhound development) which do not do anything to address the existing problems within the community.

I was met with the same response when i criticsed the spending of half a million pounds to put a fake lake through the centre of ladywell park, i argued that this money would have went a long way to improving the situation and lives of many residents of milford towers, however once again i was met with the 'that money couldn't have been spent on milford towers because it was specifically allocated for ladywell park'.

i'm aware there is not a bottomless pit of money, however all i'm arguing for is that for the scare resources that the council has at its dispossible, they should be allocated & prioritised to areas that desperately needs them first off, it's basic civic & social responsiblity to do so, and if they are prevented from allocating funds in such a manner by higher authorities then this should be fought against, and people not profit put first

Anonymous said...

Oh, I see, so you're not just campaigning against the Catford development, you are campaigning for a total restructuring of the way public sector funding for brownfield redevelopment is administered in the UK.

ross said...


while your comments may be true, they didn't really have anything to do with the points I was making (in this case the client and the contractor are effectively the same people, the development company (in conjunction with the housing association) will build, maintain and ultimately own (until sold onto purchasers) the properties, so your distinction between client & contractor is not really relevant to my argument here. The important distinction is that between public expenditure and private profit.

now, we're always told that capitalists have a right to make money because it's they that put up the money and take the risks in relation to their ventures. now put aside for the time being the many valid objections to this assertion and work within their own rules for a moment. If this was the case, i'd expect a property development company to amass a certain amount of experience in the field, then evaluate a number of potential sites to which development may be possible, then i'd expect them to carry out a sustained evaluation period to determine the suitability of develelopment, then i'd expect them to either then purchase the land or buy an option to purchase it, then i'd expect them to carry out a considerable public consultation period in addition to a heap of work invovled in researching and preparing the various reports that are required to enable them to submit their planning proposals for consideration.

Now that's a lengthy, time consuming and expensive process to go through and that's even prior to any work actually starting on the site, however because of this expense and risk being taken by the developer they are then allowed the lion's share of the value that then flows once the development is completed and sold to customers.

my point is that through the whole of this process, english partnerhips (a publically funded body) has done the bulk of this work and therefore borne all the risks of that process, so all the normal risks (risks that are normally said to justify the resultant profit that flows to capital) have been borne by the public, not the ultimate beneficiary of the value flows from the project

now, one could argue that because a certain level of homes are to be made 'affordable' this justifies the use of public money, i agree, however my main point in all of this is that the level of affordable provisioning in this development falls well below the amount stipulated by the Mayor in the London Plan (a statutory document), so i don't see why substantial amounts of public money should be transferred to private hands (which is effectively what is happening) without the appropriate amount of public provision (i.e. affordable housing) being received back by the public in return

it's not rocket science

ross said...

"Quango in "considering and consulting on various options and rejecting the unworkable ones" shock."

except that wasn't quite the case. the developer wanted to build the crossing/bridge, but network rail didn't allow them to

"Government in "trying to build enough homes to try and accommodate a growing London population" shock."

again this isn't a correct surmation, your correct that the govt (or in this case the london assembly) have a concern that enough affordable housing should be provided for to ensure that London can continue to function and that all residents are given a chance to have a home of decent standards. The statutory instrument that is the outcome of this desire is known as The London Plan, within it it states that 50% of all new housing should be affordable. Lewisham council is already one of the worst offenders to date in terms of putting this plan into practice (a grand total of 3.8% of new homes built were affordable at the time of the last monitoring report in Feb 07). This development again falls well short of the London Plan target (as does the lewisham gateway development), and as the devlopers are receiving a considerable amount of finance from public funds, i'm not sure why most people on this site so far are castigating me for pointing this out and trying to ensure that targets set in relation to affordable housing are actually attempted to be achieved

ross said...

"Oh, I see, so you're not just campaigning against the Catford development, you are campaigning for a total restructuring of the way public sector funding for brownfield redevelopment is administered in the UK"

try to keep up

this campaign is to try to ensure that targets for affordable homes which have been set down in a statutory document called the London Plan are actually adhered to by local authorities

I have massive criticism of public to private transfers of wealth in all aspects of society (PFI, ALMO's etc..), and while i'm realistic as to the inability of myself to be able to do that much practically about the injustices and inefficiencies inherent in such schemes, i'm not sure why i should be criticsed for pointing these things out or indeed reporting upon them.

a reasonable man adapts himself to the situation around him, an unreasonable man tries to adapt the situation around him to himself - all progress is made by unreasonable men

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

ross, stop spamming

and your comments are giving me a headache...

ross said...

ah so spamming is now responding to comments that have been made about my blog/campaign on here! (so much for free debate and right of reply)

i'm mereley responding to both the original comment made on the blog and then the subsequent ones made in the comments sections

if my comments give you a headache perhaps you should stick to the more gentile topics such as how on earth brockley has managed to survive thus far without a deli or an organic food shop, safer territory eh andy

tyrwhitt michael said...

I have had a look at the Catford redevelopment on the Lewisham planning website and it seems to me a reasonable use of a brownfield site that would otherwise remain derelict and potentially blight the area.

My understanding is that English Partnerships are financed by central government to promote inner city regeneration which would otherwise not take place due to the risks to the private sector. If this money has not been spent here it would have gone elsewhere in London or the UK. It would not be available for use by Lewisham or the London Assembly.

If the development increases the housing stock in the borough then this can only speed up the decantation of Milford Tower and its redevelopment.

In any event Brockley Central readers can't have much influence on the centre of Catford as we don't live there. Our opinions, support or objections would be given little weight as we are not local residents. Shouldn't this debate be going on, on the Save Catford blog or are Catford residents too apathetic to bother what goes on on their doorstep?

Still it shows residents of Brockley are willing to debate such issues even if they are peripheral to our area.

Brockley Nick said...

Ross is responding to people's comments and questions, which is one of the things the site is for. I think it's great to discuss the issue here, particularly as the redevelopment of Catford is central to the borough's future. I think it's important and this site generates levels of traffic and debate which are hard for single-issue sites to attract.

Glad you're finding this site a worthwhile forum with which to discuss the issues, but please have the courtesy not to insult people or the other issues of immediate local importance they choose to discuss.

First three paragraphs - very well put.

ross said...

1. of course looking at the planning documentation on the council's website would give the impression that it's a grand idea, they are indeed in partnership with the developers. My only point to you on this however, and one that i have made numerous times on here so far, is that lewisham council are consistenly failing to provide even the minimum amount of required sustainbale affordable housing in this and other developments within the borough. This is my primary objection to this scheme. If someone would like to put forward a case as to why they should not comply with this level then i'm all ears

2. you are right, english partnerships exist to carry risk that would normally be expected to be taken by the people who will take the profits from developmet schemes. The fact that they (EP) take this risk allows certain demands to made upon them in connection with the development, namely the provision of affordable housing. Therefore as public money is being spent to shield private enterprise from risks that they should be taking, it does not seem unreasonable to me to voice concern over the fact that the developers and council are not keeping their side of the bargain which is to ensure that 50% of all new developments between now and 2016 are sustainable affordable housing. they are not doing that (they are providing only 36/37%), therefore in my opinion the public are being ripped off

3. re the fact that this is being discussed here. I can assure you that the only reason i am here talking about it is because my site was linked to in this blog along with some rather derogatory & snidey comments along side it. I came here to put my side of the story to the blog editors, and since then i have responded to anyone else who have made comments on it, partly out of politeness, partly out of wanting to put my case across, and partly because i believe that if something is openly dicussed on blogs/forums etc.. then it's only fair that the subject of that discussion should have every right of reply

Your comment about catford residents being apathetic bear a distinct air of pompous superiority and sterotyping you know. Catford residents are not one big homogeneous lump, some are against it, some are for it, some don't care, some who are against it are against it for different reasons to others, ditto those who are for it. you can see comments in all these respects on the savecatford site.

as pointed out above, the only reason i am here as the issue was raised and linked to by the editors of this site, so clearly it was felt relevant in some way to be posted on here in the first place, for then to have people respond to me with allegations of spamming and being irrelevant when i respond to the comments made on this site is somewhat devoid of any rational application of logic in relation to the principles of discussion or debate

Brockley Nick said...

Ok ross, if that's really all the problem is (and your complaints on your blog are a lot more nebulous and xenophobic) then that's easy. The 50 percent target in the london plan is not a hard and fast rule, it allows for fewer affordable homes if the project has other local benefits, such as creating new community facilities and rejuvenating difficult brownfield sites. This project meets those criteria, so the proportion of affordable housing can be lower. Maybe there should be more affordable units, but as someone else said, it's a tricky balancing act and without seeing the business plan, it's a hard one to argue.

ross said...

xenophobic? that's quite an allegation, care to furnish me with some evidence to back that up?

the development doesn't compensate for it's lack of affordable housing though, it offers nothing in the way of benefits for the existing community (plenty downsides though, 17% increase in rail passenger usage in an already overcrowed network, the adding to an already congested road junction at the entrance to the site, the pricing out of local shops & businesses through increased rents & property costs that follow every regeneration project, the displacement of crime & anti-social behaviour to other parts of the community away from the nice new shiny areas)

i've seen regeneration in many areas of london and overall it ends up increasing existing social & economic inequalities, the example of islington that you chose to quote is a case in point, it is now the 5th most deprived area in the whole of the UK. This being after nearly a decade of gentrification & regeneration, yes it's certainly benefited the already well off but it does nothing for the bulk of people in the community who lose out so the already well off can get even
more richer, if you want to support such a thing and the increasing inequalities that it leads to then go for it, but please don't hide behind pathetic accusations of xenophobia from me as you do so

andy pandy pudding & pie said...


i was trying to put into context that large quantity of detailed responses you give - well argued in most cases, but not my cup of tea to read through on my 15 min lunch break.

Care to provide a high level summary of what you are trying to say? maybe then i can actually find the time to listen to your concerns.

you do seem rather defensive though, not sure exactly why you feel you need to be on this site. I rather like the style of your arguement though :o)

ross said...

fair do's andy

i've written enough about my thoughts & concerns on the matter here already (at least enough for you to accuse me of spamming!)

as has been pointed out by someone else here, the actual positions adopted by posters here are really of no concern to me or the specifics of this campaign, so i'm afraid you'll have to wade through what i've written already (or visit if you want to get a handle on what it's all about

i do appear to be caught between a rock and a hard place here as one minute i'm being told to stop spamming the place and then the next i'm being told to expand or precis my arguments!

bottom line as far as i'm concerned though is if you are against observed phenomena which result in the increase of social & economic inequalities and injustices then blatant gentrification & regeneration schemes like this one should be held to account so that they are squeezed for as much public benefits as possible as, as allways the outcome of them are that the already well off get richer out of them and those already struggling to get by have their social & economic positions worsened by them. they result in an increased inequality and a continuing transferring of economic & social powers and resource from the poor to the rich, resulting in an even more warped set of power relations within our society

this is an observed and measurable phenomena across all areas of london (and elsewhere) that have been gentrified/redeveloped in the last 10-20 years. It's not an irrational fear of the unknown or 'xenephobic' as some would say, but a rational, considered response and reaction to a social disease, the effects of which are plain to see (for those who don't close their eyes to it)

Brockley Central Label Cloud