# Petition against Lambeth council mismanagement of allotments



## EarthyGerry (Oct 5, 2011)

Although there are only two council-owned allotments sites in Lambeth, (54 plots altogether), and the waiting lists for both sites are closed, some of these plots are occupied by non Lambeth residents, several individuals have multiple plots, and subletting is tolerated, even condoned by the council. Furthermore, there has been no attempt to reflect Lambeth's ethnic diversity. Considering the scarcity of land in London inner cities, and the benefits to health and well-being from growing one's own food, it is surely a scandal that locals are being deprived due to the council's wasteful mismanagement of these resources. 
Lambeth allotments for Lambeth residents! 

You can join the petition here (please copy into your browser if link doesn't work):
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov...spx?ID=259&RPID=14736942&HPID=14736942&$LO$=1
Thanks.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 5, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> Although there are only two council-owned allotments sites in Lambeth, (54 plots altogether), and the waiting lists for both sites are closed, some of these plots are occupied by non Lambeth residents, several individuals have multiple plots, and subletting is tolerated, even condoned by the council. *Furthermore, there has been no attempt to reflect Lambeth's ethnic diversity*. Considering the scarcity of land in London inner cities, and the benefits to health and well-being from growing one's own food, it is surely a scandal that locals are being deprived due to the council's wasteful mismanagement of these resources.
> Lambeth allotments for Lambeth residents!
> 
> You can join the petition here (please copy into your browser if link doesn't work):
> ...



Are you saying there's no black plotholders?  If so, why?  Is it because there have been other people in the queue ahead of them or for some other reason?

Shockingly low number though.  My sister has an allotment in Spa Hill where there are 300 plots on one site


----------



## editor (Oct 5, 2011)

It's pretty mixed on our plot, but  it's not council owned.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 5, 2011)

I do know BEM allotmenteers, but actually, not with council plots in Lambeth now you come to mention it.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 6, 2011)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Are you saying there's no black plotholders? If so, why? Is it because there have been other people in the queue ahead of them or for some other reason?
> 
> Shockingly low number though. My sister has an allotment in Spa Hill where there are 300 plots on one site


There's always been a waiting list but it hasn't been implemented properly, and because it is strictly confidential there's no way of knowing where you stand on it or whether you are being bypassed. Several years ago they scrapped it and started a new one because it'd been so long since any plots were allocated to people from the list. People were getting plots through 'other' means.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 6, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> There's always been a waiting list but it hasn't been implemented properly, and because it is strictly confidential there's no way of knowing where you stand on it or whether you are being bypassed. Several years ago they scrapped it and started a new one because it'd been so long since any plots were allocated to people from the list. People were getting plots through 'other' means.



Freedom of Information Act!  

Sounds rather dodgy that nobody's getting to see the waiting list


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

Lambeth Council are famous for their idiocy. Recent examples include the introduction of compulsory recycling and plastering the area with posters proclaiming that 'the government has cut our funding so we have to cut our services'.

And what has the borough's ethnic diversity got to do with allotment allocation?


----------



## past caring (Oct 6, 2011)

Whereabouts do you live or work in Lambeth, then?


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

past caring said:


> Whereabouts do you live or work in Lambeth, then?



What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## past caring (Oct 6, 2011)

It has everything to do with confirming that you are speaking out of yer arse.


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

past caring said:


> It has everything to do with confirming that you are speaking out of yer arse.



How so? I have highlight two examples of Lambeth's stupidity. And if I'm talking out of the wrong end of my anatomy it shouldn't be too hard for you to contradict me without using silly language, should it?


----------



## past caring (Oct 6, 2011)

Well, let me put it another way then, 'cos you're clearly a bit thick.

What evidence do you have for your claims about Lambeth's stupidity?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 6, 2011)

past caring said:


> What evidence do you have for your claims about Lambeth's stupidity?



Doubt he really needs any.  Lambeth are renowned for being stupid


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

The two examples I've cited above: 1) Making recycling compulsory and 2) putting hundreds of posters across the borough declaring (inaccurately) that: 'the government has cut our funding so we have to cut our services' - posters which wasted local council tax payers money.


----------



## Onket (Oct 6, 2011)

Recycling is idiotic? Eh?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 6, 2011)

Onket said:


> Recycling is idiotic? Eh?



Threats to fine you is idiotic when anyone can walk along a street and dump rubbish in any bin.

I'm guessing that's what RM *may *be talking about (mixing recyclable stuff in with your main rubbish as opposed to using the orange bags, but I could be wrong).


----------



## past caring (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> The two examples I've cited above: 1) Making recycling compulsory and 2) putting hundreds of posters across the borough declaring (inaccurately) that: 'the government has cut our funding so we have to cut our services' - posters which wasted local council tax payers money.



No, dafty - I am asking for evidence that the things that you claim Lambeth have done actually happened.


----------



## Onket (Oct 6, 2011)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Threats to fine you is idiotic when anyone can walk along a street and dump rubbish in any bin.
> 
> I'm guessing that's what RM *may *be talking about (mixing recyclable stuff in with your main rubbish as opposed to using the orange bags, but I could be wrong).



They've not made that compulsory as far as I know, and they aren't fining anybody for it.

Next?


----------



## past caring (Oct 6, 2011)

Well, I've yet to see one of these posters the are has supposedly been "plastered" with. But I only work in Lambeth, I don't live here. Hence my question to Right Numpty as to whereabouts he lives and works....


----------



## mr steev (Oct 6, 2011)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Threats to fine you is idiotic when anyone can walk along a street and dump rubbish in any bin.
> 
> I'm guessing that's what RM *may *be talking about (mixing recyclable stuff in with your main rubbish as opposed to using the orange bags, but I could be wrong).



That's been bandied around about virtually every council. I wouldn't be suprised if it's a tax payers alliance story, cos it seems to appear in the local press everytime there's a slow news day

Rather than petitioning the council to kick people off their allotments, would it not be better to petition them to create more plots? Or is land really that scarce?


----------



## ericjarvis (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> How so? I have highlight two examples of Lambeth's stupidity. And if I'm talking out of the wrong end of my anatomy it shouldn't be too hard for you to contradict me without using silly language, should it?



Compulsory recycling is not idiocy. The simple fact is there is limited space for landfill sites and the costs are becoming prohibitive. Councils can't afford people not to recycle a hell of a lot more than they would do without being pressured to do so. That's not to say that Lambeth aren't capable of being extremely stupid, but too often the stuff that makes the press is actually a misreporting of something perfectly sensible, whilst the real idiocies are completely ignored.


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

Onket said:


> They've not made that compulsory as far as I know, and they aren't fining anybody for it.
> 
> Next?



Really? Lambeth Council Compulsory Recycling - your questions answered

Here's a brief digest from the link above...



> Recycling is compulsory for all residents who have recycling services provided by the council at their home.



and



> We will be doing visual checks to see which households using orange sacks or green boxes are recycling. If you have not recycled when we are in your area you will receive a yellow letter reminding you that you need to recycle....
> ....anyone who can recycle but chooses not to at the end of the process will have enforcement proceedings started against them.



Town hall tyranny.


----------



## Onket (Oct 6, 2011)

Apparently there's so much red tape where allotments are concerned it's made 'community gardens' where it's at, as they are easier for people to set up, etc.


----------



## Onket (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Really? Lambeth Council Compulsory Recycling - your questions answered
> 
> Here's a brief digest from the link above...
> 
> ...


 I think that's fair enough. People who can recycle but chose not too are selfish in the extreme.


----------



## past caring (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Town hall tyranny.



You fucking clown.


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

Onket said:


> I think that's fair enough. People who can recycle but chose not too are selfish in the extreme.



No, they're not selfish, what an absurd thing to say. Recycling is a matter of personal choice. We pay taxes to central and local government and one of the most basic functions of the latter is to take away local residents' rubbish. If the council are so keen on rubbish being separated into different types they can do that themselves, after all, they have to separate the mixed recycling don't they?


----------



## Onket (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> No, they're not selfish, what an absurd thing to say. Recycling is a matter of personal choice. We pay taxes to central and local government and one of the most basic functions of the latter is to take away local residents' rubbish. If the council are so keen on rubbish being separated into different types they can do that themselves, after all, they have to separate the mixed recycling don't they?



Oh right, so you _are_ a complete fucking clown.


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

Onket said:


> Oh right, so you _are_ a complete fucking clown.



In other words, you know that I'm right but you are too intellectually challenged to defeat my arguments, so you resort to swearing and name calling.


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

past caring said:


> You fucking clown.



See my reply to 'Onklet' above.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> No, they're not selfish, what an absurd thing to say. Recycling is a matter of personal choice. We pay taxes to central and local government and one of the most basic functions of the latter is to take away local residents' rubbish. If the council are so keen on rubbish being separated into different types they can do that themselves, after all, they have to separate the mixed recycling don't they?



The difference is, recyclable stuff chucked in with normal waste is contaminated by that waste and therefore... wasted as waste


----------



## Onket (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> In other words, you know that I'm right but you are too intellectually challenged to defeat my arguments, so you resort to swearing and name calling.



No, you're talking utter shit, so I've resorted to pointing out that you are a complete fucking clown.


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> The difference is, recyclable stuff chucked in with normal waste is contaminated by that waste and therefore... wasted as waste



How is it 'contaminated'? It can simply be cleaned. There's no practical reason why all refuse, reycling and non-recycling, can't all be put in together and then separated later on.


----------



## Onket (Oct 6, 2011)

Right. So you'd support a rise in your council tax to enable the council to pay someone to sort and clean the waste that you're too lazy to put in a different coloured bin liner?


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

Onket said:


> Right. So you'd support a rise in your council tax to enable the council to pay someone to sort and clean the waste that you're too lazy to put in a different coloured bin liner?



This shouldn't incur any further costs to the taxpayer as the facilites already exist, all that's required is a change of procedure.


----------



## past caring (Oct 6, 2011)

The fucking man hours don't already exist though, do they? They'd need to employ people to do the sorting - which means an increase in the council tax.

You one of these freemen of the land clowns, I'm betting.


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

past caring said:


> The fucking man hours don't already exist though, do they? They'd need to employ people to do the sorting - which means an increase in the council tax.
> 
> You one of these freemen of the land clowns, I'm betting.



Good heavens you are silly. The man hours are there because they already employ people to sort through and separate the mixed recycling. In any case if they managed their budgets and got their priorities in order they still wouldn't need to increase council tax.


----------



## past caring (Oct 6, 2011)

And if there was more mixed recycling they'd need to employ more people - i.e. _spend more money_ - to sort through it.

Notice you've yet to provide any evidence for your other ludicrous claim - what was this about the area being plastered in posters, again?


----------



## fenrisx (Oct 6, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> Although there are only two council-owned allotments sites in Lambeth, (54 plots altogether), and the waiting lists for both sites are closed, some of these plots are occupied by non Lambeth residents, several individuals have multiple plots, and subletting is tolerated, even condoned by the council. Furthermore, there has been no attempt to reflect Lambeth's ethnic diversity. Considering the scarcity of land in London inner cities, and the benefits to health and well-being from growing one's own food, it is surely a scandal that locals are being deprived due to the council's wasteful mismanagement of these resources.
> Lambeth allotments for Lambeth residents!
> 
> You can join the petition here (please copy into your browser if link doesn't work):
> ...



You xenophobic whore, how dare you keep others out!!! Who do you think you are!!!!


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

past caring said:


> And if there was more mixed recycling they'd need to employ more people - i.e. _spend more money_ - to sort through it.



Still wouldn't require an increase in council tax.



> Notice you've yet to provide any evidence for your other ludicrous claim - what was this about the area being plastered in posters, again?



Outside St Thomas's Hospital and in Brixton are just two of the places I've seen them.


----------



## past caring (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Still wouldn't require an increase in council tax.



Why not? The additional workers going to work for free?



> Outside St Thomas's Hospital and in Brixton are just two of the places I've seen them.



Where in Brixton? I've seen none. Two locations is hardly plastered.


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

past caring said:


> Why not? The additional workers going to work for free?



Amend the budget, make cuts to non-essential services and departments. Lay off those with non-jobs.


> Where in Brixton? I've seen none. Two locations is hardly plastered.



Main road, this was the early half of this year. The point is that the council has wasted local tax payers money on a propaganda poster.


----------



## past caring (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Amend the budget, make cuts to non-essential services and departments. Lay off those with non-jobs.



Detail these non-essential services and non-jobs. Please tell us what you do for a living at the same time - because otherwise criticism of others' worth and productivity is just going to sound like empty posturing.



> Main road, this was the early half of this year. The point is that the council has wasted local tax payers money on a propaganda poster.



Arguably an information poster.


----------



## mr steev (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> This shouldn't incur any further costs to the taxpayer as the facilites already exist, all that's required is a change of procedure.



There's a big difference separating already sorted materials (mostly done mechanically) and picking out the odd bits of un-recyclable stuff than sorting through everyone's rubbish!




Right Mind said:


> Recycling is a matter of personal choice.



Unless you want to live on a giant landfill site, full of stuff that will still be sitting in the ground when your grandkids are old, then recycling isn't a matter of personal choice. It's a fucking necessity.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> The two examples I've cited above: 1) Making recycling compulsory and 2) putting hundreds of posters across the borough declaring (inaccurately) that: 'the government has cut our funding so we have to cut our services' - posters which wasted local council tax payers money.



Compulsory recycling is in line with government requirements, all part of the same set of goals that also lead to the landfill tax rising, nothing to do with Lambeth Council.

As for the posters, well the government has cut funding and is in the process of doing more. If you actually paid any attention to either the original cuts debate or the budget you'd know that cuts are year on year. Also, putting up "hundreds of posters" is cheaper than mail-shotting every household in the borough to give them the same information.

So both your examples are what can be described as "a bag of arse", aren't they?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Really? Lambeth Council Compulsory Recycling - your questions answered
> Here's a brief digest from the link above...
> 
> and
> ...



Don't talk toss.
For once they're attempting to be financially responsible, getting you to recycle so that the scheduled extra £8 per metric tonne addition each year between 2011 and 2016 (that's £48 for the arithmetic-challenged) doesn't affect your council tax charge adversely. Add that £48 to the £80 per metric tonne base charge (which the government has announced is a floor beneath which the tax will not fall, even if costs decline) and you're talking about a minimum landfill tax of £88 in 2011, £96 in 2012, reaching £128 in 2016.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> No, they're not selfish, what an absurd thing to say. Recycling is a matter of personal choice. We pay taxes to central and local government and one of the most basic functions of the latter is to take away local residents' rubbish. If the council are so keen on rubbish being separated into different types they can do that themselves, after all, they have to separate the mixed recycling don't they?



Separating recyclables from standard household waste and separating different recyclable materials from one another are two entirely different processes. The former has to be done by hand and is expensive., the second can be automated so that necessary human input is minor (and cost-effective).

Again, want your council tax bill to rise because you're too lazy to separate your rubbish? If you do, then you're an even bigger mug than you make yourself look.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> How is it 'contaminated'? It can simply be cleaned. There's no practical reason why all refuse, reycling and non-recycling, can't all be put in together and then separated later on.



There's an eminently practical reason - it's massively personnel intensive and therefore expensive, and also requires some expensive H & S measures, whereas separating household waste and recyclables at source means that separation plants (and the necessary staffing) are unnecessary, and landfill tax expenditure is minimised.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Good heavens you are silly. The man hours are there because they already employ people to sort through and separate the mixed recycling. In any case if they managed their budgets and got their priorities in order they still wouldn't need to increase council tax.



Separation of glass, steel, aluminium, plastics, paper and card is mostly automated. What you're proposing would, at the very least, require more personnel, the sorting of waste in a "dirty" state (requiring various hazard protection measures to be put in place) and a massive increase in water use in order to cleanse the recyclable waste.

You really don't have a Scooby fucking Doo!


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Compulsory recycling is in line with government requirements, all part of the same set of goals that also lead to the landfill tax rising, nothing to do with Lambeth Council.



If this is the case why has only one other London council (Islington, surprise surprise) implimented it?



> As for the posters, well the government has cut funding and is in the process of doing more. If you actually paid any attention to either the original cuts debate or the budget you'd know that cuts are year on year. Also, putting up "hundreds of posters" is cheaper than mail-shotting every household in the borough to give them the same information.
> 
> So both your examples are what can be described as "a bag of arse", aren't they?



I watched the original 'cuts' debates and regularly read commentary on the topic and they are no-where near as severe as the left are making them out to be. Lambeth is one of London's most left-wing councils, so it was their ploy to blame the cuts they're making on central government, other than draw up a fairer budget. Who says that either the posters or mail shots are necessary? They're not.



> Separating recyclables from standard household waste and separating different recyclable materials from one another are two entirely different processes. The former has to be done by hand and is expensive., the second can be automated so that necessary human input is minor (and cost-effective).
> 
> Again, want your council tax bill to rise because you're too lazy to separate your rubbish? If you do, then you're an even bigger mug than you make yourself look.





> There's an eminently practical reason - it's massively personnel intensive and therefore expensive, and also requires some expensive H & S measures, whereas separating household waste and recyclables at source means that separation plants (and the necessary staffing) are unnecessary, and landfill tax expenditure is minimised.



Ha ha. You are the one who doesn't have a clue. The fact you need to swear proves how limited your intelligence is. I know people who work in refuse and recycling and through my own job I've got to learn more about this, hence why I no longer recycle, because I've learned more about the subject.

It is one of the council's most basic functions is to collect rubbish, it's what their residents pay them for. If they wish to recycle it, landfill it or burn after collection that's down to them to organise. You clearly, to use a cliche, are unable to think out side the box. Re-organising how waste is handled post-collection is actually a relatively simple matter, and all of the implications that you've mentioned (such as staffing, H&S matters etc) are not too difficult to introduce. Not all recycling is separated automatically, I know this having employed and dealt with contractors councils in the past on this topic. The point here is that councils are passing waste management responsibilities on to local residents and charging them for it. Yep, that makes sense!


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

mr steev said:


> There's a big difference separating already sorted materials (mostly done mechanically) and picking out the odd bits of un-recyclable stuff than sorting through everyone's rubbish!



See my reply above.


> Unless you want to live on a giant landfill site, full of stuff that will still be sitting in the ground when your grandkids are old, then recycling isn't a matter of personal choice. It's a fucking necessity.



Like I say above, recycling can be done without local authorities passing the responsibility and cost on to residents.


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

past caring said:


> Detail these non-essential services and non-jobs. Please tell us what you do for a living at the same time - because otherwise criticism of others' worth and productivity is just going to sound like empty posturing.



Non-essential services like anything to do with "diversity"/"equality", Aids, so-called climate change, and this job that's being advertised on the Lambeth council website. I work in a job in the private sector, hence my salary is paid by private funds. Salaries of council staff are paid for by taxpayers and therefore much more open to critisism regarding their worth and productivity.
And while we're on the topic of council waste, here's a couple more examples from Lambeth...

Council paid drug dealers and addicts hundreds of pounds of taxpayers' money 'to find out about their trade'

A council survey about speed humps asks if I'm straight, gay or bisexual. Is there any madder example of government waste?

Cash-strapped council rebrands Brixton riots as an 'uprising' (and funds the 30th anniversary 'celebrations')



> Arguably an information poster.



See my reply to ViolentPanda


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Non-essential services like anything to do with...Aids...



Gee, I guess anyone HIV-positive will just have to die as a punishment for their "feckless", un-Christian lives, eh?


----------



## 100% masahiko (Oct 6, 2011)

OP -
The allotments are pretty good.
We did have one but gave it to my uncle and he grows all sorts of things there.
And I disagree, I think they are reflective of the community!


----------



## Right Mind (Oct 6, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Gee, I guess anyone HIV-positive will just have to die as a punishment for their "feckless", un-Christian lives, eh?



Or they should take responsibility for their own action and not expect others to foot the bill. And where did I mention Christianity?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Or they should take responsibility for their own action and not expect others to foot the bill. And where did I mention Christianity?



You may not _be_ a Christian per se, but you sure _sound_ like you have a fundamentalist Christian perspective on AIDS/HIV.

I take it you want a health service based on people who live their lives in a "morally-correct" manner, eh?  None of those nasty, nasty people who waste all "our" time and money getting bothersome diseases which you don't approve of....news just in:  Not everyone in this country can afford private healthcare, and the reason it's called a National Health Service is because we all chip in to finance it through taxes etc?  I suppose you want that privatised next....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2011)

I


Right Mind said:


> If this is the case why has only one other London council (Islington, surprise surprise) implimented it?



Because it's "in process", and councils have a lead-in period before they're legislatively compelled? Surely the people you claim to know in the waste business will have told you all this?



> I watched the original 'cuts' debates and regularly read commentary on the topic and they are no-where near as severe as the left are making them out to be. Lambeth is one of London's most left-wing councils, so it was their ploy to blame the cuts they're making on central government, other than draw up a fairer budget. Who says that either the posters or mail shots are necessary? They're not.



There are no "left-wing" councils. 20 years ago you could have made that claim about Lambeth and been partially right, but now? You don't know what you're talking about. They're inept, but they're about as left-wing as William Hagues' right testicle.



> Ha ha. You are the one who doesn't have a clue. The fact you need to swear proves how limited your intelligence is.



No, it shows that the ignorance displayed in your posts is annoying, it doesn't *prove* anything, except to a moron who doesn't know what he's talking about.



> I know people who work in refuse and recycling and through my own job I've got to learn more about this, hence why I no longer recycle, because I've learned more about the subject.



Or, perhaps, you've used partisan information to justify your own sloth?



> It is one of the council's most basic functions is to collect rubbish...



Rubbish collection is one of a plethora of functions that were only taken over by local authorities from the post-war era on. Before then most rubbish collection was privately contracted, including the recycling function (rag and bone etc, deposit-only bottles etc)



> it's what their residents pay them for.



So, not for local road maintenance, emergency services cover, provision of social services or host of other things, for rubbish collection?

Muppet.



> If they wish to recycle it, landfill it or burn after collection that's down to them to organise. You clearly, to use a cliche, are unable to think out side the box.



Thinking outside the box is unnecessary.



> Re-organising how waste is handled post-collection is actually a relatively simple matter, and all of the implications that you've mentioned (such as staffing, H&S matters etc) are not too difficult to introduce.



I see you've deliberately skipped the cost implications I mentioned. You know, the ones that would have to be offset by a rise in your council tax bill?



> Not all recycling is separated automatically, I know this having employed and dealt with contractors councils in the past on this topic.



I didn't say it was, I said it was *mostly* done automatically, with *minimal* human input.

Sharpen up, eh?



> The point here is that councils are passing waste management responsibilities on to local residents and charging them for it. Yep, that makes sense!



No, if they're passing on anything at all, it isn't waste management, it's waste sorting. The sort of thing a lot of people my age used to do when we were kids, because you could make a bit of pocket-money from the results.


----------



## mr steev (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Or they should take responsibility for their own action and not expect others to foot the bill. And where did I mention Christianity?


 
A quick look at Lambeth Councils website tells me that a lot of the work they do is about supporting children whose parents are affected by HIV, or for people caring for people with HIV... how are they supposed to take responsibillity for their own actions? How is a child who's orphaned supposed to deal with it and take responsibility?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 6, 2011)

Right Mind is gone as he was a previously twice-banned thread disrupter. He managed to completely derail a thread about Lambeth allotments and I'd be really pleased if this thread returned to the subject of local allotments


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 6, 2011)

That's a shame; he was managing to make himself look like a fool.


----------



## Onket (Oct 7, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Right Mind is gone as he was a previously twice-banned thread disrupter. He managed to completely derail a thread about Lambeth allotments and I'd be really pleased if this thread returned to the subject of local allotments



Apparently there's so much red tape where allotments are concerned,'community gardens' and similar projects seem to be where it's at, as they are easier for people to set up, etc.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 7, 2011)

Right Mind said:


> Lambeth Council are famous for their idiocy. Recent examples include the introduction of compulsory recycling and plastering the area with posters proclaiming that 'the government has cut our funding so we have to cut our services'.
> 
> And what has the borough's ethnic diversity got to do with allotment allocation?


Because there are laws regarding equality of opportunity and access to resources. Private allotments are a totally different thing (as is private housing) but council allotments (as with social housing) are so scarce, they are publicly funded and therefore there should be measures in place to ensure availability to all rather than a select privileged few.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 7, 2011)

Onket said:


> Apparently there's so much red tape where allotments are concerned,'community gardens' and similar projects seem to be where it's at, as they are easier for people to set up, etc.


They're great too, but they are not a solution for people needing or wanting to improve their health by growing their own fruit and vege. When you live in a tiny upstairs flat there is something absolutely lifesaving about having your own little outdoor space to nurture. They should be more available, and there should be a priority system as with housing.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 7, 2011)

So I very much hope I've convinced you all to sign the petition....the thing is that if Lambeth council don't get their act together and start running these resources properly and fairly then I fear we will lose them altogether. And that would be a terrible shame.

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov...spx?ID=259&RPID=14736942&HPID=14736942&$LO$=1


----------



## Onket (Oct 7, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> They're great too, but they are not a solution for people needing or wanting to improve their health by growing their own fruit and vege. When you live in a tiny upstairs flat there is something absolutely lifesaving about having your own little outdoor space to nurture. They should be more available, and there should be a priority system as with housing.



I agree, but I don't think it's going to happen, and I think the only real progress we'll see is with community gardens and projects.


----------



## co-op (Oct 7, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> Although there are only two council-owned allotments sites in Lambeth, (54 plots altogether),



Hi EG, just out of curiosity, which are the only two council-owned allotments in Lambeth?


----------



## Jangleballix (Oct 7, 2011)

EG: If you want my advice I would give up the idea of a petition. If you do want LBL to expand their allotments I would suggest reading up on LBL's legal responsibilities under The Allotment Act 1887 & The Smallholdings and Allotments Act of 1908. Get the current renters of LBL allotments and the officer responsible at LBL on your side. Identify sites within the borough that LBL already own. LBL own a lot of property that is no longer used for its original purpose but has yet to be sold off. The old CAVE building in Larkhall Lane has a large back garden and is a good example. Closed years ago but not sold off.
Other smaller but still viable sites exist. For example at the back of the Hope pub SW8 3BS LBL recently built a basketball court for the estate that backs onto the pub. Due to the configuration of the site there remains a small strip of fenced off land that is now wasted because no one thought during the commissioning process to extend the fencing a couple of yards, stick in a gate and, hey presto, an allotment. Best of luck.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 7, 2011)

co-op said:


> Hi EG, just out of curiosity, which are the only two council-owned allotments in Lambeth?


There's the Lorn Road ones in Lorn Road Brixton, and there's the Chesterman Robinson ones in Streatham. Until last year the Lorn Road ones were the only site the council runs. That's why it's outrageous that some plotholders have multiple plots and some are not Lambeth residents.


----------



## co-op (Oct 8, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> There's the Lorn Road ones in Lorn Road Brixton, and there's the Chesterman Robinson ones in Streatham. Until last year the Lorn Road ones were the only site the council runs. That's why it's outrageous that some plotholders have multiple plots and some are not Lambeth residents.



I was wondering if the Lorn Road ones were counted as Lambeth because they seem to be run as a private operation by the plotholders. I had access to a plot there for a couple of years some time ago so I know them quite well. I certainly agree about double plots etc - there were quite a few as I remember, including from at least one person I knew had a substantial garden as well. To be fair that individual grows beautiful stuff on all of their land, and many newcomers let their plots go to seed after the initial few weeks excitement so I can see why the longterm allotmenteers end up justifying this state of affairs but - to me - it seems unjust, especially when there's such a shortage of allotment space in Lambeth and such a high demand.

I recall there being a fair bit of unused space as well (overgrown and brambly) at Lorn Rd - but it's at least 4 or 5 years since I've been in there.


----------



## co-op (Oct 8, 2011)

PS I think jangleballix comment above is probably right; you might find it easier to open up new spaces than reform the management of present ones. This would be objectively good work too. But I would try a little leaning on the relevant council officer as well ( you should be able to get a story in the SLP if you can back up your claims?).


----------



## newbie (Oct 8, 2011)

I know a couple of people with multiple allotments (not on a council site, but I'll guess the pattern is the same).  They got them 15 or 20 years ago, when there was little or no demand, when allotment sites were weed covered and unloved, and when the committees were utterly moribund.  Over those years they've dug, watered, weeded and manured (and I've turned up and helped on a few sunny sundays most years).  At least one of them has been a cttee stalwart for a decade or more.  Unlike one of their neighbours, who's had half a dozen plots monocropping thyme for at least as long, their plots haven't been used for commercial gain.

Now allotmenting is popular, even trendy, and getting a plot is very desirable.  It was in the late 70s too, but then the popularity waned quite quickly, possibly because the amount of sheer hard work became apparent, possibly for other reasons.  These days a walk round an allotment site shows quite a few plots being enthusiastically tended by people in their 20s or 30s with brand new tools and an open book (or laptop). Good luck to them, it's not as easy as it looks even if they don't have to clear brambles before they can start. It's also noticeable that the politics of an allotment site are becoming ever more bitter, and good luck with that too.

So while I can understand and sympathise with the frustration earthygerry is expressing I can't agree with simply wrenching away something that someone has tended year after year in order to hand it to someone else. I don't know how the committees work on council sites, but on the site I know the committee is pretty much autonomous, with all that implies in terms of patronage, blind-eye turning and favouritism, for that is the way of voluntary committees in all walks of life.  TBH I can't quite imagine the outcome of some remote bureaucracy imposing new arrangements, taking plots from long term holders and handing them to those who've whinged their way to the top of a list._ 
_


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 8, 2011)

co-op said:


> PS I think jangleballix comment above is probably right; you might find it easier to open up new spaces than reform the management of present ones. This would be objectively good work too. But I would try a little leaning on the relevant council officer as well ( you should be able to get a story in the SLP if you can back up your claims?).


It's funny you mention the South London Press, as they've printed an article about this issue in yesterday's edition (Friday 7th October).


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 8, 2011)

newbie said:


> I know a couple of people with multiple allotments (not on a council site, but I'll guess the pattern is the same). They got them 15 or 20 years ago, when there was little or no demand, when allotment sites were weed covered and unloved, and when the committees were utterly moribund. Over those years they've dug, watered, weeded and manured (and I've turned up and helped on a few sunny sundays most years). At least one of them has been a cttee stalwart for a decade or more. Unlike one of their neighbours, who's had half a dozen plots monocropping thyme for at least as long, their plots haven't been used for commercial gain.
> 
> Now allotmenting is popular, even trendy, and getting a plot is very desirable. It was in the late 70s too, but then the popularity waned quite quickly, possibly because the amount of sheer hard work became apparent, possibly for other reasons. These days a walk round an allotment site shows quite a few plots being enthusiastically tended by people in their 20s or 30s with brand new tools and an open book (or laptop). Good luck to them, it's not as easy as it looks even if they don't have to clear brambles before they can start. It's also noticeable that the politics of an allotment site are becoming ever more bitter, and good luck with that too.
> 
> So while I can understand and sympathise with the frustration earthygerry is expressing I can't agree with simply wrenching away something that someone has tended year after year in order to hand it to someone else. I don't know how the committees work on council sites, but on the site I know the committee is pretty much autonomous, with all that implies in terms of patronage, blind-eye turning and favouritism, for that is the way of voluntary committees in all walks of life. TBH I can't quite imagine the outcome of some remote bureaucracy imposing new arrangements, taking plots from long term holders and handing them to those who've whinged their way to the top of a list.


Firstly you need to understand the distinction between private sites which are owned by private companies and rented out to anyone who is willing to hand over the cash (as with rental accomodation), and council owned sites which are publicly funded by tax payers, and therefore accountable to the public. This means they should be run fairly for the good of the public. You cannot compare the two systems, just as you cannot compare private and social housing.

If there is even one person on the waiting list it cannot be justifiable to allow any current plotholders to rent more than one plot for themselves. Every time this happens it deprives others who are not as fortunate. No one is suggesting they should have to give up all of what they have, but it surely can't be justified that they keep more than one when there are others who've waited years and still have nothing.

The same applies to the issue of non Lambeth residents....every one of them who is taking up a plot when they shouldn't is depriving a Lambeth resident of the benefits of an allotment. And if they have 2 plots then that is 2 or more people being deprived. There are only 56 council plots in Lambeth for how many residents? Just because these individuals were able to weasle their way into the site at a time when the council was lax about enforcing the regulations doesn't mean they have any right to remain, and every day they remain it is another day someone else is deprived.

Subletting is also rife, and has been condoned/ignored by the council for years. But again they are reluctant to address the problem and evict the subletters, some of whom have several plots under different names. Again I turn to the housing analogy because that makes it very clear. Just because a squatter or tenant of a subletter may have painted the walls to a flat or tended the garden doesn't give them the right to stay there, for they are still breaking the law regardless. They certainly don't get given priority over the next family on the waiting list. They were lucky for a while while they had a free ride, but now it is time to give some other family a chance to enjoy the space which they have waited many years for in good faith that the system is being enforced fairly.

What you say about committees is interesting, and true. At the moment the council sites are run by such committees in conjunction with the council, but the council are in the process of delegating all services to such user committees, and thereby relieving themselves of all their responsibilities. But as you admitted this is not a satisfactory or fair way to run a public service as they tend to become cliques. There needs to be much more accountability and transparency for it to function fairly.

For instance you could have the waiting list on the website for all to see, and that way everyone would have a clear view of what is happening, and watch the process of working their way up the list. At the moment this list is strictly confidential and there is no way of knowing whether it's being implemented fairly, whether you are being by-passed etc. At the moment the 'committee' are able to cherry-pick the best plots for themselves and their friends/neighbours because they have the knowledge and can manipulate things in private. Transparency and scrutiny must be key to fairness.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 8, 2011)

co-op said:


> I was wondering if the Lorn Road ones were counted as Lambeth because they seem to be run as a private operation by the plotholders. I had access to a plot there for a couple of years some time ago so I know them quite well. I certainly agree about double plots etc - there were quite a few as I remember, including from at least one person I knew had a substantial garden as well. To be fair that individual grows beautiful stuff on all of their land, and many newcomers let their plots go to seed after the initial few weeks excitement so I can see why the longterm allotmenteers end up justifying this state of affairs but - to me - it seems unjust, especially when there's such a shortage of allotment space in Lambeth and such a high demand.
> 
> I recall there being a fair bit of unused space as well (overgrown and brambly) at Lorn Rd - but it's at least 4 or 5 years since I've been in there.


Very interesting. Yes the Lorn Road site is most definately a council site. Until about a year ago when they opened the Streatham site it was the ONLY council site in Lambeth, which makes it all the more abhorrent that a self appointed 'committee' can be in control of who gets in there and who gets what.

I've heard the excuse that if multiple plotholders are maintaining their extra plots they should be able to keep them, but I disagree. No one should have that priviledge. It may seem fair to the plotholder concerned but it certainly isn't fair to those of the public who are unable to even get on the waiting list because it's been closed for years. And when you have a tiered system of haves/have nots - multiple plots, single plots, half plots, those on the waiting list, those who can't get on the waiting list - you get resentments.

I believe there should be a priority system as with social housing. No one with their own garden should have an allotment, they should be for Lambeth residents only, and favour people who would benefit most, such as the unemployed, people with mental health problems, large families etc.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 8, 2011)

co-op said:


> I was wondering if the Lorn Road ones were counted as Lambeth because they seem to be run as a private operation by the plotholders. I had access to a plot there for a couple of years some time ago so I know them quite well. I certainly agree about double plots etc - there were quite a few as I remember, including from at least one person I knew had a substantial garden as well. To be fair that individual grows beautiful stuff on all of their land, and many newcomers let their plots go to seed after the initial few weeks excitement so I can see why the longterm allotmenteers end up justifying this state of affairs but - to me - it seems unjust, especially when there's such a shortage of allotment space in Lambeth and such a high demand.
> 
> I recall there being a fair bit of unused space as well (overgrown and brambly) at Lorn Rd - but it's at least 4 or 5 years since I've been in there.


Out of interest, I'm just wondering how you managed to get a plot there, and why you gave it up?


----------



## newbie (Oct 8, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> Firstly you need to understand the distinction between private sites which are owned by private companies and rented out to anyone who is willing to hand over the cash (as with rental accomodation), and council owned sites which are publicly funded by tax payers, and therefore accountable to the public. This means they should be run fairly for the good of the public. You cannot compare the two systems, just as you cannot compare private and social housing.
> 
> If there is even one person on the waiting list it cannot be justifiable to allow any current plotholders to rent more than one plot for themselves. Every time this happens it deprives others who are not as fortunate. No one is suggesting they should have to give up all of what they have, but it surely can't be justified that they keep more than one when there are others who've waited years and still have nothing.
> 
> ...



All very well but the analogy with housing barely stands up, or are you really claiming an allotment is some sort of universal human right? And the stuff about 'manipulation' is naive at best- perhaps you should delve a bit deeper into what makes voluntary organisations and their committees tick, and what keeps them going for a century or more.

Anyway you haven't addressed the main thrust of what I said at all- that for well over a decade when allotments weren't particularly popular they were tended and nurtured by a small band of dedicated enthusiasts.  Now, for whatever reason, they have become popular you seem to think those people should simply hand over their hard work to someone else.

When did you first apply? It's not so many years ago that the site I know best had empty, unused plots some used as rubbish tips others simply overgrown.  It's not the fault of the plot-holders that you didn't take on a plot in 1995 or 2005 or whenever. They did and they've put a lot of time and energy into turning it from barren to productive.  You're now demanding to take it over, to benefit from their work, and you're basing that demand on 'fairness'?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 8, 2011)

Who runs the Rosendale Road allotments?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 8, 2011)

...and I'm sure there are some off Tulse Hill somewhere.


----------



## rover07 (Oct 8, 2011)

My advice would be to go down your local allotment every Sunday and have a chat to whoevers about. 

You may be surprised to find there are empty plots or ones that have been unused for years but are still in someones name.


----------



## newbie (Oct 8, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Who runs the Rosendale Road allotments?


runs: the committee, owns: Dulwich College, as some sort of bequest I think.


----------



## newbie (Oct 8, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ...and I'm sure there are some off Tulse Hill somewhere.


indeed. At this point I'm trying to insert a link to a bing map but I can't cos the icon is greyed out. So you'll have to take my word for it or look for Birkbeck Hill/Thurlow Hill. There's loads in Dulwich too.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 8, 2011)

newbie said:


> All very well but the analogy with housing barely stands up, or are you really claiming an allotment is some sort of universal human right? And the stuff about 'manipulation' is naive at best- perhaps you should delve a bit deeper into what makes voluntary organisations and their committees tick, and what keeps them going for a century or more.
> 
> Anyway you haven't addressed the main thrust of what I said at all- that for well over a decade when allotments weren't particularly popular they were tended and nurtured by a small band of dedicated enthusiasts. Now, for whatever reason, they have become popular you seem to think those people should simply hand over their hard work to someone else.
> 
> When did you first apply? It's not so many years ago that the site I know best had empty, unused plots some used as rubbish tips others simply overgrown. It's not the fault of the plot-holders that you didn't take on a plot in 1995 or 2005 or whenever. They did and they've put a lot of time and energy into turning it from barren to productive. You're now demanding to take it over, to benefit from their work, and you're basing that demand on 'fairness'?



You sound very defensive. Are you one of these people? And in answer to your question, no I'm not referring to myself. I already have my own garden which I generously share with my neighbour who has no access to a garden and can't get an allotment. She has tried many many times to get on the list over the past 15 years, and she's always advised to look elsewhere. Can you imagine how upset she was when she discovered that the site wasn't really full at all, that there are several multi-plotholders refusing to make way for others etc etc?

It is a myth that there was ever a time when the council allotments were unwanted. This was perpetuated so that a small group of greedy 'enthusiasts' could keep the site hidden for themselves while the council colluded to let them get on with it. (The Lorn Rd site is very well hidden so unless you know where to look you'd never find it). There has always been a waiting list, but most of the time it's closed so people can't even get on the list to wait. And this is despite there being multi-plotholders, squatters, subletters and wasted plots etc. It's like an exclusive little club....you're either in the know or you're not and you may as well forget it.

Just because others have been lucky enough to get in there and take what is not theirs does not make it right and just, particularly for public land. These people act like they own these plots. Whatever happened to community spirit? Give someone else a turn and stop being so selfish!


----------



## rover07 (Oct 8, 2011)

Have you actually spoken to them?


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 8, 2011)

newbie said:


> indeed. At this point I'm trying to insert a link to a bing map but I can't cos the icon is greyed out. So you'll have to take my word for it or look for Birkbeck Hill/Thurlow Hill. There's loads in Dulwich too.


Okay if that's where you live, but it's pointless having an allotment where you have to travel a long way. Is Dulwich even in Lambeth? In Brixton there's only the council site on Lorn Rd and a private one up Lyham Rd.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 8, 2011)

rover07 said:


> Have you actually spoken to them?


who?


----------



## rover07 (Oct 8, 2011)

The allotmenteers.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 8, 2011)

rover07 said:


> The allotmenteers.


That's not how it works. You have to get in touch with the council, and if they say the list is closed you go no further. Even if you are lucky enough to be on the list you have no idea what's going on because it's all organised in private. I know others who've been endlessly waiting.
If the allotmenteers were willing to give up plots they shouldn't have, and if the council were doing their job properly, then the list wouldn't be so static, and some of these patient people would have a chance.


----------



## rover07 (Oct 8, 2011)

I put my name down on the council list here in Brighton. There were already 34 others on it.

I waited 6 months thinking it would take ages before I got one. Then someone suggested I go down to the site and have a chat about getting an empty plot.

It turned out there were about 10 vacancies!!!! I went and picked one the very next week. The guys from the commitee were very helpful even advising me on the best plot available. 

Seriously, go and find out in person.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 8, 2011)

rover07 said:


> I put my name down on the council list here in Brighton. There were already 34 others on it.
> 
> I waited 6 months thinking it would take ages before I got one. Then someone suggested I go down to the site and have a chat about getting an empty plot.
> 
> ...


Sounds like the councils are all incompitant.


----------



## rover07 (Oct 8, 2011)

Yep, I think there is definitely a communication gap. Now is the time to get a plot. The bills for next years rent are about to be sent out. Those plots that are deemed unused/ overgrown will be freed up.
Go down tomorrow morning!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 8, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> You sound very defensive.


Best laugh I've had all week. Last word I'd use. Very knowledgeable on local matters. Polite, measured, yes. Defensive, no.


----------



## Grow Yer Own (Oct 8, 2011)

Well I agree with EarthyGerry. I've been on the waiting list myself, and it's not easy getting anything from Lambeth Council.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 8, 2011)

newbie said:


> Anyway you haven't addressed the main thrust of what I said at all- that for well over a decade when allotments weren't particularly popular they were tended and nurtured by a small band of dedicated enthusiasts. Now, for whatever reason, they have become popular you seem to think those people should simply hand over their hard work to someone else.




Probably because the area wasn't full of middle-class white people then wanting to grow organic produce


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 8, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Best laugh I've had all week. Last word I'd use. Very knowledgeable on local matters. Polite, measured, yes. Defensive, no.


Er, that comment was meant for Newbie.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 8, 2011)

rover07 said:


> Yep, I think there is definitely a communication gap. Now is the time to get a plot. The bills for next years rent are about to be sent out. Those plots that are deemed unused/ overgrown will be freed up.
> Go down tomorrow morning!


If only!!!
That is what the petition is about....to try to force the council to start freeing up plots for locals.


----------



## newbie (Oct 8, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> You sound very defensive. Are you one of these people?



No. We had a share in an allotment sometime in the 80s but proved to be rather flakey  and settled into an occasional fairweather watering expedition.



EarthyGerry said:


> Sounds like the councils are all incompitant.



Or maybe, just maybe, they have other things to worry about than who gets to grow cabbages. tbh I think you &/or your neighbour have picked up the wrong end of the stick with all this stuff about the council. Who cares who owns the allotments. The council don't run them any more than Dulwich College run the Rosendale ones, they're run by the community of members. Like rover said, she should go and talk to them, and I think s/he is right that now is the best time of year to enquire.



> Whatever happened to community spirit? Give someone else a turn and stop being so selfish!



what's a council administered allocation list got to do with "community spirit"?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 8, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> Er, that comment was meant for Newbie.


I know


----------



## newbie (Oct 8, 2011)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Probably because the area wasn't full of middle-class white people then wanting to grow organic produce


p'raps but maybe it's just more evidence that times is hard, like the widespread inability to afford gears for bicycles.


----------



## co-op (Oct 8, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> Out of interest, I'm just wondering how you managed to get a plot there, and why you gave it up?


 
Well it was pretty much how rover07 did it, I can't remember the details. I lived in Brixton and Stockwell for 25 years so I usually knew someone who knew someone. I let that one go (on Lorn Rd) because I knew I couldn't look after it for a couple of years (baby care) and I was pretty confident I'd be able to find another plot somewhere when I needed one, and I did. I've grown veg on Lyham Rd and Rosendale and a couple of other spots. Once I had an elderly neighbour who needed some help on hers and she gave me a bit of hers in exchange, that kind of thing. In the past I've had half shares on plots or taken part in group plots. Sometimes you get committees being a bit grumpy about unconventional arrangements but if you are seen getting nice fruit and veg out it they usually come round.

Mostly they get hacked off with people who take on plots and don't look after them. I've seen good plots turn to brambles and when the person supposedly responsible for the plot is contacted they insist that they are definitely still interested and sometimes even come and have a flurry of work for an afternoon. But it's consistent attention that does it and most people's lives simply can't fit that in.

I tend to think you'd do better to make nice with the relevant committee and hang out a bit, look useful - ask if you can work on someone else's plot "to learn" (and you will too of course), you'll soon get a bit of land. Offer to take over the bramble patch - although it's bloody hard work getting that stuff out!


----------



## newbie (Oct 8, 2011)

yes, good post, that's how it works


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 9, 2011)

As a matter of interest EarthGerry what if someone had an allotment and then moved to a neighbouring borough? Do you think they should relinquish there allotment?

BTW squatting is not illegal. Not yet anyway. May be soon if the Government has its way. There is a difference to squatting to house oneself to "squatting" an allotment. Housing is a necessity. In London there is a shortage of affordable housing due to little being built in the last few decades.

Also are Council allotments protected? As the Government cuts mean land is being looked at for sale.


----------



## Grow Yer Own (Oct 10, 2011)

As far as I know council allotments are supposed to be only for those within the borough....that is the law. Clearly people are supposed to give up their allotments when they move out of the borough. But the problem is that this is not being enforced and therefore allotments are not being freed up for those who want or need them. Furthermore, the council are apparently planning to change the rules so as to allow people from outside Lambeth to get allotments at the Lambeth council sites. This is what people are angry about....because there are not enough for the residents as it is.


----------



## mr steev (Oct 10, 2011)

Grow Yer Own said:


> As far as I know council allotments are supposed to be only for those within the borough....that is the law.



I'm not sure whether that is the law. If it is our council blatantly flaunt it. Even their website shows costs for people not living in the area. £27 for Wolverhampton residents and £42 for those living elsewhere.



Grow Yer Own said:


> because there are not enough for the residents as it is.


 
This is the crux. 2 sites with 54 plots is pitiful. Lambeth has slightly higher population than Wolverhampton yet our council offer 31 sites with 1,100 plots and there is still a waiting list.


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Oct 10, 2011)

co-op said:


> Mostly they get hacked off with people who take on plots and don't look after them. I've seen good plots turn to brambles and when the person supposedly responsible for the plot is contacted they insist that they are definitely still interested and sometimes even come and have a flurry of work for an afternoon. But it's consistent attention that does it and most people's lives simply can't fit that in.



I'm guilty of having been that well-intentioned person! (Though I did give my plot back as soon as I could, and there were so many empty plots back then that they were advertising for plotholders, at that particular allotment site).  In retrospect, helping someone else with their allotment, or helping at the community greenhouses - which I did do for a while - would have been a much better option for me.

I have to say though, that it might've been easier to keep up with an allotment that was closer to home - the one I had was over by the Horniman Museum so it was a bugger to get to, ages on the P4 or a 45 minute walk with a pushchair.  More allotments in more sites in Lambeth itself would be great, maybe smaller ones than the traditional plot size would be good for newbies?

I used to see people digging & planting on the tiny strip of land in front of the (disused?) building next to Evelyn Grace School - I think they were Brixton Transition Town.   Getting more things like that going - comparable to shortlife housing co-ops rather than council housing - might be more achievable than trying to reform the policy on the 50 or so existing allotments.


----------



## Onket (Oct 10, 2011)

Jangleballix said:


> EG: If you want my advice I would give up the idea of a petition. If you do want LBL to expand their allotments I would suggest reading up on LBL's legal responsibilities under The Allotment Act 1887 & The Smallholdings and Allotments Act of 1908. Get the current renters of LBL allotments and the officer responsible at LBL on your side. Identify sites within the borough that LBL already own. LBL own a lot of property that is no longer used for its original purpose but has yet to be sold off. The old CAVE building in Larkhall Lane has a large back garden and is a good example. Closed years ago but not sold off.
> Other smaller but still viable sites exist. For example at the back of the Hope pub SW8 3BS LBL recently built a basketball court for the estate that backs onto the pub. Due to the configuration of the site there remains a small strip of fenced off land that is now wasted because no one thought during the commissioning process to extend the fencing a couple of yards, stick in a gate and, hey presto, an allotment. Best of luck.



This is a very good post^


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 10, 2011)

mr steev said:


> I'm not sure whether that is the law. If it is our council blatantly flaunt it. Even their website shows costs for people not living in the area. £27 for Wolverhampton residents and £42 for those living elsewhere.
> 
> This is the crux. 2 sites with 54 plots is pitiful. Lambeth has slightly higher population than Wolverhampton yet our council offer 31 sites with 1,100 plots and there is still a waiting list.


Grow yer own is right....it is the law for the whole country. Council allotments are strictly for residents of the borough only. There is a book called 'The Law of Allotments - 5th edition' by Paul Clayden, which spells out all the details if anyone is interested. If any councils are flaunting this then they should be brought to task. Why would anyone want an allotment far from where they live anyway? As Ms Ordinary pointed out it is a recipe for disaster. It certainly defeats the purpose if you have to drive or get the tube to your plot. It's not environmentally friendly and you wouldn't get there enough to maintain it properly.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 10, 2011)

I read the Deputy Leader of Lambeth Council has an allotment (but that's in West Norwood). (I think it was the Deputy Leader)

Shouldn't she be too busy too tend to one or are they not working their bollocks off for their pay?

How much does the Deputy Leader earn anyway?


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 10, 2011)

Too true...and I wonder if she ever went through the waiting list. But then West Norwood isn't a council site so I suppose it's different, the same rules don't apply.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 10, 2011)

co-op said:


> Well it was pretty much how rover07 did it, I can't remember the details. I lived in Brixton and Stockwell for 25 years so I usually knew someone who knew someone. I let that one go (on Lorn Rd) because I knew I couldn't look after it for a couple of years (baby care) and I was pretty confident I'd be able to find another plot somewhere when I needed one, and I did. I've grown veg on Lyham Rd and Rosendale and a couple of other spots. Once I had an elderly neighbour who needed some help on hers and she gave me a bit of hers in exchange, that kind of thing. In the past I've had half shares on plots or taken part in group plots. Sometimes you get committees being a bit grumpy about unconventional arrangements but if you are seen getting nice fruit and veg out it they usually come round.
> 
> Mostly they get hacked off with people who take on plots and don't look after them. I've seen good plots turn to brambles and when the person supposedly responsible for the plot is contacted they insist that they are definitely still interested and sometimes even come and have a flurry of work for an afternoon. But it's consistent attention that does it and most people's lives simply can't fit that in.
> 
> I tend to think you'd do better to make nice with the relevant committee and hang out a bit, look useful - ask if you can work on someone else's plot "to learn" (and you will too of course), you'll soon get a bit of land. Offer to take over the bramble patch - although it's bloody hard work getting that stuff out!


So you're saying that you got a plot at Lorn Road about 5 years ago without going through the waiting list?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 10, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> Too true...and I wonder if she ever went through the waiting list. But then West Norwood isn't a council site so I suppose it's different, the same rules don't apply.


 
Well who knows, she may be a long-time resident and had to wait on the list like everyone else before she got one.

unlikely though


----------



## mr steev (Oct 10, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> If any councils are flaunting this then they should be brought to task. Why would anyone want an allotment far from where they live anyway? As Ms Ordinary pointed out it is a recipe for disaster. It certainly defeats the purpose if you have to drive or get the tube to your plot. It's not environmentally friendly and you wouldn't get there enough to maintain it properly.



I guess it's a bit different here. You could still be just out of the catchment and be closer/in walking distance to a Wolverhampton run site rather than a Walsall one or wherever (or more than likely in the countryside). The surrounding boroughs all seem to offer well over 1,000 plots each though. There is a small waiting list, but I don't think there is a problem with people from out of the area. Wolverhampton council have just opened up a site specifically for people with disabilities too which is pretty cool.
In contrast, Lambeth sound shite, but I do think that it would be better to get them to provide more plots rather than change their management iyswim

Unfortunately I tend to drive up to my plot most of the time. It's a half an hour walk and when I only have a couple of hours that takes up too much time. It would also be a pain in the arse to take a big petrol strimmer on the bus or come back with big sacks of spuds and veg.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 10, 2011)

You get sacks of spuds?....geeze....lucky you!


----------



## mr steev (Oct 10, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> You get sacks of spuds?....geeze....lucky you!



Aye 

We've had two 25kg potato sacks full so far and there are probably another 2 sacks waiting to be lifted. The last few years we haven't had to buy spuds until February/March time... it may be even later this year as because it has been dry and there's been no sign of blight we've been able to leave them in the ground longer


----------



## Grow Yer Own (Oct 11, 2011)

Wow that's amazing. And I thought I was clever getting 40 kilos of Jerusalem artichokes last year. They're great because they take up so little space, and then they keep reseeding themselves, so you don't have to do much. I do love them too. But all those sacks of potatoes, you must be chuffed. Are they different varieties or do you stick to old favourites?


----------



## newbie (Oct 11, 2011)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Well who knows, she may be a long-time resident and had to wait on the list like everyone else before she got one.
> 
> unlikely though


she's certainly lived around here for a while, I've known her for the best part of 30 years since long before she took up this politics malarkey.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 11, 2011)

newbie said:


> she's certainly lived around here for a while, I've known her for the best part of 30 years since long before she took up this politics malarkey.



Likely she was on a waiting list then.  Anyway, politicians shouldn't have free time. They should be working for their voters 24 hours a day


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 11, 2011)

newbie said:


> I know a couple of people with multiple allotments (not on a council site, but I'll guess the pattern is the same). They got them 15 or 20 years ago, when there was little or no demand, when allotment sites were weed covered and unloved, and when the committees were utterly moribund. Over those years they've dug, watered, weeded and manured (and I've turned up and helped on a few sunny sundays most years). At least one of them has been a cttee stalwart for a decade or more. Unlike one of their neighbours, who's had half a dozen plots monocropping thyme for at least as long, their plots haven't been used for commercial gain.
> 
> Now allotmenting is popular, even trendy, and getting a plot is very desirable. It was in the late 70s too, but then the popularity waned quite quickly, possibly because the amount of sheer hard work became apparent, possibly for other reasons. These days a walk round an allotment site shows quite a few plots being enthusiastically tended by people in their 20s or 30s with brand new tools and an open book (or laptop). Good luck to them, it's not as easy as it looks even if they don't have to clear brambles before they can start. It's also noticeable that the politics of an allotment site are becoming ever more bitter, and good luck with that too.
> 
> So while I can understand and sympathise with the frustration earthygerry is expressing I can't agree with simply wrenching away something that someone has tended year after year in order to hand it to someone else. I don't know how the committees work on council sites, but on the site I know the committee is pretty much autonomous, with all that implies in terms of patronage, blind-eye turning and favouritism, for that is the way of voluntary committees in all walks of life. TBH I can't quite imagine the outcome of some remote bureaucracy imposing new arrangements, taking plots from long term holders and handing them to those who've whinged their way to the top of a list.


here here


----------



## co-op (Oct 11, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> So you're saying that you got a plot at Lorn Road about 5 years ago without going through the waiting list?



Hmm. I got _access_ to one but I was never an official plotholder as far as I can remember. But if you're looking for evidence that the waiting lists are nonsense it can't be hard to find, I get the impression they are widely ignored.

TBH I don't really want to go into details because it might drop innocent(ish) people in it. But your general idea (i.e that allotments are run by small groups who look after themselves first) is pretty certainly right as far as my experience goes. It's just that I think trying to get the council to sort that out is likely to fail. Many of the small groups have seen off all sorts of attempts to 'interfere' with their rights, frankly allotment politics in Lambeth are an absolute nightmare IME, for the sake of your mental health I wouldn't get involved.


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Oct 11, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> Why would anyone want an allotment far from where they live anyway? As Ms Ordinary pointed out it is a recipe for disaster. It certainly defeats the purpose if you have to drive or get the tube to your plot. It's not environmentally friendly and you wouldn't get there enough to maintain it properly.



TBF - as someone who is a long term South London resident, but who rents privately so is sometimes forced to move areas - and with Lambeth being a long, narrow borough - I can see that if I did have a Lambeth allotment but ended up moving to, say, Camberwell, for a year or so I would be gutted if I was forced to give up my (hypothetical) allotment. Since it would have been providing me with some stability, and I think long term allotment holders / committee members can also be good for the allotments - they are the ones that keep things going & make sure the land doesn't get sold off or whatever.
So I can quite see why the small groups running things would be resistant to interference.


----------



## mr steev (Oct 11, 2011)

Grow Yer Own said:


> Wow that's amazing. And I thought I was clever getting 40 kilos of Jerusalem artichokes last year. They're great because they take up so little space, and then they keep reseeding themselves, so you don't have to do much. I do love them too. But all those sacks of potatoes, you must be chuffed. Are they different varieties or do you stick to old favourites?



Different varieties. This year we've had jersey royals, red dukes, king edwards and pentland crown. The pentland crown particularly have given us a massive yeild this year 
We've got some jerusalem artichokes growing too, but tbh I've not actually eaten any yet. I had the opinion that they were only eaten as they are one of the few things that you can harvest in the middle of winter. Sticking them in a risotto doesn't really appeal, but I heard you can roast them recently, so I will probably give that a go. What do you do with it?
Tbh, I was advised not to plant them (I did tell my mate, who promptly ignored me! ) because they can be so prolific. Once you've planted them it's next to impossible to get rid of them. As you say, like bindweed, there only has to be a little bit of root in the ground and they will grow again.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 11, 2011)

Ms Ordinary said:


> TBF - as someone who is a long term South London resident, but who rents privately so is sometimes forced to move areas - and with Lambeth being a long, narrow borough - I can see that if I did have a Lambeth allotment but ended up moving to, say, Camberwell, for a year or so I would be gutted if I was forced to give up my (hypothetical) allotment. Since it would have been providing me with some stability, and I think long term allotment holders / committee members can also be good for the allotments - they are the ones that keep things going & make sure the land doesn't get sold off or whatever.
> So I can quite see why the small groups running things would be resistant to interference.



That was what I was thinking about when I asked about the rule that Council allotments are only for people of that borough. In London I dont see that as practicable to keep to.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 11, 2011)

Grow Yer Own said:


> Well I agree with EarthyGerry.


Hardly surprising as you're using the same computer.


----------



## co-op (Oct 12, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Hardly surprising as you're using the same computer.


 
Oops.

Listen EG I sympathise with the problem but I really think the voice of experience from quite a few people on this thread is that you can either (a) open up some new growing space, (b) cozy up to the allotment committees (unaccountable and self-serving though they doubtless are) or (c) think up another scheme (I think Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall has some project online to link up would-be growers with owners of spare land) - things like this.

But I don't think you're going to get a ball rolling here on this council petition thing - even with your sock puppets. Any council run scheme would (IMO) be just as bad but in a different more bureaucratic way. It'd also use up council officers time and money.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 12, 2011)

...and according to the South London Press the petition has 22 signatures, which is hardly a groundswell. Well, might just be 11 sigs and 11 sockpuppets


----------



## Grow Yer Own (Oct 12, 2011)

mr steev said:


> Different varieties. This year we've had jersey royals, red dukes, king edwards and pentland crown. The pentland crown particularly have given us a massive yeild this year
> We've got some jerusalem artichokes growing too, but tbh I've not actually eaten any yet. I had the opinion that they were only eaten as they are one of the few things that you can harvest in the middle of winter. Sticking them in a risotto doesn't really appeal, but I heard you can roast them recently, so I will probably give that a go. What do you do with it?
> Tbh, I was advised not to plant them (I did tell my mate, who promptly ignored me! ) because they can be so prolific. Once you've planted them it's next to impossible to get rid of them. As you say, like bindweed, there only has to be a little bit of root in the ground and they will grow again.


That's good news about the Jerusalems being so prolific, firstly because I love them but also because they don't need much sun. As I only have access to a tiny bit of neighbour's garden which is shaded by a big tree I need to be careful to use the space wisely. Yes you must try roasting them, it's my favourite way to cook them. Cut them into inch lengths, and actually it pays to parboil them first as they take longer to cook than potatoes and other root vege you may have in the mix. That way they stay lovely and tender. I also like them mixed with potatoes, boiled and mashed with a bit of olive oil, black pepper and pesto. You can harvest them right up to Feb/March I find.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 12, 2011)

If it's any compensation, rest assured that the less than council owned Rosendale Rd apartments are in the midst of an epic committee and embittered members spat atm. After a few years of neglect, the committee are proposing pretty much a doubling of the rent (to £58), apparently to sort out longstanding access and dumping ground issues. And needless to say that people aren't happy, a Facebook-posse of Titchmarshing renegades forcing an emergency AGM. All sorts of unpleasantness is being dished out online, with various insults and accusations flying. Stolen giant pumpkins, human faeces on plots, this whole sorry saga has the lot.

I'm quite happy keeping our heads down, tending the crops. Best stay away from those shenanigans.

Largely agree with the advice given on this thread fwiw. Sure it's frustrating that the LB plots are so arbitrarily run, but that perhaps provides some opportunity. The alternative seems to be hugely long waiting lists, so much so that even a place as big as Rosendale - not prone to turfing out mismanaged plots it has to be said - closed itself to new enquiries not that long ago. Not sure what the status is now, but it took the best part of 4 years before our allotment partner even got a sniff.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 12, 2011)

co-op said:


> Oops.
> 
> Listen EG I sympathise with the problem but I really think the voice of experience from quite a few people on this thread is that you can either (a) open up some new growing space, (b) cozy up to the allotment committees (unaccountable and self-serving though they doubtless are) or (c) think up another scheme (I think Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall has some project online to link up would-be growers with owners of spare land) - things like this.
> 
> But I don't think you're going to get a ball rolling here on this council petition thing - even with your sock puppets. Any council run scheme would (IMO) be just as bad but in a different more bureaucratic way. It'd also use up council officers time and money.



Not my socks mate!

For all of you plotholders who don't want things to change, why don't you take your own advice.... how would you like it if your allotment sites were turned into shared community gardening schemes where all the produce goes to local charities? Would you still have the motivation to get out there and work the land? I daresay you wouldn't be so smug if you were one of the unlucky ones like my neighbour who can't even get on a waiting list for a plot.

No one is asking for a council scheme to be set up, merely for the council to take their responsibilities seriously by running their allotments in a fair and legal manner. This means evicting those who have no right to be on the sites, enforcing a policy of one plot per person, freeing up wasted space, and properly maintaining the waiting list with transparency so that people know where they stand. This could clearly and very simply be done through their website, and wouldn't even need admin assistance.

As it is public land this is the least we can expect, as with any other council service. And given that there is such high demand that the waiting lists are closed their policies are clearly affecting very many people.

There's no reason why doing things properly should take up any more time and money than is already being spent. The council already spend a great deal on maintaining their sites, providing manure, skips, tree pruning, labour, locks etc. Even if only some of this was diverted into a bit of initial reorganisation it would save them in the long run on having to deal with complaints etc.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 12, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ...and according to the South London Press the petition has 22 signatures, which is hardly a groundswell. Well, might just be 11 sigs and 11 sockpuppets


That was a week ago.


----------



## rover07 (Oct 12, 2011)

Did you or your friend go along to the allotments last Sunday?


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 14, 2011)

No. Which ones do you mean, and what was happening....an open day of some sort?


----------



## co-op (Oct 15, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> For all of you plotholders who don't want things to change, why don't you take your own advice.... how would you like it if your allotment sites were turned into shared community gardening schemes where all the produce goes to local charities? Would you still have the motivation to get out there and work the land? I daresay you wouldn't be so smug if you were one of the unlucky ones like my neighbour who can't even get on a waiting list for a plot.
> .



I'm not saying I don't want things to change - fwiw I think the single-plotholder model renting a given space in perpetuity is pretty rubbish in Lambeth. IMO people need to be able to come and go a little more freely and have access to shared growing space which they are not 100% responsible for - more along the community garden model. Most people who aspire to an allotment actually don't have the time to run a whole one properly - or even a half plot. Lambeth residents tend to come and go quite quickly too so the whole waiting list thing is a bit pointless for most people. One of the reasons that waiting lists got so hopelessly in a mess was because most of the people on them had moved by the time their number came up - what do you do then? They are simply uncontactable - I've done my time on phones trying to track down people, but it's unpaid work eventually it gets not done.

I'm also not being smug; I never got on a waiting list either but I hung out in the right places and eventually got the access. That seems to be the way it goes. The advice to play the game is really just based on 3 decades of experience of (a) Lambeth Council and (b) allotment committees. The internecine strife and feuding in both makes most former Yugoslavia look like a vicars tea party. If you try and reform them - especially by bludgeoning them with external pressure - they will (I'd guess) make mincemeat of you. But you're welcome to try of course.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 17, 2011)

Firstly I don't respond well to threats.
Secondly I don't need your permission to campaign for a lousy system (or lack of one) to be put right.
If you are genuinely suggesting that all the Lambeth allotments are converted into shared space for everyone then perhaps it is worth considering, but if you are suggesting the status quo is the way it should remain then forget it because that is unacceptable for all the rest of the Lambeth residents who cannot get a look in.


----------



## Grow Yer Own (Oct 17, 2011)

co-op said:


> I'm not saying I don't want things to change - fwiw I think the single-plotholder model renting a given space in perpetuity is pretty rubbish in Lambeth. IMO people need to be able to come and go a little more freely and have access to shared growing space which they are not 100% responsible for - more along the community garden model. Most people who aspire to an allotment actually don't have the time to run a whole one properly - or even a half plot. Lambeth residents tend to come and go quite quickly too so the whole waiting list thing is a bit pointless for most people. One of the reasons that waiting lists got so hopelessly in a mess was because most of the people on them had moved by the time their number came up - what do you do then? They are simply uncontactable - I've done my time on phones trying to track down people, but it's unpaid work eventually it gets not done.
> 
> I'm also not being smug; I never got on a waiting list either but I hung out in the right places and eventually got the access. That seems to be the way it goes. The advice to play the game is really just based on 3 decades of experience of (a) Lambeth Council and (b) allotment committees. The internecine strife and feuding in both makes most former Yugoslavia look like a vicars tea party. If you try and reform them - especially by bludgeoning them with external pressure - they will (I'd guess) make mincemeat of you. But you're welcome to try of course.



Are Lambeth residents any more transient than in other boroughs?
Managing a waiting list of 15 people is hardly rocket science, and if people move without informing the council then they can hardly expect to be informed when their turn comes up can they?
But perhaps the waiting list wouldn't be so static if the rules on non residents were being enforced, and there wasn't this unofficial system you refer to where the management committee give out plots to their friends.


----------



## co-op (Oct 17, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> Firstly I don't respond well to threats.
> Secondly I don't need your permission to campaign for a lousy system (or lack of one) to be put right.
> .



I'm not sure where any "threat" is, nor have I suggested that you "need my permission" to campaign for anything. But with an attitude as prickly as that, you should be right at home in the sterile world of allotment politics. Good luck.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 17, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> Not my socks mate!


That just doesn't wash.....

*As an administrator of this site I can tell posts made by Earthy Gerry and Grow Yer Own were DEFINITELY made from the same computer.*

I do, as someone who helps run a non-Lambeth owned community garden, take extremely strong exception to your statement that 





> _all the produce goes to local charities_


 as that is not the case at all. The community garden's fruit and veg belongs to the growers and feeds them and their families.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 21, 2011)

If you're looking for a way to shut me up then you'll have to do better than that I'm afraid.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Oct 21, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> If you're looking for a way to shut me up then you'll have to do better than that I'm afraid.


They're not.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 21, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> If you're looking for a way to shut me up then you'll have to do better than that I'm afraid.


If I was looking to shut you up I'd have banned you. It's just that sockpuppets are considered a bit pathetic. No genuine sycophants about so an imaginary friend pops onto the thread to agree with you. It is considered even more pathetic when it is denied. What these tactics do is just mark you out as being a bit pathetic and a very inept liar. Way to go for garnering support!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 21, 2011)

Oh, and also it's marked you out as not being the sharpest knife in the sock cutlery drawer.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 22, 2011)

...of course it's always possible that while you were in the bog having a crap that someone shinned up the drainpipe, got in through an open window, and using your computer, registered a new email account, used it to register a new account on here, just to come on this thread and agree with you, logged out and then departed while you were still wiping your bum, but that seems a bit unlikely to me.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 22, 2011)

...even if you have chronic constipation and were groaning and straining for quite some time....


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 22, 2011)

Mrs M:


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 24, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> If I was looking to shut you up I'd have banned you. It's just that sockpuppets are considered a bit pathetic. No genuine sycophants about so an imaginary friend pops onto the thread to agree with you. It is considered even more pathetic when it is denied. What these tactics do is just mark you out as being a bit pathetic and a very inept liar. Way to go for garnering support!


Oh come on, you have no grounds to ban me. I'm not the one making threats, malicious accusations or name calling. I have simply tried to inform people of a campaign for a fair allocations system for council allotments. This is not about me, it is not my petition nor my campaign. But I believe in the cause as I hate injustice which is why I am trying to spread the word. People reading this can either join the campaign or not, it's up to them.
The fact that you and your aliases have transgressed the debate to personal attacks just serves to prove my point that self appointed allotment committees can't be trusted to allocate plots fairly. The council need to start taking their responsibilities for plot allocation seriously and introduce a system that is fair and totally transparent to the public.


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2011)

Earthy





EarthyGerry said:


> The fact that you and your aliases have transgressed the debate to personal attacks...


As the guy who started this site, let me make one thing very, very clear to you: mods are strictly forbidden to have anything other then the one ID they post under. MrsM has no aliases here: if she had she'd no longer be a mod.

Our software can detect when multiple IDs are not only connecting from the same IP address but it can also check to see if they are using the same PC. In MrsM's case this is categorically *not* happening. In your case it categorically *is.*

Multiple user IDs are strictly forbidden here, so MrsM is actually being rather tolerant letting you continue posting here.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 24, 2011)

Well, exactly. I think he's blustering because he's been found out for telling lies. They don't like it up 'em, do they Captain Mainwaring?


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 25, 2011)

editor said:


> EarthyAs the guy who started this site, let me make one thing very, very clear to you: mods are strictly forbidden to have anything other then the one ID they post under. MrsM has no aliases here: if she had she'd no longer be a mod.
> 
> Our software can detect when multiple IDs are not only connecting from the same IP address but it can also check to see if they are using the same PC. In MrsM's case this is categorically *not* happening. In your case it categorically *is.*
> 
> Multiple user IDs are strictly forbidden here, so MrsM is actually being rather tolerant letting you continue posting here.


So are you saying two people can't use the same computer? And if that's your rule here why don't you specify it in your rulebook?


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 25, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, exactly. I think he's blustering because he's been found out for telling lies. They don't like it up 'em, do they Captain Mainwaring?


This really is offensive.


----------



## editor (Oct 25, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> So are you saying two people can't use the same computer? And if that's your rule here why don't you specify it in your rulebook?


Of course not, but it does seem a truly remarkable coincidence that the person who is using your personal computer shares the exact same views as you, and it seems ever odder when one considers that they stopped posting just about as soon as you started.


----------



## editor (Oct 25, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> This really is offensive.


Do you think it's any more offensive than you accusing one of the site's moderators of being a deceitful liar?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 25, 2011)

"My brother who lives with me happened to use the computer while I was away making a cup of herbal tea, and amazingly enough he decided to register an account and agree with what I had to say."


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 25, 2011)

editor said:


> Of course not, but it does seem a truly remarkable coincidence that the person who is using your personal computer shares the exact same views as you, and it seems ever odder when one considers that they stopped posting just about as soon as you started.



If you read the whole thread you'll see that isn't the case. I started the thread.

Your accusations are based on assumptions.

I never denied knowing GrowYerOwn, nor that we shared a computer, because it isn't anyone else's business, and is irrelevant to the discussion here. It's pretty elitist to suggest that people can only contribute to a discussion if they own their own computer, especially in Lambeth where we're not all millionaires.

It's not strange at all that friends and neighbours can have similar views about an issue, especially when it affects one of them personally, and I already told you that she hasn't been able to get onto the waiting list. In fact I know a few people in that situation.

I didn't accuse Magpie of lying. However, she clearly didn't like the discussion and exploited her position to divert the conversation onto personal attacks. According to your rules at the top of the site that is not supposed to be acceptable from posters, so why is it acceptable for administrators? One set of rules for us and another for you?


----------



## editor (Oct 25, 2011)

EarthyGerry said:


> I didn't accuse Magpie of lying. However, she clearly didn't like the discussion and exploited her position to divert the conversation onto personal attacks.


You are aware of the fact that, as admin, I see reported posts - including the one where you claimed that MrsM was using "several aliases"?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 25, 2011)

Stop digging EarthyGerry/GrowYer Own or use the energy on your plot. You're just not getting it right, you're supposed to be making me look like a cunt


----------



## co-op (Oct 26, 2011)

Anyone looking for a place to grow veg in Brixton could try here http://www.landshare.net/listings/13492/


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 26, 2011)

co-op said:


> Anyone looking for a place to grow veg in Brixton could try here http://www.landshare.net/listings/13492/


We ought to meet in a public place so that we are seen together in the same room. Apparently you are one of my many aliases on these boards, co-op


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 26, 2011)

Actually that looks to be a bloody good scheme. I think it should be publicised in old peoples clubs and Age Concern etc. I bet a lot of older people who can't manage their gardens, as well as garden-less gardeners would really benefit from a scheme like that.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 27, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Stop digging EarthyGerry/GrowYer Own or use the energy on your plot. You're just not getting it right, you're supposed to be making me look like a cunt


I don't need to.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 27, 2011)

editor said:


> You are aware of the fact that, as admin, I see reported posts - including the one where you claimed that MrsM was using "several aliases"?


In response to her accusing me of exactly that.


----------



## EarthyGerry (Oct 27, 2011)

rover07 said:


> My advice would be to go down your local allotment every Sunday and have a chat to whoevers about.
> May be worth doing if the site wasn't so well hidden from the public.....no signs, no visibility from the road, and wrong directions map on the council website, which points to the local park. Sure is a closed community.


----------



## co-op (Oct 28, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> We ought to meet in a public place so that we are seen together in the same room. Apparently you are one of my many aliases on these boards, co-op



And I thought _you_ were one of my aliases...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 28, 2011)




----------

