# Brixton news, rumour and general chat - August 2014



## Rushy (Aug 1, 2014)

(July 2014 thread here)


----------



## colacubes (Aug 1, 2014)




----------



## Rushy (Aug 1, 2014)

Not specifically Brixton but it looks like the government is to relax planning restrictions on shop units to make it easier for businesses to move around whilst introducing a specific requirement for a full planning application for change of use of any building to a new betting or pay day loan shop. This sounds good.

ETA: or more accurately: the government intends to make changes to the General Permitted Development Order 1995 to remove the existing permitted development rights to the A2 use class. Most uses currently described as A2 will be moved to A1, with the exception of payday and betting shops, thereby requiring a planning application for a change of use from any other use to a betting shop or pay day loan shop.


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2014)

Thanks for sorting this out Rushy - I was up till very late posting up about the Ritzy strike breakthrough so forgot that we'd changed month.


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2014)

In other Brixton news, all fresh off the press this morning: 

Loughborough Farm appeals for £200 to fund summer activities
Lambeth looks to attract new Brixton street market traders with freebie licence sweeteners
‘Cynics’ of gentrification ignoring benefits claims Lambeth Cabinet member Jack Hopkins


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2014)

Happening now in Southwyck House: Brixton Revolutionary Film Festival now underway in the Brixton Community Kitchen


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Aug 1, 2014)

I'm allowed to have a girlfriend even if you think i'm gay and you lack a sense of humour.
I'm allowed to ride my bike through a water feature in a local square during one of the hottest summers of any century without you asking am i unemployed.
I'm allowed to object to the way you flaunt your money over food when i have little to eat.
Do it over food, keep doing it over food because the fools are so stupid they won't notice the other stuff you stole.

I have to put you on hold, i'm too busy dealing with the DWP.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Aug 1, 2014)

Password scrambled, i escaped this hell.


----------



## colacubes (Aug 2, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood - mate, have a break from here  if that's what needed.  But in all seriousness if you need help or support stay here and keep posting.  Or if you don't want to PM me.  I'm worried about you.


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2014)

I'm sure you're all busting to hear my pub/club experiences from last night, so here goes:

Effra Social:  great rock'n'roll DJ on the vinyl. Quite quiet in the bar but pleasant vibes
Albert: Not a mad night - friendly and chatty with a handful of the usual 'offbeat' regulars
Grosvenor: Really busy, great live folk music, banging rave at the back and apart from a couple of extremely insensitive posh types who had turned up at the death of the pub to tell me about their property developer business, everything was absolutely lovely.
Electric Brixton: Like stepping back into the 90s, full on thumping trance with a crowd that was absoutely, make-no-mistake intent on having a fucking incredible time
Dogstar: Busy but not as crazy as some nights and alright for a last one.


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2014)

Some photos from last night's Return to the Source 21st Anniversary Reunion at the Electric Brixton. 
The soundsystem was LOUD!





















http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/08/...st-anniversary-party-at-the-electric-brixton/


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2014)

One for the fashionistas and gift and nick-nack seekers: 
Joy fashion and gift store returns to Brixton with new store in Acre Lane


----------



## shygirl (Aug 2, 2014)

Joy left, now they're back to cash in on the new money in Brixton.  Feel a bit mean saying that, as they were here for years, in fact, the Brixton store was where it all started, but why did they leave in the first place, only to come back?


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2014)

shygirl said:


> Joy left, now they're back to cash in on the new money in Brixton.  Feel a bit mean saying that, as they were here for years, in fact, the Brixton store was where it all started, but why did they leave in the first place, only to come back?


That's more than a bit unfair! They left because their lease wasn't renewed as their old building is being used as part of the hotel build. 

Unlike some of the _Johnny come lately_ nu-chains who are quick to claim Brixton connections, Joy started here 15 years ago so I don't begrudge them coming back.


----------



## shygirl (Aug 2, 2014)

editor said:


> That's more than a bit unfair! They left because their lease wasn't renewed as their old building is being used as part of the hotel build.
> 
> Unlike some of the _Johnny come lately_ nu-chains who are quick to claim Brixton connections, Joy started here 15 years ago so I don't begrudge them coming back.



Fair enough, I posted without finding out the facts first.


----------



## shygirl (Aug 2, 2014)

Welcome back Joy!


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2014)

editor said:


> In other Brixton news, all fresh off the press this morning:
> 
> ‘Cynics’ of gentrification ignoring benefits claims Lambeth Cabinet member Jack Hopkins



From the link to Hopkins blog:


> My challenge to you is find out what’s going on, make sure your voice is heard or sit back and let it pass you by. It’s your future.



As Jason in the Brixton Buzz article says Carlton Mansions did take part in Council consultations. Then got evicted by the Council. The Council refused to look at any alternatives to eviction of long standing community who were prepared to work with the Council.

At recent consultation on the Brixton Central Masterplan I was told by a consultant that housing for sale on the market ( rather than social housing) would be good for Brixton as it would attract people with higher disposable income. Which , according to the consultant hired by Council , would be better for Brixtons economy.

Is it any wonder that people get cynical? And I am someone who has track record of contributing to Council consultations.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2014)

editor said:


> ‘Cynics’ of gentrification ignoring benefits claims Lambeth Cabinet member Jack Hopkins



Another gem from Cllr Hopkins:



> . If ‘gentrification’ means cleaner streets and safer estates then I’m all for it.



Cleaner streets and safer estates has nothing to do with gentrification. What does Hopkins think of people on Council estates? That they do not want them to be safe? Its the Councillors job to work with residents to keep an area safe and clean.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2014)

colacubes said:


> Dexter Deadwood - mate, have a break from here  if that's what needed.  But in all seriousness if you need help or support stay here and keep posting.  Or if you don't want to PM me.  I'm worried about you.



Dexter Deadwood

I second this.


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2014)

Bit of a turn up for the books here: Blacker Dread record shop on Coldharbour Lane, Brixton turns into Blakajack baked potatoes


----------



## Badgers (Aug 2, 2014)

editor said:


> Bit of a turn up for the books here: Blacker Dread record shop on Coldharbour Lane, Brixton turns into Blakajack baked potatoes


Potatoes you say?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2014)

editor said:


> In other Brixton news, all fresh off the press this morning:
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Cynics’ of gentrification ignoring benefits claims Lambeth Cabinet member Jack Hopkins



Cllr Hopkins:



> But, there is a deafening silence from those who stand to benefit most; people in need of affordable housing, access to jobs and business opportunities, safer public spaces and more culture and leisure.



I do not understand this sentence.

People I chat to around Brixton want more affordable housing for example. Its an issue that keeps coming up at Council run consultations. So what does Cllr Hopkins want? How many times does a Labour Council have to be told this?

The response from the Labour Council is that they are unable to do much about this due to government cuts in housing grants and changes to how "affordable" housing is defined. This is what happened when Barratts applied to change the affordable housing element to the the Brixton sq development. The Labour Council view was that there was nothing they could do about that.

What I want to know from Cllr Hopkins as a member of the Labour party is when will the Labour party nationally campaign on issues such as committing to building Council housing ( with truly affordable rents and secure tenancies).

On a local level when will Lambeth Cllrs start supporting / campaigning on issues such as affordable housing? The "deafening silence" is imo from the Labour party. Both nationally and locally.

IMO a lot of the time its residents at loggerheads with Lambeth Labour Council. Cressingham Gardens for example.

Another thing Cllr Hopkins forgets is that a lot of ordinary people are struggling to just get by. They do not have time for consultation all the time.

Issues such as affordable housing do not need any more consultation. If the Council have not got the message then I give up. They should just get on with it.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 2, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> On a local level when will Lambeth Cllrs start supporting / campaigning on issues such as affordable housing? The "deafening silence" is imo from the Labour party. Both nationally and locally.


Agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments - but I think Hopkins is supposed to be non-Housing regeneration, whereas the Cabinet Member "responsible for delivering the council’s housing priorities, to build more affordable homes for local people, overseeing an improved housing management service for residents and engaging with tenants, leaseholders and local housing groups. Leads on: * Affordable homes and housing growth" is Cabinet Member for Housing - Councillor Matthew Bennett. (from Lambeth's new non-navigable website).

Incidentally Cllr Matthew Bennett has a day job - whilst not being a Lambeth council cabinet member drawing £39,000 in allowances, he is also apparently office head for Steve Reed MP (Croydon North) - who will no doubt be familiar to readers on Urban!


----------



## shygirl (Aug 2, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood responded to some texts I sent earlier, he says he's alright.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments - but I think Hopkins is supposed to be non-Housing regeneration, whereas the Cabinet Member "responsible for delivering the council’s housing priorities, to build more affordable homes for local people, overseeing an improved housing management service for residents and engaging with tenants, leaseholders and local housing groups. Leads on: * Affordable homes and housing growth" is Cabinet Member for Housing - Councillor Matthew Bennett. (from Lambeth's new non-navigable website).
> 
> Incidentally Cllr Matthew Bennett has a day job - whilst not being a Lambeth council cabinet member drawing £39,000 in allowances, he is also apparently office head for Steve Reed MP (Croydon North) - who will no doubt be familiar to readers on Urban!



Point taken. Its that Hopkins made it an issue in his blog as (correctly ) part of regeneration and growth.

According to his blog entry he is:



> In May 2014 I was reelected to Oval ward and became the cabinet member for Jobs and Growth. Supporting existing and attracting new businesses, employability, entrepreneurship as well as* development, planning and regeneration*



So their is some overlap between the posts. I do not like the way that the new posts have been set up. Issues like planning and housing cover both Cllrs.


----------



## simonSW2 (Aug 2, 2014)

While we are on the subject of Lambeth Councils notable incompetence, I received a letter from them today about the electoral roll and voter registration.

It clearly states that I am not on their open register (the commercial bit of the register which they sell to companies) and if I wish to be added (why would anyone want to be on this?) I have to contact them.

The letter goes onto say that I will be automatically added to the open register unless I request not to be.

It also says that no further action is required.


So which is it?

Is the office manned by Kafka and schroedinger?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2014)

editor said:


> In other Brixton news, all fresh off the press this morning:
> 
> ‘Cynics’ of gentrification ignoring benefits claims Lambeth Cabinet member Jack Hopkins



Just emailed Cllr Hopkins this email:



> Dear Jack,
> I am emailing you about your recent blog entry.
> 
> Jason Cobb did a piece on it for Brixton Buzz
> ...


​


----------



## CH1 (Aug 2, 2014)

simonSW2 said:


> So which is it?
> Is the office manned by Kafka and schroedinger?


Schrödinger's cat


----------



## buscador (Aug 2, 2014)

simonSW2 said:


> While we are on the subject of Lambeth Councils notable incompetence, I received a letter from them today about the electoral roll and voter registration.
> 
> It clearly states that I am not on their open register (the commercial bit of the register which they sell to companies) and if I wish to be added (why would anyone want to be on this?) I have to contact them.
> 
> ...



I've got one of these in my official capacity as Head Of Household.  

The bit about being added to the open register is just part of the explanation of the difference between the open and electoral registers. Derrick Anderson, or whoever writes his letters for him, might have made it more obvious though.


----------



## nashers21 (Aug 3, 2014)

Hi

Can anyone tell me whether the secondhand furniture place up brixton hill (on the right up around the prison) is still going? It was in an industrial unit by a garage set back from the road (rather than a shop).  Moved away a year ago an don't want a wasted journey, thanks!


----------



## leanderman (Aug 3, 2014)

nashers21 said:


> Hi
> 
> Can anyone tell me whether the secondhand furniture place up brixton hill (on the right up around the prison) is still going? It was in an industrial unit by a garage set back from the road (rather than a shop).  Moved away a year ago an don't want a wasted journey, thanks!



Gone.


----------



## nashers21 (Aug 3, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Gone.


Thanks, what a shame, that place was great!


----------



## Manter (Aug 3, 2014)

What time does the tube shut for the Splash today? I've got to get to Kings Cross for 12....


----------



## Winot (Aug 3, 2014)

Manter said:


> What time does the tube shut for the Splash today? I've got to get to Kings Cross for 12....



Where did you hear it would close? I can't find anything about that.


----------



## Manter (Aug 3, 2014)

Winot said:


> Where did you hear it would close? I can't find anything about that.


I assumed it would given number of people!


----------



## Ms T (Aug 3, 2014)

I don't think it will close.


----------



## colacubes (Aug 3, 2014)

It never normally closes for Splash unless there's other engineering work on.


----------



## T & P (Aug 3, 2014)

It was running 45 minutes ago. Bus diversions are already in place though.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 3, 2014)

Is the market closed or open this year?


----------



## colacubes (Aug 3, 2014)

Market Row isn't open on the Electric Lane side at the moment so I assume that means it's shut.  No idea re the Village.


----------



## Winot (Aug 3, 2014)

The farmers' market is on in Station Rd, although smaller than usual.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 3, 2014)

The Village is open.


----------



## colacubes (Aug 3, 2014)

Ms T said:


> The Village is open.



Yep. Just Market Row is shut.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 3, 2014)

Cafe Max closes tomorrow for 3 weeks or so. Had my final chicken escalope sandwich for a while. ​


----------



## leanderman (Aug 3, 2014)

Upstairs restaurant in Acre Lane is closing down, after ten years, on Aug 9.


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 3, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Upstairs restaurant in Acre Lane is closing down, after ten years, on Aug 9.


That's a pity. It was a really good restaurant. Do you know if the cafe downstairs will remain open?


----------



## leanderman (Aug 3, 2014)

Mr Retro said:


> That's a pity. It was a really good restaurant. Do you know if the cafe downstairs will remain open?



No suggestion of it closing. Have asked for clarification.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Upstairs restaurant in Acre Lane is closing down, after ten years, on Aug 9.


I always thought the place was doing well.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 3, 2014)

Received the closing email too. Gutted that place is closing, one of the few decent places outside the village IMO


----------



## leanderman (Aug 3, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Received the closing email too. Gutted that place is closing, one of the few decent places outside the village IMO



Pretty sure they have a lease. 

Landlord might want to cash in by converting to residential. If possible. 

Just about every London business is vulnerable to this eventuality, while our property mania continues. Lots of examples around Brixton.


----------



## colacubes (Aug 3, 2014)

I heard family reasons is why they are shutting?


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 3, 2014)

Were gonna try and pay them a visit on Thursday I reckon. The restaurant, not the landlord


----------



## leanderman (Aug 3, 2014)

colacubes said:


> I heard family reasons is why they are shutting?



That's what the email says - and they do have four kids.

Also says, watch this space. So maybe there will be another venture.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 3, 2014)

leanderman said:


> That's what the email says - and they do have four kids.
> 
> Also says, watch this space. So maybe there will be another venture.


I've booked for Wednesday so will ask Philippe. Maybe they had just taken it as far as they could go?  He's not the kind of guy to just keep on doing the same old thing.


----------



## zenie (Aug 3, 2014)

Went to go for veggie dinner at Express Cafe last night. Wasn't open! Any news on what happened to them doing veggie and vegan food in the evening?

Sad I missed Splash but dog wasn't well


----------



## leanderman (Aug 4, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I've booked for Wednesday so will ask Philippe. Maybe they had just taken it as far as they could go?  He's not the kind of guy to just keep on doing the same old thing.



Crushing workload too - wife Stephanie is a blur of motion.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 4, 2014)

zenie said:


> Went to go for veggie dinner at Express Cafe last night. Wasn't open! Any news on what happened to them doing veggie and vegan food in the evening?
> 
> Sad I missed Splash but dog wasn't well


I'm not sure they ever did it on a Sunday night. And Market Row was closed yesterday anyway for Splash.


----------



## Chilavert (Aug 4, 2014)

A stretch of pavement outside Foxtons was taped off earlier and there was a police car and officer present.

I thought I saw discarded surgical gloves on the pavement as I went past on the bus so assume there was a fight of some description?


----------



## zenie (Aug 4, 2014)

Ms T said:


> I'm not sure they ever did it on a Sunday night. And Market Row was closed yesterday anyway for Splash.


Oh no this was Saturday.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 4, 2014)

zenie said:


> Oh no this was Saturday.


Their Facebook page has been inactive for a while.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 4, 2014)

zenie said:


> Oh no this was Saturday.


I'm sure I ate in there a few weeks ago and it was a pop up hot doggery?


----------



## zenie (Aug 4, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I'm sure I ate in there a few weeks ago and it was a pop up hot doggery?


Brixton buzz should update their restaurants page then  

Satay has good stuff for veggies....anywhere else??


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 4, 2014)

what happened on brighton terrace last night at about 11?


----------



## mxh (Aug 4, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> what happened on brighton terrace last night at about 11?



Maybe this

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/man-fighting-for-life-after-assault-in-brixton-9646207.html


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2014)

mxh said:


> Maybe this
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/man-fighting-for-life-after-assault-in-brixton-9646207.html


That's a mighty strange photo caption.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2014)

I must have missed this by minutes as  I walked past there around that time.


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Aug 4, 2014)

Is that why Foxtons was tapped off, when I walked past about 5pm? I was hoping someone had put their windows in, but it looked more like forensics on the street outside.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 4, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Just emailed Cllr Hopkins this email:
> 
> 
> ​


did you get a reply yet?


----------



## T & P (Aug 4, 2014)

DietCokeGirl said:


> Is that why Foxtons was tapped off, when I walked past about 5pm? I was hoping someone had put their windows in, but it looked more like forensics on the street outside.


Either that or crimes against common decency.


----------



## thatguyhex (Aug 5, 2014)

There's a huge spotlight shining into the sky from somewhere to the north. Anyone know what it is? Something to do with the WWI anniversary?


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2014)

thatguyhex said:


> There's a huge spotlight shining into the sky from somewhere to the north. Anyone know what it is? Something to do with the WWI anniversary?


The answer is right here!
http://www.urban75.org/blog/beam-of...y-marks-the-centenary-of-the-first-world-war/


----------



## uk benzo (Aug 5, 2014)

I didn't know that there is a Brixton in Johannesburg (and it is currently being gentrified):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brixton,_Gauteng


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2014)

uk benzo said:


> I didn't know that there is a Brixton in Johannesburg (and it is currently being gentrified):
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brixton,_Gauteng


Ooh! that's a good story right there!


----------



## CH1 (Aug 5, 2014)

uk benzo said:


> I didn't know that there is a Brixton in Johannesburg (and it is currently being gentrified):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brixton,_Gauteng


Mandela mentioned it in passing in his speech at the Brixton Rec. I think the Council should send a group of Urbanites on an exchange cultural visit!


----------



## CH1 (Aug 5, 2014)

Typical houses in Brixton, Johannesburg (from http://www.joburg.org.za/index.php?...he-caring-suburb&catid=106:suburbs&Itemid=188)


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2014)

I'll try and post something about this on Buzz today.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 5, 2014)

This is probably only exciting for me but Screwfix are opening tomorrow in Brixton!

(Here On the Lyham Road industrial estate.)


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 5, 2014)

oh, have they not opened yet?  I so happened to walked past that way for the first time in a while recently and wondered how long we'd managed to have screwfix and not notice.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 5, 2014)

quimcunx said:


> oh, have they not opened yet?  I so happened to walked past that way for the first time in a while recently and wondered how long we'd managed to have screwfix and not notice.


Flyer I received today says 7th (so day after tomorrow - I was getting ahead of myself!). 10% off everything 7th-10th.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2014)

Oh, big kudos must go to (presumably) Lambeth cleaners who sorted out the phenomenal mess that was left after Splash on Sunday. There was mountains of bottles, chicken remains, paper, cans etc covering the space outside my block when I went past at 2am and by 10 am it was spotless.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 5, 2014)

Rushy said:


> This is probably only exciting for me but Screwfix are opening tomorrow in Brixton!
> 
> (Here On the Lyham Road industrial estate.)


----------



## Rushy (Aug 5, 2014)

editor said:


> Oh, big kudos must go to (presumably) Lambeth cleaners who sorted out the phenomenal mess that was left after Splash on Sunday. There was mountains of bottles, chicken remains, paper, cans etc covering the space outside my block when I went past at 2am and by 10 am it was spotless.


Agreed. I was going to post exactly that but got distracted! Yesterday it looked like Splash had never happened. Great job.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 5, 2014)

Crispy said:


>


Oh yeah - I should have known you'd be happy about this news too .


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2014)

I posted a bit more about the Brixton in South Africa: 
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/08/...ing-in-brixton-johannesburg-south-africa-too/


----------



## Ms T (Aug 5, 2014)

editor said:


> Oh, big kudos must go to (presumably) Lambeth cleaners who sorted out the phenomenal mess that was left after Splash on Sunday. There was mountains of bottles, chicken remains, paper, cans etc covering the space outside my block when I went past at 2am and by 10 am it was spotless.


I imagine the event organisers had to pay for cleaners.  Friends who came to visit on Sunday night with their dog said it was a nightmare with all the chicken bones littered around.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2014)

Ms T said:


> I imagine the event organisers had to pay for cleaners.  Friends who came to visit on Sunday night with their dog said it was a nightmare with all the chicken bones littered around.


There was a horrible mess of half eaten/discarded food outside my block. The foxes ate well.


----------



## se5 (Aug 5, 2014)

I see the Academy is featured in the Guardian today http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2014/aug/05/the-gig-venue-guide-o2-academy-brixton


----------



## isvicthere? (Aug 5, 2014)

Did anyone notice the foxes' chorus last night up Brixton Hill? It was somewhen after 10p.m. in the gardens bordered by Branksome, Winterwell, Haycroft and Bonham Roads. Sounded like a proper vulpine beano/tear up.


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 5, 2014)

Rushy said:


> This is probably only exciting for me but Screwfix are opening tomorrow in Brixton!
> 
> (Here On the Lyham Road industrial estate.)


This is most awesome news. I've long yearned for a proper big hardware shop nearby. There's a couple of tiddly sized ones in Brixton but I don't like small hardware shops - they really only work for people who know what they're doing & what it is they actually want. I like supermarket style hardware shops where you can walk around looking at all the gubbins, trying to work out what everything is and what it might be useful for.


----------



## trabuquera (Aug 5, 2014)

Rushy said:


> This is probably only exciting for me but Screwfix are opening tomorrow in Brixton!
> 
> (Here On the Lyham Road industrial estate.)


 No, Rushy - I too find this exciting. really.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 5, 2014)

EastEnder said:


> This is most awesome news. I've long yearned for a proper big hardware shop nearby. There's a couple of tiddly sized ones in Brixton but I don't like small hardware shops - they really only work for people who know what they're doing & what it is they actually want. I like supermarket style hardware shops where you can walk around looking at all the gubbins, trying to work out what everything is and what it might be useful for.


Only thing is, I'm not certain how they are set up. Some are a bit like Argos but with more knowledgeable counter staff who can often advise.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 5, 2014)

Rushy said:


> This is probably only exciting for me but Screwfix are opening tomorrow in Brixton!
> 
> (Here On the Lyham Road industrial estate.)



Oh, how exciting


----------



## Chilavert (Aug 5, 2014)

Can someone confirm whether the arrival of Screwfix is another sign of gentrification?

If it is I'll sharpen my pitchfork, othewise I'll just buy some tungsten-tipped screws.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 5, 2014)

isvicthere? said:


> Did anyone notice the foxes' chorus last night up Brixton Hill? It was somewhen after 10p.m. in the gardens bordered by Branksome, Winterwell, Haycroft and Bonham Roads. Sounded like a proper vulpine beano/tear up.



No, but there's a few resident ones in the estate next to Jebb Avenue that have regular rucks.  It's a disturbing noise


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 5, 2014)

Chilavert said:


> Can someone confirm whether the arrival of Screwfix is another sign of gentrification?
> 
> If it is I'll sharpen my pitchfork, othewise I'll just buy some tungsten-tipped screws.



Looking at the price of their carpet grippers.... they're obviously for the rich!


----------



## CH1 (Aug 5, 2014)

Chilavert said:


> Can someone confirm whether the arrival of Screwfix is another sign of gentrification?
> If it is I'll sharpen my pitchfork, othewise I'll just buy some tungsten-tipped screws.


It does appear to be in the former Employment Service Skillcentre. So I guess it is another nail in the coffin of time when proper (and properly resourced) job training was employed for unemployed people in south London.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 5, 2014)

CH1 said:


> It does appear to be in the former Employment Service Skillcentre. So I guess it is another nail in the coffin of time when proper (and properly resourced) job training was employed for unemployed people in south London.



Dole sent me there years ago to learn how to type.  They were a bit surprised to discover I could already type almost 100wpm


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 5, 2014)

EastEnder said:


> This is most awesome news. I've long yearned for a proper big hardware shop nearby. There's a couple of tiddly sized ones in Brixton but I don't like small hardware shops - they really only work for people who know what they're doing & what it is they actually want. I like supermarket style hardware shops where you can walk around looking at all the gubbins, trying to work out what everything is and what it might be useful for.



Screwfix just have a counter and a catalogue - like Argos, so you can't have a mosey round unfortunately. I don't really rate their stuff. Used to get my MK sockets from them, but had so many problems with them, that I now use a local wholesaler - same brand of sockets, 5p more expensive - no problems. Lead me to think that SF get second rate stuff from the manufacturers

They are open 7 days a week though, so helpful if you've forgotten something for that Monday morning job!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 5, 2014)

sparkybird said:


> Screwfix just have a counter and a catalogue - like Argos, so you can't have a mosey round unfortunately. I don't really rate their stuff. Used to get my MK sockets from them, but had so many problems with them, that I now use a local wholesaler - same brand of sockets, 5p more expensive - no problems. Lead me to think that SF get second rate stuff from the manufacturers
> 
> They are open 7 days a week though, so helpful if you've forgotten something for that Monday morning job!



Have just had a look at their Stanley Knives.  Cheaper on Amazon

Their search is crap as well.  Searching for carpet metals is no good.  Luckily you can search for "carpet" though and it lists them as "carpet strips"

eta:  Never realised it's like Argos and you can't get to look at the stuff and handle it


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2014)

The Screwfix near me was pretty woeful when it opened up. Staff not trained though very nice and apologetic. They do have some things on sale in the customer area but they're mostly impulse buys eg extension leads.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 5, 2014)

Brixton Hatter said:


> did you get a reply yet?



No I have not. I expect I will not get one.


----------



## Thaw (Aug 5, 2014)

EastEnder said:


> I don't like small hardware shops - they really only work for people who know what they're doing & what it is they actually want.


 
I've always had pretty much the opposite experience. I could just go into Howard Bros. in Camberwell and have a chat with the guys and they would sort out exactly what I need when I don't have a clue. Wickes staff seem to know their stuff though.


----------



## thatguyhex (Aug 5, 2014)

uk benzo said:


> I didn't know that there is a Brixton in Johannesburg (and it is currently being gentrified):
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brixton,_Gauteng


Neat. Before I lived in Brixton I lived in Leytonstone, which has a South African contingent in its population, and was amused to discover that there are a couple of places named after it in South Africa too.


----------



## peterkro (Aug 5, 2014)

Chilavert said:


> Can someone confirm whether the arrival of Screwfix is another sign of gentrification?
> 
> If it is I'll sharpen my pitchfork, othewise I'll just buy some tungsten-tipped screws.


Sharpen your pitchfork.Brixton for years was home to (and here I can't remember the full name but something like) DSJ Engineers supplies on Acre lane one of the biggest fixings suppliers in the country (yes the person with the pink mobile gun [it was different colours at different times]).
Screwfix are a bunch of cunts.
ETA,GSJ now I think about it.


----------



## twistedAM (Aug 5, 2014)

My favourite shop in Brixton is still GSF Parts; admittedly not very useful for those who don't drive German, Swedish or French cars.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2014)

Here comes the rain alright!


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Aug 6, 2014)

editor said:


> Here comes the rain alright!


Or not alright as it woke me up


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Aug 6, 2014)

And now the fox is making a racket outside my window trying to make off with a sack of dog food...


----------



## simonSW2 (Aug 6, 2014)

Screwfix have attached flags advertising their arrival in our town on all the lamp-posts along the main drag at Brixton.

A bit dramatic for a shop that just sells nails and shit.

I think our lamp-posts should be ad-free personally, reserved for christmas lights / art / things about Brixton, but of course I'm just a demented idealist and I'm sure all the revenue the council gets is being ploughed back into local, social causes.


----------



## colacubes (Aug 6, 2014)

I've just had a massive Screwfix opening leaflet with the post


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2014)

simonSW2 said:


> Screwfix have attached flags advertising their arrival in our town on all the lamp-posts along the main drag at Brixton.
> 
> A bit dramatic for a shop that just sells nails and shit.
> 
> I think our lamp-posts should be ad-free personally, reserved for christmas lights / art / things about Brixton, but of course I'm just a demented idealist and I'm sure all the revenue the council gets is being ploughed back into local, social causes.


I agree completely. It looks well tacky.


----------



## Chilavert (Aug 6, 2014)

colacubes said:


> I've just had a massive Screwfix opening leaflet with the post


I had 4 in my postbox.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2014)

Here's the latest burst of Brixton news from Buzz for discussion;

Lambeth council launches photo competition to capture ‘happy’ cyclists
Grammy award winning Soul, Jazz and Funk maestro Gregory Porter releases a new promo video filmed exclusively in Brixton
Spectra beam of light in the night sky, as seen from Ruskin Park, south London
Brixton breweries get set to showcase their beer and ale at The London Beer City festival
Spectra beam of light in the night sky, as seen from Ruskin Park, south London
I've grown to really like that beam of light.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Aug 6, 2014)

We had some street planter boxes planted on the weekend with the help of the Freshview team. Half the plants have been stolen out of the boxes already


----------



## leanderman (Aug 6, 2014)

shakespearegirl said:


> We had some street planter boxes planted on the weekend with the help of the Freshview team. Half the plants have been stolen out of the boxes already



Welcome to my world.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 6, 2014)

shakespearegirl said:


> We had some street planter boxes planted on the weekend with the help of the Freshview team. Half the plants have been stolen out of the boxes already



I saw some up Morrish Road the other day and wondered whether Freshview had done them.  Waste of time considering how tatty that street is.  Someone really needs to have a word with the council/shops/whoever's responsible for all the rubbish along that stretch as I reckon it's one of the filthiest side streets off Brixton Hill


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 6, 2014)

Yep, I was right

http://brixtonhill.net/tag/morrish-road/



> Now CNBC have picked up the hard work of Sulina and Morrish Road residents in their feature on ‘secret gardens’ in London. They quoted Charmian Kenner, the well-known chair of the local residents’ association: “We’ve discovered that if you put any kinds of plants or flowers on the street, this deters people from dumping rubbish. They begin to see the area in a different way. If you make the area look nice and attractive it no longer conjures up thoughts of dumping rubbish.”


----------



## shakespearegirl (Aug 6, 2014)

Somers road seems to have become a favoured dumping ground since Lambeth started charging to collect large waste


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 6, 2014)

shakespearegirl said:


> Somers road seems to have become a favoured dumping ground since Lambeth started charging to collect large waste



Renton Close (next to the Prison) and the top of Elm Park are seeing their fair share as well


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 6, 2014)

There's an evening of musical favourites from World War one on in Ruskin Park tomorrow. 

http://ow.ly/i/6thVX


----------



## buscador (Aug 6, 2014)

There's a quite nice gatefold table (containing fold-up chairs) outside c.15 Spenser Rd if anyone wants to get a wiggle on and claim it.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 6, 2014)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I saw some up Morrish Road the other day and wondered whether Freshview had done them.  Waste of time considering how tatty that street is.  Someone really needs to have a word with the council/shops/whoever's responsible for all the rubbish along that stretch as I reckon it's one of the filthiest side streets off Brixton Hill


What I want to know is how the hell someone ever got away with building that warehouse extension *on the pavement*


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 6, 2014)

Crispy said:


> What I want to know is how the hell someone ever got away with building that warehouse extension *on the pavement*



Wasn't that always there?  Was it the stables?  

Yeah, it is annoying, having to get around there.  You either have to stick to the other side of the road or walk in the road


----------



## leanderman (Aug 6, 2014)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I saw some up Morrish Road the other day and wondered whether Freshview had done them.  Waste of time considering how tatty that street is.  Someone really needs to have a word with the council/shops/whoever's responsible for all the rubbish along that stretch as I reckon it's one of the filthiest side streets off Brixton Hill



Depressing - but true. 

Which is a reason why I regularly question those who trumpet the 'community'. A lot of people don't care about where they live.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 6, 2014)

Lots of Brixton in this video and I like what they've done


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 6, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Depressing - but true.
> 
> Which is a reason why I regularly question those who trumpet the 'community'.



That's probably the Sulina Road residents.  I have a friend who lives there


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2014)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Lots of Brixton in this video and I like what they've done



I like it too although all the swearing means that it may not reach as many people as it could. I'll do my bit and give it a plug on B Buzz though!


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 6, 2014)

Walton Laundry Tuesday morning. Sad to see it go.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 6, 2014)

The "Spectra" from Mansions roof.

http://www.artangel.org.uk/


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 6, 2014)

editor said:


> I like it too although all the swearing means that it may not reach as many people as it could. I'll do my bit and give it a plug on B Buzz though!


I assume that it was the rap that they wanted to write rather than the rap that would be best for promoting the work of Kids Company. I see what you're saying of course but I think that it's really supportive and positive of Kids Company not to censor it because it may offend but just to give them a creative outlet.

You could also mention their 'see the child' campaign as they have been really trying to get more signatures and promote it so I'd bet they'd appreciate a mention


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Aug 7, 2014)

shygirl said:


> Dexter Deadwood responded to some texts I sent earlier, he says he's alright.



I'm ok and apologise for causing concern. It is a challenging year for me, the worst year of my life but i i am ok.
I think i have coped with it all very well so far apart from some drunken posts that i would have posted anyway.


----------



## Smick (Aug 7, 2014)

Crispy said:


> What I want to know is how the hell someone ever got away with building that warehouse extension *on the pavement*


 leanderman I haven't been to Water Lane in a while. Any update on the pavement obstruction?


----------



## Winot (Aug 7, 2014)

Smick said:


> leanderman I haven't been to Water Lane in a while. Any update on the pavement obstruction?



It's still there.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Aug 7, 2014)

simonSW2 said:


> While we are on the subject of Lambeth Councils notable incompetence, I received a letter from them today about the electoral roll and voter registration.
> 
> It clearly states that I am not on their open register (the commercial bit of the register which they sell to companies) and if I wish to be added (why would anyone want to be on this?) I have to contact them.
> 
> ...


 Enraged by the letter and even more enraged by the prospect of my details being sold I called the Lambeth Electoral Services office this morning. You can get confirmation that you are not and will not be put on the open register. I asked how such a letter could have been sent out and was told that the the letter comes from central government and they are required to send it out.

Better call my elderly parents - if they have received the same letter in their area it will  have them in a state.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 7, 2014)

OvalhouseDB said:


> Enraged by the letter and even more enraged by the prospect of my details being sold I called the Lambeth Electoral Services office this morning. You can get confirmation that you are not and will not be put on the open register. I asked how such a letter could have been sent out and was told that the the letter comes from central government and they are required to send it out.
> 
> Better call my elderly parents - if they have received the same letter in their area it will  have them in a state.


So shit. I read it and understood that I would not be put on the marketing list if I did nothing further so binned it. Infuriating.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 7, 2014)

OvalhouseDB said:


> Enraged by the letter and even more enraged by the prospect of my details being sold I called the Lambeth Electoral Services office this morning. You can get confirmation that you are not and will not be put on the open register. I asked how such a letter could have been sent out and was told that the the letter comes from central government and they are required to send it out.
> 
> Better call my elderly parents - if they have received the same letter in their area it will  have them in a state.


I just called, myself. Apparently there are two different letters. One for those who are already opted out - offering to opt them in. The other is to those who are not opted out already - explaining how to do so. I was already opted out.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 7, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I just called, myself. Apparently there are two different letters. One for those who are already opted out - offering to opt them in. The other is to those who are not opted out already - explaining how to do so. I was already opted out.


I'm another one who had opted out - do I need to call the buggers to remain opted out or not?


----------



## Rushy (Aug 7, 2014)

Greebo said:


> I'm another one who had opted out - do I need to call the buggers to remain opted out or not?


I was told not.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Aug 7, 2014)

I had the contradictory letter - the one that says 'to be added to the Open Register please contact us'
 then
'your name and address will be included... unless you ask for them to be removed'
and then 'you do not need to take any further action'.

But they said I was already opted out.

Do the government not have a focus group of real people to test these letters for clarity before sending out millions of them? Or even someone with common sense who can proof read and say 'this is confusing!'.


----------



## Winot (Aug 7, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I just called, myself. Apparently there are two different letters. One for those who are already opted out - offering to opt them in. The other is to those who are not opted out already - explaining how to do so. I was already opted out.



Thanks for checking - I did the same as you and binned it. Glad to hear all is OK.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 7, 2014)

OvalhouseDB said:


> I had the contradictory letter <snip> Do the government not have a focus group of real people to test these letters for clarity before sending out millions of them? Or even someone with common sense who can proof read and say 'this is confusing!'.


You know the probable answer to this: Their is nothing wrong with relying on a spell chequer, and paying staff to read (let alone think) costs extra money.


----------



## Crazy Squirrel (Aug 7, 2014)

thatguyhex said:


> Neat. Before I lived in Brixton I lived in Leytonstone, which has a South African contingent in its population, and was amused to discover that there are a couple of places named after it in South Africa too.



I was born in Newcastle, South Africa, which back then was a tiny one horse town. Practically everything there is named after places here, including a city that's called 'East London'!

When I was growing up in SA, Brixton was known for its violence and crime, and for the crack police squad based there during apartheid era SA... Die Brixton Moord en Roof Eenheid (Brixton Murder and Robbery Squad). They were disbanded in around 2002, probably because they were found to be worse criminals than the murderers and robbers. There's now a band called Die Brixton Moord en Roof Orkes.

Brixton's also known for its giant communications tower, which is pretty much the only interesting silhouette on an otherwise very bland skyline.

Apparently it's a very interesting place these days. A friend of mine from Brighton went to SA recently on holiday and stayed with friend Brixton, and yes it may have been gentrified, but now there are families (of all colours) living there peacefully, whereas 30 years ago it was a pretty scary place.


----------



## elmpp (Aug 7, 2014)

Greebo said:


> You know the probable answer to this: Their is nothing wrong with relying on a spell chequer, and paying staff to read (let alone think) costs extra money.


Spell chequer. Sorry, but classic


----------



## gaijingirl (Aug 7, 2014)

and "their" - so I think it's probably deliberate!


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 7, 2014)

My Lambeth Living letter quote of the day:

"It has been brought to my attention that you have been throwing all kinds of rubbish from your windows"

I've written back asking for clarification as to whether she actually means me, and if so whether she understands libel.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 7, 2014)

gaijingirl said:


> and "their" - so I think it's probably deliberate!


They were - my accidental typos tend to get letters in the wrong order.


----------



## Black Halo (Aug 7, 2014)

snowy_again said:


> all kinds of rubbish


All kinds? Like every single kind from sweet wrappers to containers of industrial waste? I hear they frown on that kind of thing, especially the sweet wrappers ...

I know it's an expression but they could at least make an effort to sound like professionals.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 7, 2014)

Indeed. I might just stock pile some larger things; sharks, black holes etc. to throw out in the future. 

The closing line which says;  *"If you continue with this behaviour we will be forced to take further action against you" 
*
Actually in bold was what tickled me, what are they going to do? Access my flat and batten down the windows? 

I've just got an out of office with this at the bottom too: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/EmailDisclaimer.htm which leads to a dead page on the Lambeth website.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 7, 2014)

snowy_again said:


> Indeed. I might just stock pile some larger things; sharks, black holes etc. to throw out in the future.
> 
> The closing line which says;  *"If you continue with this behaviour we will be forced to take further action against you"
> *
> ...


It seems that "vague" is their way. I received a letter last week telling me to cut back "the tree or bush overhanging the highway which is causing a nuisance within 14 days" or action would be taken. It is not an entirely unreasonable request except that there are several overhanging the highway and I wasn't sure which was causing a nuisance. They responded saying "the one overhanging your wall" - which obviously all those overhanging the highway do. I have again asked for clarification and pointed out that, as I am in a conservation area, the trees are all protected so the council requires an application to be  submitted including a specific description of proposed works to each tree, followed by a six week consultation period. Failure to do this is a criminal offence as well punishable by a £20,000 fine.  I asked whether, if I did works as requested within the 14 day deadline, they could  indemnify me from any prosecution. I've not heard back.


----------



## Winot (Aug 7, 2014)

Rushy said:


> It seems that "vague" is their way. I received a letter last week telling me to cut back *"the tree or bush overhanging the highway which is causing a nuisance within 14 days"* or action would be taken. It is not an entirely unreasonable request except that there are several overhanging the highway and I wasn't sure which was causing a nuisance. They responded saying "the one overhanging your wall" - which obviously all those overhanging the highway do. I have again asked for clarification and pointed out that, as I am in a conservation area, the trees are all protected so the council requires an application to be  submitted including a specific description of proposed works to each tree, followed by a six week consultation period. Failure to do this is a criminal offence as well punishable by a £20,000 fine.  I asked whether, if I did works as requested within the 14 day deadline, they could  indemnify me from any prosecution. I've not heard back.



You misunderstand - it's just a grammatical error.  They have been watching your trees and bushes and tracking their growth rates.  They have worked out that one of them is going to cause a nuisance within 14 days, and they want you to take pre-emptive preventative measures to ensure that nuisance doesn't happen. Now you've just got to work out which one.

All perfectly reasonable imo, don't know what you're complaining about.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 7, 2014)

Winot said:


> You misunderstand - it's just a grammatical error.  They have been watching your trees and bushes and tracking their growth rates.  They have worked out that one of them is going to cause a nuisance within 14 days, and they want you to take pre-emptive preventative measures to ensure that nuisance doesn't happen. Now you've just got to work out which one.
> 
> All perfectly reasonable imo, don't know what you're complaining about.



Admittedly I binned the letter so that blip may be my error!


----------



## shakespearegirl (Aug 7, 2014)

Did you put it in the bin? Surely it should be in the recycling


----------



## Rushy (Aug 7, 2014)

shakespearegirl said:


> Did you put it in the bin? Surely it should be in the recycling


I have three bins


----------



## thatguyhex (Aug 7, 2014)

Crazy Squirrel said:


> I was born in Newcastle, South Africa, which back then was a tiny one horse town. Practically everything there is named after places here, including a city that's called 'East London'!


Yeah. And if that wasn't confusing enough, the local football team in East London is called... Blackburn Rovers.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Aug 8, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I have three bins


----------



## boohoo (Aug 8, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> View attachment 59219



did Rushy grow a hipster beard?


----------



## boohoo (Aug 8, 2014)

BTW I was on the radio on Tuesday talking about murals - listen from the 1hr:30min mark.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p023f8f0


----------



## Rushy (Aug 8, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> View attachment 59219


You have coincidentally posted this on the day I dismantled a row of three compost bins almost like those,  which I built out of pallets more than 10yrs ago. They have rotted through and become part of the compost. I felt unexpectedly sentimental. So much has happened and changed since then (mostly wrinkles).

(Those three were not included in my bin count!)


----------



## Rushy (Aug 8, 2014)

boohoo said:


> did Rushy grow a hipster beard?


Not likely - my not very hairy genes protected me from any temptation to join the hipster revolution.


----------



## colacubes (Aug 8, 2014)

(((peak beard)))


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 8, 2014)

Does anyone know what happened near RVT in the early hours today, causing closure of Kennington lane and traffic chaos around Vauxhall x  for most of this morning. Think they said assault or incident on the radio this morning - does anyone know?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Aug 8, 2014)

'Early morning fight'


----------



## colacubes (Aug 9, 2014)

If you're passing by the Rec this afternoon there's people giving out free Levi Roots jerk seasoning.


----------



## xsunnysuex (Aug 9, 2014)

colacubes said:


> If you're passing by the Rec this afternoon there's people giving out free Levi Roots jerk seasoning.


And free bags of rice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> View attachment 59219



Is that a pair of secateurs in his pocket, or is he pleased to see you?


----------



## Smick (Aug 9, 2014)

colacubes said:


> If you're passing by the Rec this afternoon there's people giving out free Levi Roots jerk seasoning.


I'd rather some free Levi jeans.


----------



## Jangleballix (Aug 9, 2014)

Seen on Brixton Hill. You'd think Coke's marketing people would have thought this through.


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Aug 10, 2014)

That has got to be deliberate....


----------



## thatguyhex (Aug 10, 2014)

For lack of a dedicated "depressing rental options in Brixton" thread (or maybe reflecting my not searching hard enough for one) have a look at this turd on Railton Road. A grand a month for that. Christ.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 10, 2014)

i reckon.  and i bet even the location has been chosen deliberately - somewhere young and "fashionable" where people will get the reference and lol knowingly and thus have a positive association with the brand.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 10, 2014)

thatguyhex said:


> For lack of a dedicated "depressing rental options in Brixton" thread (or maybe reflecting my not searching hard enough for one) have a look at this turd on Railton Road. A grand a month for that. Christ.



i've lived in worse


----------



## RoyReed (Aug 10, 2014)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Wasn't that always there?  Was it the stables?
> 
> Yeah, it is annoying, having to get around there.  You either have to stick to the other side of the road or walk in the road


The stables used to be at the other end of Morrish Road, either between the Hand in Hand and what used to be Mum's Plaice (the fish and chip shop - now a pizza place?) or between Mum's Plaice and the first house - I can't remember which. They closed in about 1990 IIRC.

And the extension to the warehouse was there when I moved in to Morrish Road in 1979 (I lived diagonally opposite at 42 on the corner of Sulina Road for nearly 25 years). Not sure when it was actually built, but a lot of music videos were shot there in the 1980s.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 10, 2014)

RoyReed said:


> The stables used to be at the other end of Morrish Road, either between the Hand in Hand and what used to be Mum's Plaice (the fish and chip shop - now a pizza place?) or between Mum's Plaice and the first house - I can't remember which. They closed in about 1990 IIRC.
> 
> And the extension to the warehouse was there when I moved in to Morrish Road in 1979 (I lived diagonally opposite at 42 on the corner of Sulina Road for nearly 25 years). Not sure when it was actually built, but a lot of music videos were shot there in the 1980s.



So it's been there a fair while then.  Does seem strange why it was allowed in the first place.  Have tried looking for pics on the internet to figure out how long it's been there but gave up


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2014)

Batten down the hatches, people of Brixton.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 12, 2014)

People might be interested in this decent gallery of Black Panther pics here - some of Brixton http://libcom.org/gallery/british-black-panther-party


----------



## shakespearegirl (Aug 12, 2014)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Lots of Brixton in this video and I like what they've done




A friend of mine is the organiser, bit more background info here on how it works

http://www.shots.net/features/article/84861/ben-gregor-talks-yes-drs


----------



## Kevs (Aug 12, 2014)

I feel like a right kill joy but the noise from the lido tonight is REALLY LOUD. It's a Tuesday night, I've been up since half five, and I'm knackered. I'm gonna go over there and pop their inflatables.


----------



## editor (Aug 12, 2014)

Kevs said:


> I feel like a right kill joy but the noise from the lido tonight is REALLY LOUD. It's a Tuesday night, I've been up since half five, and I'm knackered. I'm gonna go over there and pop their inflatables.


I was hearing a bit of a racket just now. Surely it can't be them?


----------



## Kevs (Aug 12, 2014)

They just finished. It was really really loud considering how small the lido is. I wouldn't have minded at all if they gave us some advance notice, but there's a lot of families round here. Might get some kip when they've all got in their cars and gone


----------



## buscador (Aug 13, 2014)

Kevs said:


> They just finished. It was really really loud considering how small the lido is. I wouldn't have minded at all if they gave us some advance notice, but there's a lot of families round here. Might get some kip when they've all got in their cars and gone



Yes, it was loud. I was trying to do the pub quiz and was quite surprised that something was louder than the quizmaster.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 13, 2014)

The wind was coming from the west for a change, so may be that made it worse? It was loud - and much later than usual - I don't seem to hear it after 11 normally, but I think that brief rain storm delayed the film start.

I'm amazed they can get away with it what with the Friends of Brockwell bloke living right next door. Silent Cinema seems to be an easy answer. 

And for some reason at 7 pm tonight you'll hear the opening 10 seconds of Dancing Queen over and over again for about 20 minutes. I'm baffled why that's allowed too. Terrible song.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 13, 2014)

I should point out that Dancing Queen is coming from inside the lido of a Wednesday.


----------



## Kevs (Aug 13, 2014)

snowy_again said:


> I should point out that Dancing Queen is coming from inside the lido of a Wednesday.


Ha! I actually know the answer for this!

They are practising synchonised swimming.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 13, 2014)

Ta! 

Mystery partially solved - do you know why it's only for the first 5-10 seconds of the song? And where are they practising - is some of the pool closed off?


----------



## Kevs (Aug 13, 2014)

snowy_again said:


> Ta!
> 
> Mystery partially solved - do you know why it's only for the first 5-10 seconds of the song? And where are they practising - is some of the pool closed off?


now I'm beginning to sound like a nosy neighbour... but we were kicking a ball around last wednesday in the park, kept hearing it, it was driving us mad, so I rang the reception and asked if they only had the one abba song, and do they want to borrow 'abba gold' off us? I'm geussing it's a particularly tricky routine they're perfecting, I didn't enquire further.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 13, 2014)

Kevs said:


> now I'm beginning to sound like a nosy neighbour... but we were kicking a ball around last wednesday in the park, kept hearing it, it was driving us mad, so I rang the reception and asked if they only had the one abba song, and do they want to borrow 'abba gold' off us? I'm geussing it's a particularly tricky routine they're perfecting, I didn't enquire further.



Are you the one on the left or the right?


----------



## trabuquera (Aug 13, 2014)

nah, the one on the right is OBVIOUSLY Oscar Pistorius reacting to an unexpectedly harsh verdict. in the future.


----------



## buscador (Aug 13, 2014)

snowy_again said:


> Ta!
> 
> Mystery partially solved - do you know why it's only for the first 5-10 seconds of the song? And where are they practising - is some of the pool closed off?



Ms Ordinary is the resident synchro expert.


----------



## Biscuits (Aug 13, 2014)

I don't know if this link has been posted before. Its a nice succinct roundup of Lambeth pubs that are still here and those that have closed since 1983 -

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/PublicHousesinLambeth.pdf


----------



## teuchter (Aug 13, 2014)

Is anyone else finding that their Lambeth food waste bins are frequently not emptied on bin day? I'd say there's something like a 30% failure rate on mine. My neighbours likewise.


----------



## Manter (Aug 13, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Is anyone else finding that their Lambeth food waste bins are frequently not emptied on bin day? I'd say there's something like a 30% failure rate on mine. My neighbours likewise.


yes. but if you report it (you can do it online) they send them round to sort it the next day.  Surprisingly efficient and should trigger a defect resolution and cost clawback for veolia if it hits unacceptable levels, so report away


----------



## teuchter (Aug 13, 2014)

Manter said:


> yes. but if you report it (you can do it online) they send them round to sort it the next day.  Surprisingly efficient and should trigger a defect resolution and cost clawback for veolia if it hits unacceptable levels, so report away


Did that a couple of times already. I guess I just have to report every time then.

Also, two requests for recycling bags over the course of the last couple of months and still none have shown up


----------



## Manter (Aug 13, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Also, two requests for recycling bags over the course of the last couple of months and still none have shown up


Careful now.  I made a pain of myself over those and suddenly one day had 9 rolls delivered.  They all but hurled them through the front window….


----------



## T & P (Aug 13, 2014)

I ordered a roll online and was delivered a few days later.

The normal regular deliveries have significantly decreased over time in both frequency and number of rolls delivered, in my perception at least.


----------



## Manter (Aug 13, 2014)

T & P said:


> I ordered a roll online and was delivered a few days later.
> 
> The normal regular deliveries have significantly decreased over time in both frequency and number of rolls delivered, in my perception at least.


pah.  they were obviously discriminating against me. Or maybe my neighbours were nicking them.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Aug 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Is that a pair of secateurs in his pocket, or is he pleased to see you?



I have only just noticed that.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 13, 2014)

T & P said:


> I ordered a roll online and was delivered a few days later.
> 
> The normal regular deliveries have significantly decreased over time in both frequency and number of rolls delivered, in my perception at least.


It used to be that everyone seemed to have a surplus.

Those were the days of orange bags and abundance. 

Now, white bags and austerity. 

*drifts into orange bag reverie*


----------



## Boudicca (Aug 13, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> I have only just noticed that.


Dexter, you're back!  I missed you .

(and I don't even live in Brixton any more and shouldn't be reading this thread. )


----------



## leanderman (Aug 13, 2014)

T & P said:


> I ordered a roll online and was delivered a few days later.
> 
> The normal regular deliveries have significantly decreased over time in both frequency and number of rolls delivered, in my perception at least.



Both true. They do deliver. 

There's a box of the bags to the right side of the reception desk in Olive Morris House.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Aug 13, 2014)

Boudicca said:


> Dexter, you're back!  I missed you .
> 
> (and I don't even live in Brixton any more and shouldn't be reading this thread. )



I remember you, drove me home from Bromley South when you didn't have to.
I felt safe in your vehicle and admired your navigation.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 13, 2014)

I have the shrivelled remains of a roll of Old Orange bags which I save for when we have special guests in the house.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 13, 2014)

We always get our waste bin emptied and have so many bags we give them away sometimes on request! We are being super served!


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Aug 13, 2014)

.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 13, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood That's crazy - how are you meant to live?


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Aug 14, 2014)

.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 14, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> I need some paid work.
> I have been sanctioned until October 2015.
> I won multiple legal battles, they never apologised when they lost.
> The doubt no longer applies, i won nine or ten on the trot, yes i am a star.
> ...



I have been hearing that people are getting sanctioned a lot more now. Its even made the press. Its vindictive policy of this government. Really sorry to hear this.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Aug 14, 2014)

.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2014)

Blooming wet out there











http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/08/summer-downpour-soaks-brixton/


----------



## shakespearegirl (Aug 14, 2014)

Washing your car in the rain... Really not very environmentally friendly


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Aug 14, 2014)

snowy_again said:


> And for some reason at 7 pm tonight you'll hear the opening 10 seconds of Dancing Queen over and over again for about 20 minutes. I'm baffled why that's allowed too. Terrible song.



Ahem, yes, the mystery of the Dancing Queen - another Brockwell Park enigma to be filed with the lone bagpipe player who only seems to play under a full moon


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Aug 14, 2014)

shakespearegirl said:


> Washing your car in the rain... Really not very environmentally friendly


Rain isn't as wet as the water that comes out of the hose. Or at least that's what he should say to any would-be customers.


----------



## T & P (Aug 14, 2014)

shakespearegirl said:


> Washing your car in the rain... Really not very environmentally friendly


Not to mention monumentally stupid.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 14, 2014)

Ms Ordinary said:


> Ahem, yes, the mystery of the Dancing Queen - another Brockwell Park enigma to be filed with the lone bagpipe player who only seems to play under a full moon



Nah, he's been there for the last six weeks - full moon or new moon!


----------



## editor (Aug 15, 2014)

A fresh batch of Brixton (and Herne Hill) stories for discussion:

Brixton Bolt releases official video ahead of 14th September race event
Made in Lambeth back at Impact Hub Brixton to help local people access council services online
Lambeth Council plans to hand over management of the Carnegie Library in Herne Hill to local residents
Labour’s Sonia Winifred elected again in Knight’s Hill after triggering by-election following “silly mistake”


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 16, 2014)

teuchter said:


> It used to be that everyone seemed to have a surplus.
> 
> Those were the days of orange bags and abundance.
> 
> ...



I've still got some orange bags - you can have them if it will cheer you up.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 16, 2014)

Crazy Squirrel said:


> Practically everything there is named after places here, including a city that's called 'East London'!



Ha ha, that's where I'm from.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 16, 2014)

Lots going on on the pavements of Brixton as usual.

Some people from The Qur'an Project, outside phone corner, were giving away free hardback copies of the Qur'an in english - the guy asked if I was a believer and even though I said I wasn't, he still cheerfully gave me a copy.

Managed to dodge the 3 men waving rosary beads shouting "rosary beads are not a fashion accessory! they are a weapon..."
not sure what type of christians they were. Lots christians shouting as usual.

Small but well organised Palestinian protest outside M&S urging shoppers to boycott M&S.


----------



## Not a Vet (Aug 16, 2014)

So walking to the regent for a rare beer this evening, I was approached by 4, I'll be kind, hipsters. Conversation as follows: 
Them, "mate, mate"
Me, "yes?"
Them, "where's the northcote?"
Me, "err, that's in Clapham Junction, this is Brixton"
Them, "oh yah, I thought we were in Clapham North"
Me, nothing to say
Them, "ok, we just want some cigarettes"
I pointed them back to brixton town centre


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 16, 2014)

Not a Vet said:


> ....
> Me, "err, that's in Clapham Junction, this is Brixton"
> ...



Herne Hill surely?


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Herne Hill surely?


No. http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/81/8109/Northcote/Clapham_Junction


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2014)

There was awesome levels of vibrancy breaking out in the Villaaage a couple of hours ago.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 16, 2014)

editor said:


> No. http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/81/8109/Northcote/Clapham_Junction


I meant the Regent   http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/72/7278/Prince_Regent/Herne_Hill


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 17, 2014)

editor said:


> A fresh batch of Brixton (and Herne Hill) stories for discussion:
> 
> Lambeth Council plans to hand over management of the Carnegie Library in Herne Hill to local residents






> Their summer newsletter states:
> 
> “The only certainty is that the building must operate without public subsidy; so a certain amount of space will need to be offered as a high-quality rental space.”
> 
> ...



The are similarities between Camerons "Big Society" and Labours "Coop Council". Both want to offload responsibilities onto residents. It a lot to expect from people. Not only to run a library but also find the funds.


----------



## Not a Vet (Aug 17, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Herne Hill surely?


To clarify, I meant I was in Brixton when this occurred


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Aug 17, 2014)

Woke up this morning to find the bike shed in my block broken into and cleared out of all the bikes. Bolt cutters used on hefty chains and D-locks. Gutting. Moping.


----------



## colacubes (Aug 17, 2014)

Oh that's really shit   Prob worth calling the old bill as given the scale they might actually do something about it.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 17, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> The are similarities between Camerons "Big Society" and Labours "Coop Council". Both want to offload responsibilities onto residents. It a lot to expect from people. Not only to run a library but also find the funds.



This is exactly what someone on here/people were saying when the Big Society stuff was all in the news.  Hand libraries over to unqualified volunteers and when they fail use it as evidence that libraries are not needed or wanted so we can close them.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 17, 2014)

DietCokeGirl said:


> Woke up this morning to find the bike shed in my block broken into and cleared out of all the bikes. Bolt cutters used on hefty chains and D-locks. Gutting. Moping.



Really sorry to hear this.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Aug 17, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Really sorry to hear this.


Me too. I have a bike that I'm not using for next few months if you want a stop gap


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 17, 2014)

Miss-Shelf said:


> Me too. I have a bike that I'm not using for next few months if you want a stop gap



I think you mean DietCokeGirl


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Aug 17, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I think you mean DietCokeGirl


yes I do - couldn't do multi-quote on my phone


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Aug 17, 2014)

Miss-Shelf Aww, thank you, that's a really kind offer. I've just heard that the police have arrested someone and recovered some bikes, so waiting to hear on that, but I really appreciate the offer, it's made my day.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Aug 17, 2014)

nothing worse than having your bike nicked when its your transport
hope your bike is recovered but pm me if you need a bike - genuine offer its sitting in a shed feeling lonely and unloved at the moment


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 18, 2014)

editor said:


> There was awesome levels of vibrancy breaking out in the Villaaage a couple of hours ago.



if it vibrates too much the roof will fall in.

the deck shoe industry would fail overnight.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 18, 2014)

I was having a chat with one of the Brixton Village restaurant owners last week who I had not seen in a while. Unsurprisingly, they said that when they first opened most of their customers were Brixtonites but that now their customers are largely visitors with the locals staying away at peak times because it is so busy. What surprised me was that they found that they have had to change their offering as the new crowd are mostly not high spenders - the early customers spent a lot more per head.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> I've still got some orange bags - you can have them if it will cheer you up.


Thank you. However, three rolls of white bags appeared on my doorstep this morning.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 18, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I was having a chat with one of the Brixton Village restaurant owners last week who I had not seen in a while. Unsurprisingly, they said that when they first opened most of their customers were Brixtonites but that now their customers are largely visitors with the locals staying away at peak times because it is so busy. What surprised me was that they found that they have had to change their offering as the new crowd are mostly not high spenders - the early customers spent a lot more per head.



I rarely go any more, having been a regular back in the day.  The newer customers are mostly pretty young so less disposible income, probably.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 18, 2014)

Ms T said:


> I rarely go any more, having been a regular back in the day.  The newer customers are mostly pretty young so less disposible income, probably.


Aye - it would seem so.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

Compared to many of the people living in the estates opposite, I'm pretty sure the Village nu-visitors are still comparatively well off. Some of the food places are certainly priced out of reach of many. I gave up on the place ages ago.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2014)

Good to see the auto-reply function is still working.


----------



## shifting gears (Aug 18, 2014)

Tedious boring cunt.


----------



## shifting gears (Aug 18, 2014)

Yep, it's still working fine


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Good to see the auto-reply function is still working.


Thanks for reminding me how pleasant the boards have been without your negative, sneering and generally pointless comments.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 18, 2014)

The irony.

Anyway, editor what places (or prices) are you saying price people out of the village? I still think it's pretty cheap compared to a lot of places


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> The irony.
> 
> Anyway, editor what places (or prices) are you saying price people out of the village? I still think it's pretty cheap compared to a lot of places


I live in a council estate in one of London's most deprived wards. How many families do you think can afford to pay £8 for a single burger or go for flutes of champers in Champagne and Fromage?


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 18, 2014)

Alright, keep your pants on. I wouldn't have thought £8 for a meal was expensive even if you live on a council estate in one of the most deprived wards in London. The reason being you'd be hard pressed to find something cheaper wouldn't you - in a restaurant at least


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Alright, keep your pants on. I wouldn't have thought £8 for a meal was expensive even if you live on a council estate in one of the most deprived wards in London. The reason being you'd be hard pressed to find something cheaper wouldn't you - in a restaurant at least


A burger isn't what I'd call a meal. It's a snack, and Honest Foods isn't exactly what most people would describe as a restaurant either. 

If you want to compare it anything, compare it to a takeaway with seating, and there is a lot of cheaper places like that to be found in Brixton.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 18, 2014)

editor said:


> A burger isn't what I'd call a meal. It's a snack, and Honest Foods isn't exactly what most people would describe as a restaurant either.
> 
> If you want to compare it anything, compare it to a takeaway with seating, and there is a lot of cheaper places like that to be found in Brixton.



If there are a lot of cheaper places - what's the problem exactly?

ETA - their burger is plenty for a meal.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 18, 2014)

I would describe it as a restaurant and a burger and chips is what I'd call a meal. £8, therefore, is cheap for a meal in a restaurant.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Aug 18, 2014)

Seems obvious to me that if businesses are setting up, they are going to aim for the most profitable section of customers.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> I would describe it as a restaurant and a burger and chips is what I'd call a meal. £8, therefore, is cheap for a meal in a restaurant.


I don't often sit outside in the cold on a bench when I go to a restaurant, and the £8 doesn't include chips, drinks or any kind of service. Looks like you're easy to please. 

I also mentioned Champagne and Fromage when you asked about expensive outlets in the village. I can't think why you chose to ignore that one.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 18, 2014)

We've not had a good bun fight for a while.


----------



## Biscuits (Aug 18, 2014)

editor said:


> Thanks for reminding me how pleasant the boards have been without your negative, sneering and generally pointless comments.



What a hypocrite! Editor I find you to be the one who makes consistent negative and sneery remarks – your hostility towards young middle class professionals permeates pretty much everything you write!


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 18, 2014)

And an Honest burger comes with chips for free. And seating is available inside too.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

snowy_again said:


> We've not had a good bun fight for a while.


I've got better things to do now really. I've said my bit and the usual suspects have responded in the usual manner. Yawn.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 18, 2014)

It was a pun, love.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

snowy_again said:


> And an Honest burger comes with chips for free. And seating is available inside too.


LOL. Have you seen the queues?!


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

Biscuits said:


> What a hypocrite! Editor I find you to be the one who makes consistent negative and sneery remarks – your hostility towards young middle class professionals permeates pretty much everything you write!


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

snowy_again said:


> It was a pun, love.


That's OK deary.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 18, 2014)

Not lately - I've not been in for a while but had a good gelato on Saturday and bought some records off Claudia whilst buying some cheap washing up liquid and some bin bags. 

And isn't there some sort of queue app anyway? 

(ps. my deja vu-ometer is having a moment - is it the timetabled Brixton Village conversation date for the month?)


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

snowy_again said:


> And isn't there some sort of queue app anyway?


Just to give a little reminder of how the other half live: when I was at the first residents' group meeting for the block opposite I was enthusiastically banging on about how a website would really help communications - but then it was pointed out to me that most of the people in the room weren't even connected to the web,  and I was the only one with a smartphone. 

So I'm guessing a queue app wouldn't be much benefit for some of the local residents anyway.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 18, 2014)

editor said:


> Just to give a little reminder of how the other half live: when I was at the first residents' group meeting for the block opposite I was enthusiastically banging on about how a website would really help communications - but then it was pointed out to me that most of the people in the room weren't even connected to the web,  and I was the only one with a smartphone.
> 
> So I'm guessing a queue app wouldn't be much benefit for some of the local residents anyway.


You don't need a smartphone. Just a mobile.It does not even need any credit on it.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 18, 2014)

editor said:


> I also mentioned Champagne and Fromage when you asked about expensive outlets in the village. I can't think why you chose to ignore that one.



Because I've never been there so don't know whether it's cheap or not. As I've been to Honest, I used that as the baseline for what you consider expensive - I assumed as you lumped them together in the same sentence they were of comparable price. Apologies


----------



## boohoo (Aug 18, 2014)

The food in the village is a lot cheaper and better quality than going for a meal in Crystal Palace and many of the surround areas of Brixton.

If Brixton village wasn't full of food places and boutiques, what's the alternative? Because if you have no money to spend, then it doesn't matter what the shops are.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Because I've never been there so don't know whether it's cheap or not. As I've been to Honest, I used that as the baseline for what you consider expensive - I assumed as you lumped them together in the same sentence they were of comparable price. Apologies


I didn't say it was "expensive". I said it was priced out of the reach for some locals, something I know to be true because they've told me.

I don't know anyone from my estate who has ever been to Champagne & Fromage.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 18, 2014)

editor said:


> Just to give a little reminder of how the other half live: when I was at the first residents' group meeting for the block opposite I was enthusiastically banging on about how a website would really help communications - but then it was pointed out to me that most of the people in the room weren't even connected to the web,  and I was the only one with a smartphone.
> 
> So I'm guessing a queue app wouldn't be much benefit for some of the local residents anyway.



Um, I have a brick nokia that doesn't even have a colour screen, so I'm hardly surfing the wave of early adoption. 

I found that speaking to the staff politely meant that they'd tend to say 'come back in 20 minutes and I'll get you a table inside'.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 18, 2014)

editor said:


> I didn't say it was "expensive". I said it was priced out of the reach for some locals, something I know to be true because they've told me.
> 
> I don't know anyone from my estate who has ever been to Champagne & Fromage.



I know people who can't afford to go out for a pint in a pub - they'll have a can at home instead. What's your point?


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 18, 2014)

Loved Brixton Village when I visited recently, well a few months ago, eat at a Mexican there - Jiscos or something? £7 or for a huge taco and a drink. I reckon good quality food can't be made available by independent restaurants for cheaper if they want to stay in business.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I know people who can't afford to go out for a pint in a pub - they'll have a can at home instead. What's your point?


Oh, if you're just going to strip all context from the discussion, I'll just leave it then.


----------



## T & P (Aug 18, 2014)

editor said:


> I didn't say it was "expensive". I said it was priced out of the reach for some locals, something I know to be true because they've told me.
> 
> I don't know anyone from my estate who has ever been to Champagne & Fromage.


C&F is but one establishment in the Village, Editor- it is hardly fair to accuse the entire market of being out of reach for many locals because of one business within.


First you complain that food it is expensive. When it is pointed out to you that £8 is pretty good value for a meal, you suggest it is just a burger with no chips. When it is pointed out that it does in fact come with chips and it is by all means a meal, you move on and complain about the queues. When someone mentions that Honest Burgers has an app to tackle that issue, you then say that a lot of the poorer locals don't have an internet connection. When someone else points out that all is needed is a smartphone, you abandon Honest Burgers as a target altogether and name-drop C&F. I mean, really?


It is very clear to everyone who reads this forum that you don't like the Village. That is absolutely fine. But it is nonsensical to use the argument that many locals are priced out of it as an attempt to criticise and discredit the place. If they are, then they must also priced out of all of Brixton. There are plenty of businesses in the Village that offer reasonably priced meals, and more to the point, in line with, if not fucking cheaper than, the overwhelming majority of restaurants and eateries outside the Village.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 18, 2014)

If on the rare occasion I eat out (it is usually only on a special occasion) - I wouldn't go anywhere:

that you have to queue
that didn't have toilet (yes I know they have public ones now for 30p)

that there a pigeons flying about overhead
that is full of braying tourists

called Champagne & Fromage 
So I won't be going to the Villaage, no matter how tasty or 'cheap' it is. But hey good luck to the restranteurs if they can make a living out of it. 
I just don't want it to price all the market stall holders, who sell great cheap food and useful stuff, out of business.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

T & P said:


> First you complain that food it is expensive. When it is pointed out to you that £8 is pretty good value for a meal, you suggest it is just a burger with no chips.


An £8 burger may represent 'good value' in your comfortable world, but are you _really _unable to see that it's not the same for everyone? There are a huge amount of people receiving benefits on my estate. £8 is a lot of money to them.

Do you really think families in the estate opposite can easily shell out that kind of money for a _burger? _


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

T & P said:


> But it is nonsensical to use the argument that many locals are priced out of it as an attempt to criticise and discredit the place. If they are, then they must also priced out of all of Brixton.


That is utter nonsense, by the way.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 18, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I know people who can't afford to go out for a pint in a pub - they'll have a can at home instead. What's your point?



But it's no fun drinking at home - we need to get out more!

I've got a terrible sense of deja vu - or did someone else just say that ....


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Aug 18, 2014)

I doubt a meal out of any kind is a consideration for a lot of the residents, not because they wouldn't like it but because it's a struggle enough to pay rent, bills, buy new school shoes, whatever.

Editor, or anyone else who cares to jump in, a genuine question: What do you suggest be done? Should the restaurants do a local-resident concession? Donate more to the Brixton foodbank, or soup kitchen, as several already do? Offer more apprenticeships, perhaps limit them to applicants from the estate?


----------



## Rushy (Aug 18, 2014)

editor said:


> An £8 burger may represent 'good value' in your comfortable world, but are you _really _unable to see that it's not the same for everyone? There are a huge amount of people receiving benefits on my estate. £8 is a lot of money to them.
> 
> Do you really think families in the estate opposite can easily shell out that kind of money for a _burger? _


Some can. Some can't. Not everyone lucky enough to have a home on a decent estate is on the breadline. What's your point?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 18, 2014)

I've got a terrible sense of deja vu - or did someone else just say that ....


----------



## Rushy (Aug 18, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> I've got a terrible sense of deja vu - or did someone else just say that ....


Now it's deja vu vu.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

Fuck me. This is like arguing with an infant.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

DietCokeGirl said:


> Editor, or anyone else who cares to jump in, a genuine question: What do you suggest be done? Should the restaurants do a local-resident concession? Donate more to the Brixton foodbank, or soup kitchen, as several already do? Offer more apprenticeships, perhaps limit them to applicants from the estate?


I don't think anyone can argue that that the lines of inequality aren't growing wider and wider in Brixton, and ultimately that's something  that the council has to take a lot of the blame for. I don't have much hope that anything will change as I can't imagine the Village suddenly turning all philanthropic any time soon.

A few businesses have got involved with local ventures like the Soup Kitchen, but I don't see many.


----------



## gabi (Aug 18, 2014)

editor said:


> An £8 burger may represent 'good value' in your comfortable world, but are you _really _unable to see that it's not the same for everyone? There are a huge amount of people receiving benefits on my estate. £8 is a lot of money to them.
> 
> Do you really think families in the estate opposite can easily shell out that kind of money for a _burger? _



Didn't you design the site, or even the menu I think for the lounge? 7.50 for a burger.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...xsb3VuZ2Vicml4dG9ufGd4OjM4NTI5ZTYxYThkNjI0ZmI


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 18, 2014)

editor said:


> An £8 burger may represent 'good value' in your comfortable world, but are you _really _unable to see that it's not the same for everyone? There are a huge amount of people receiving benefits on my estate. £8 is a lot of money to them.
> 
> Do you really think families in the estate opposite can easily shell out that kind of money for a _burger? _



Do you really think everyone can easily shell out the money you do for the things you like? 

Plenty of people can't afford to eat out or drink in pubs, full stop, so where are your sneery posts about the Albert, Sem or Kaff, or European train operators for that matter,  offering goods and services that not all can afford?


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

gabi said:


> Didn't you design the site, or even the menu I think for the lounge? 7.50 for a burger.


No, you're not seriously bringing this up again are you? That is hilarious.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

quimcunx said:


> Do you really think everyone can easily shell out the money you do for the things you like?
> 
> Plenty of people can't afford to eat out or drink in pubs, full stop, so where are your sneery posts about the Albert, Sem or Kaff, or European train operators for that matter,  offering goods and services that not all can afford?


I'm entitled to my opinion on the changes that the Brixton Village has brought to Brixton. Sorry if they're not unendingly positive or they attempt to view it through the eyes of others.

I'm also struggling to see why you've just mentioned a list of some of the cheapest places in Brixton, or what 'European train operators' have to do with the discussion, unless you're going for the ad homimen approach.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 18, 2014)

editor said:


> I'm entitled to my opinion on the changes that the Brixton Village has brought to Brixton. Sorry if they're not unendingly positive or they attempt to view it through the eyes of others.
> 
> I'm also struggling to see why you've *just mentioned a list of some of the cheapest places in Brixton*, or what 'European train operators' have to do with the discussion, unless you're going for the ad homimen approach.



Cheap to you.  To some people they are too expensive.  The point is you don't like the village but you do like European train travel and your argument seems to be based on what you like or don't like rather than what is affordable to who.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 18, 2014)

Does anyone know was there a fire in M&S today - heard alarms and saw people out on the pavement and engines turn up. Real fire?


----------



## colacubes (Aug 18, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Does anyone know was there a fire in M&S today - heard alarms and saw people out on the pavement and engines turn up. Real fire?



What time?  I was in there about an hour ago and saw no evidence of any fire.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 18, 2014)

Quiet friendofdorothy you're obstructing my view of the argument


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

quimcunx said:


> Cheap to you.  To some people they are too expensive.  The point is you don't like the village but you do like European train travel and your argument seems to be based on what you like or don't like rather than what is affordable to who.


Ah, so you are going for the old ad hominem approach, even if it a particularly confused one. I'll leave you to it before it goes even more off topic/weird.


----------



## T & P (Aug 18, 2014)

editor said:


> An £8 burger may represent 'good value' in your comfortable world, but are you _really _unable to see that it's not the same for everyone? There are a huge amount of people receiving benefits on my estate. £8 is a lot of money to them.
> 
> Do you really think families in the estate opposite can easily shell out that kind of money for a _burger? _


It still constitutes a _meal_. A meal out in a restaurant. Point being, restaurants in the Village are on the whole NOT more expensive than restaurants outside the Village, which is what your last few posts appear to imply.


----------



## T & P (Aug 18, 2014)

editor said:


> I don't think anyone can argue that that the lines of inequality aren't growing wider and wider in Brixton, and ultimately that's something  that the council has to take a lot of the blame for. I don't have much hope that anything will change as I can't imagine the Village suddenly turning all philanthropic any time soon.


 And do you think the many Brixton restaurants _outside_ the Village would be any different, or more philanthropic?


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

T & P said:


> It still constitutes a _meal_. A meal out in a restaurant. Point being, restaurants in the Village are on the whole NOT more expensive than restaurants outside the Village, which is what your last few posts appear to imply.


I actually said that they are priced out of the reach of many of the people living opposite. Feel free to argue that point if you like.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 18, 2014)

snowy_again said:


> We've not had a good bun fight for a while.


Brioche, surely


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

T & P said:


> And do you think the many Brixton restaurants _outside_ the Village would be any different, or more philanthropic?


I've no real idea (although I know a few who have always been quick to support local ventures), but the village is slightly different on account of the endless publicity and immense trade that it seems to enjoy.


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 18, 2014)

I think if you're priced out of the village you are priced out of everywhere unfortunately. You can mention the champagne place where lots of people would be priced out of but there was a place where you can get a taco for a quid. So very few people are priced out of the Village as a whole I would say.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 18, 2014)

editor said:


> Ah, so you are going for the old ad hominem approach, even if it a particularly confused one. I'll leave you to it before it goes even more off topic/weird.



You say the places there are too expensive for many on your estate.  That is your argument. I say other places are also out of their reach even if you consider them sufficiently cheap and good value. 



editor said:


> I actually said that they are priced out of the reach of many of the people living opposite. Feel free to argue that point if you like.



As are other place that you are not sneery about.  It's not difficult.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 18, 2014)

DietCokeGirl said:


> I doubt a meal out of any kind is a consideration for a lot of the residents, not because they wouldn't like it but because it's a struggle enough to pay rent, bills, buy new school shoes, whatever.
> 
> Editor, or anyone else who cares to jump in, a genuine question: What do you suggest be done? Should the restaurants do a local-resident concession? Donate more to the Brixton foodbank, or soup kitchen, as several already do? Offer more apprenticeships, perhaps limit them to applicants from the estate?



I would be interested to know if those who receive some kind of benefit never go out to eat at a restaurant at some point. There are lots of factors outside of finances that could come into it, such as caring for dependents who can't get out of the house but taking that factor out, are there not moments when family members or friends take you out for a treat? I know when I was unemployed this happened on occasion.

I think the answer to your question is to talk to those on the estate about what they want and need - do they go out to eat? What do they eat if they do? If they don't, what stops them? What would they like to see that would improve their quality of life? Do they think the Village could do more to invest with the local people who live on the estate?


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 18, 2014)

On a more positive note, Hustlebucks seemed to be trading well.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 18, 2014)

I think a lot of people on a tight budget eat out at McDonalds, which is equally disapproved of.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 18, 2014)

I feel we've reached a natural break in proceedings. To sum up, I think we are near unanimously agreed the Village contains many outlets largely described as restaurants, one can indeed get a "meal" in them, and a charge of £8 is not unreasonable. Oh, and editor hates it


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 18, 2014)

"Peak Hipster"?


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 18, 2014)

What's a peak hipster?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2014)

Well, I'm glad we eventually got around to discussing this issue, and bringing some new perspectives into the conversation.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 18, 2014)

It made for decent entertainment whilst I navigated two mobile networks, Samsung technical, Carphonewarehouse and the company who sold me my brand new phone a year ago, trying to find out who Anna Palladino is, why she is recorded as the owner against my IMEI and why she reported it stolen to T Mobile yesterday - who are not my carrier - thus bricking my phone. Oh - and what the fuck I can do about it (apparently not a lot at the moment).

Last time I listen to anyone who tells me to chuck all those empty boxes away!


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2014)

Ms T said:


> I think a lot of people on a tight budget eat out at McDonalds, which is equally disapproved of.


I haven't got a problem with families on a budget eating at McDonalds. If you've got kids there aren't many cheap places you can go for a family meal.

I'l never go there myself, mind.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 18, 2014)

McDonalds is not that cheap - happy meal is £2.50 and adult burger meal is £5 plus  - A greasy spoon gives better value.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 18, 2014)

editor said:


> the lines of inequality aren't growing wider and wider in Brixton, and ultimately that's something  that the council has to take a lot of the blame for.



A lot less than a lot, I reckon. 

Growing inequality/gentrification etc is London-wide. International even.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 18, 2014)

boohoo said:


> McDonalds is not that cheap - happy meal is £2.50 and adult burger meal is £5 plus  .



Exactly: Honest Burger is probably cheaper, ounce for ounce, than McDonalds.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 18, 2014)

I'm always surprised how expensive McDonalds is. I just got back from a quick trip abroad and had to go to Burger King before grabbing the train home - €7 or €8 on a meal. Seemed a lot


----------



## T & P (Aug 18, 2014)

They're certainly no cheap, and given the quality, terrible value for money. And at train stations and motorway service stations, they're probably more expensive ounce for ounce than Gordon fucking Ramsey


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 18, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Quiet friendofdorothy you're obstructing my view of the argument


Move along now. Nothing to see.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 18, 2014)

Rushy said:


> It made for decent entertainment whilst I navigated two mobile networks, Samsung technical, Carphonewarehouse and the company who sold me my brand new phone a year ago, trying to find out who Anna Palladino is, why she is recorded as the owner against my IMEI and why she reported it stolen to T Mobile yesterday - who are not my carrier - thus bricking my phone. Oh - and what the fuck I can do about it (apparently not a lot at the moment).
> 
> Last time I listen to anyone who tells me to chuck all those empty boxes away!



I'm sure that was the name I saw on some post about 6 months or so ago - of someone trying to register for a National Ins number at my address, I was a bit worried my address was going to be used for some sort of scam. Now I think about it I think that was the name but I'm not sure. I recall thinking it sounds like a nom-de-plume


----------



## leanderman (Aug 19, 2014)

Rushy said:


> It made for decent entertainment whilst I navigated two mobile networks, Samsung technical, Carphonewarehouse and the company who sold me my brand new phone a year ago, trying to find out who Anna Palladino is, why she is recorded as the owner against my IMEI and why she reported it stolen to T Mobile yesterday - who are not my carrier - thus bricking my phone. Oh - and what the fuck I can do about it (apparently not a lot at the moment).
> 
> Last time I listen to anyone who tells me to chuck all those empty boxes away!



Someone cracked my identity, ordered two new phones and intercepted the delivery man to steal them. 

Much more cautious now with paperwork. 

Twice, identity thieves have been spotted stealing bin bags from this road on the night before waste collection.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 19, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'm sure that was the name I saw on some post about 6 months or so ago - of someone trying to register for a National Ins number at my address, I was a bit worried my address was going to be used for some sort of scam. Now I think about it I think that was the name but I'm not sure. I recall thinking it sounds like a nom-de-plume



They've probably altered your title deeds and now own your house!


----------



## Rushy (Aug 19, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Someone cracked my identity, ordered two new phones and intercepted the delivery man to steal them.
> 
> Much more cautious now with paperwork.
> 
> Twice, identity thieves have been spotted stealing bin bags from this road on the night before waste collection.


I don't think it's that. Either I was sold an unused returned phone in registered someone else's name - and then they have lost their new phone and blocked the wrong one - or it is a registration error somewhere. I've had the phone since new and been using it for almost a year.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 19, 2014)

leanderman said:


> They've probably altered your title deeds and now own your house!


I don't think Mr Huge Mortgage Company would let them do that!


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 19, 2014)

https://www.google.com/search?q=Anna+Palladino+

very common name.  I've messaged them all with accusations of theft and heresy.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

Lordy. Cash from chaos! Expensive fashion label serves up a collection themed on the 1981 Brixton riots.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 19, 2014)

T & P said:


> They're certainly no cheap, and given the quality, terrible value for money. And at train stations and motorway service stations, they're probably more expensive ounce for ounce than Gordon fucking Ramsey


Nah McDonalds is lush.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2014)

Biscuits said:


> What a hypocrite! Editor I find you to be the one who makes consistent negative and sneery remarks – your hostility towards young middle class professionals permeates pretty much everything you write!



Says a supposedly new member. 
And the antipathy tends to be toward the gentrification effect, not the individuals that drive it.

Anyway, "no war but the class war"!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2014)

shakespearegirl said:


> Seems obvious to me that if businesses are setting up, they are going to aim for the most profitable section of customers.



Yup.
Unfortunately for the businesses, they don't always get what they want, though!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2014)

T & P said:


> C&F is but one establishment in the Village, Editor- it is hardly fair to accuse the entire market of being out of reach for many locals because of one business within.
> 
> 
> First you complain that food it is expensive. When it is pointed out to you that £8 is pretty good value for a meal, you suggest it is just a burger with no chips. When it is pointed out that it does in fact come with chips and it is by all means a meal, you move on and complain about the queues. When someone mentions that Honest Burgers has an app to tackle that issue, you then say that a lot of the poorer locals don't have an internet connection. When someone else points out that all is needed is a smartphone, you abandon Honest Burgers as a target altogether and name-drop C&F. I mean, really?
> ...



"Reasonably-priced" is pretty much dependent on what you earn, which is why the chicken shops do so well. Frankly, £8 for a burger and chips is about £3 too expensive for me.  People shouldn't assume that because £8 is "reasonable" to them, that it's reasonable for everyone.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2014)

DietCokeGirl said:


> I doubt a meal out of any kind is a consideration for a lot of the residents, not because they wouldn't like it but because it's a struggle enough to pay rent, bills, buy new school shoes, whatever.
> 
> Editor, or anyone else who cares to jump in, a genuine question: What do you suggest be done? Should the restaurants do a local-resident concession? Donate more to the Brixton foodbank, or soup kitchen, as several already do? Offer more apprenticeships, perhaps limit them to applicants from the estate?



I think that all the above ideas are sound, but there's one big bloke to any of them being realised - the fact that the company that rents out the units is constantly looking to maximise returns, and has a history of putting rents up as the area becomes more popular, which makes it harder for many of those businesses to operate at a profit.  That's a problem long(er) leases would solve, but I can't see it happening.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2014)

Dan U said:


> Brioche, surely



Francophile wanker!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2014)

Rushy said:


> It made for decent entertainment whilst I navigated two mobile networks, Samsung technical, Carphonewarehouse and the company who sold me my brand new phone a year ago, trying to find out who Anna Palladino is, why she is recorded as the owner against my IMEI and why she reported it stolen to T Mobile yesterday - who are not my carrier - thus bricking my phone. Oh - and what the fuck I can do about it (apparently not a lot at the moment).
> 
> Last time I listen to anyone who tells me to chuck all those empty boxes away!



The solution is to just tear the end flap with the barcode/IMEI no. off of the box, and bin the rest.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2014)

leanderman said:


> A lot less than a lot, I reckon.
> 
> Growing inequality/gentrification etc is London-wide. International even.



Of course it is. It's certainly a problem in many European cities, and in the more geographically-constrained American cities.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Exactly: Honest Burger is probably cheaper, ounce for ounce, than McDonalds.



Bear in mind too, though, the difference in comfort a person who's used to shopping in McDs might feel in going to somewhere like Honest Burger (a horrible name that makes me think of dishonest Aldermen!).


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bear in mind too, though, the difference in comfort a person who's used to shopping in McDs might feel in going to somewhere like Honest Burger (a horrible name that makes me think of dishonest Aldermen!).


I loathe McDs but they're a lot more family friendly (and cheaper) than Honest Burgers. Families like to sit around a table not queue outside or sit/stand separately.


----------



## elmpp (Aug 19, 2014)

editor said:


> I loathe McDs but they're a lot more family friendly (and cheaper) than Honest Burgers. Families like to sit around a table not queue outside or sit/stand separately.


Double yawn


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 19, 2014)

Wrong thread


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 19, 2014)

leanderman said:


> They've probably altered your title deeds and now own your house!



I wonder if she could come round and sort out the damp in the hall then.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 19, 2014)

DietCokeGirl said:


> I doubt a meal out of any kind is a consideration for a lot of the residents, not because they wouldn't like it but because it's a struggle enough to pay rent, bills, buy new school shoes, whatever.
> 
> Editor, or anyone else who cares to jump in, a genuine question: What do you suggest be done? Should the restaurants do a local-resident concession? Donate more to the Brixton foodbank, or soup kitchen, as several already do? Offer more apprenticeships, perhaps limit them to applicants from the estate?



There are cheap places on Brixton Station road. The Portuguese cafe does really cheap beers. They also are tolerant of people staying in there for hours watching the sport and not buying that much. The Cafe Rio and the Eritrean internet cafe is cheap. I also like the atmosphere there. More my kind of place than Brixton Village.  This stretch of affordable places is under threat. Most are on short leases. If that area is redeveloped as being planned now I guess Network Rail will try to make it more upmarket and profitable for them.

I agree a meal out is beyond the consideration of a lot of people. That includes those who are working. Its not just about those on benefits.

Its also a difference of culture. I told the Portuguese cafe that there beer was good and cheap. They looked surprised. Its normal in Mediterranean countries to go to a cafe for an expresso or a drink. Its nothing special. Its being social. Here part of the problem is that drink and food are made upmarket and have an added premium put on them. Its marketed as an experience not just about sociability.

What should be done? A move away from profit centred culture where everything has to marketed. Its a vicious spiral. At every stage a profit is sought. This in the end does not help the average person.

Secondly I was chatting to local long standing business. He said he has seen at different times how Brixton, or bits of it , have become fashionable. He does not reckon the Brixton Village phenomenon will last. Its a fad that the media will leave to move on elsewhere. So he , in that sense , did not think everyone will all be priced out. It will not last in long term.

Thirdly it should be possible to protect markets like Brixton Village through planning. In other European countries like France you cannot just turn a retail unit into restaurant. Stopping owners putting up leases and giving protection to retail/cafe leaseholders would help to keep costs down that inevitably get passed onto those who use them.


----------



## mxh (Aug 19, 2014)

Not tried that Portuguese café, but tried some on Stockwell Park Road again good value and able to watch the sport with a drink.


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2014)

elmpp said:


> Double yawn


Spit something intelligent out or zip it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 20, 2014)

elmpp said:


> Double yawn



If you're that tired and/or bored, why not go to bed?


----------



## clandestino (Aug 20, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Secondly I was chatting to local long standing business. He said he has seen at different times how Brixton, or bits of it , have become fashionable. He does not reckon the Brixton Village phenomenon will last. Its a fad that the media will leave to move on elsewhere. So he , in that sense , did not think everyone will all be priced out. It will not last in long term.



I don't think he's right sadly. I think the "secret" that Brixton is affordable, central and an interesting/enjoyable place to live is now out, the genie has been let out of the bottle, and that's something that can't be reversed. Compared to much more expensive places in north London, Brixton is very central and on the tube, but previously people didn't come to live here because they thought they'd be putting their lives at risk. Brixton Village has shown a demographic that was previously scared of Brixton that there's nothing to be scared of after all, and that you can (still) get more for your money here than somewhere comparable north of the river. There's no going back from that.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 20, 2014)

clandestino said:


> I don't think he's right sadly. I think the "secret" that Brixton is affordable, central and an interesting/enjoyable place to live is now out, the genie has been let out of the bottle, and that's something that can't be reversed. Compared to much more expensive places in north London, Brixton is very central and on the tube, but previously people didn't come to live here because they thought they'd be putting their lives at risk. Brixton Village has shown a demographic that was previously scared of Brixton that there's nothing to be scared of after all, and that you can (still) get more for your money here than somewhere comparable north of the river. There's no going back from that.



I tend to agree. But I thought his view was interesting angle. He also said that what attracts people here will be lost as Brindisi , Champagne et Fromage type business increase. He also was scathing about the wine bar in Atlantic road.  ( I mention this as some who post here think that its only some Urbanites who go on about this. Its not. )So this will lead to Brixton becoming less popular again. He was more optimistic that Brixton will remain, or rather parts of it, affordable. 

He also does not trust a Labour Council to keep Brixton affordable. Pretty common comment i hear around Brixton.


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> He also was scathing about the wine bar in Atlantic road.


That would be the first on my list to go.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 20, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I tend to agree. But I thought his view was interesting angle. He also said that what attracts people here will be lost as Brindisi , Champagne et Fromage type business increase. He also was scathing about the wine bar in Atlantic road.  ( I mention this as some who post here think that its only some Urbanites who go on about this. Its not. )So this will lead to Brixton becoming less popular again. He was more optimistic that Brixton will remain, or rather parts of it, affordable.


 
The large chains will make the place less interesting for those who are seeking a point of difference. However to those who were scared of Brixton and now aren't, a few chain restaurants won't make a difference.

Went down Reliance arcade today -that looked the same.  Quite surprised how many shops had changed on market row since last time I was down there - some of these food places clearly aren't doing as well as others. 

I'm not sure any areas in London will remain affordable.


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2014)

boohoo said:


> The large chains will make the place less interesting for those who are seeking a point of difference. However to those who were scared of Brixton and now aren't, a few chain restaurants won't make a difference.
> 
> Went down Reliance arcade today -that looked the same.  Quite surprised how many shops had changed on market row since last time I was down there - some of these food places clearly aren't doing as well as others.
> 
> I'm not sure any areas in London will remain affordable.


I don't think it's the big chains that will fuck over what's left of the character if Brixton - it'll be the media savvy, social-network-aware quasi-'independents' like Brindisa (turnover in 2003: £10m).


----------



## editor (Aug 21, 2014)

The reggae bar I don't want to name has got busier and busier and it was rammed tonight. And it was brilliant!


----------



## Ms T (Aug 21, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I tend to agree. But I thought his view was interesting angle. He also said that what attracts people here will be lost as Brindisi , Champagne et Fromage type business increase. He also was scathing about the wine bar in Atlantic road.  ( I mention this as some who post here think that its only some Urbanites who go on about this. Its not. )So this will lead to Brixton becoming less popular again. He was more optimistic that Brixton will remain, or rather parts of it, affordable.
> 
> He also does not trust a Labour Council to keep Brixton affordable. Pretty common comment i hear around Brixton.





editor said:


> That would be the first on my list to go.


I'm not sure why. It's run by a lady from Streatham who also runs the bar in the Hideaway.  She's very nice and they know their wine.


----------



## elmpp (Aug 21, 2014)

editor said:


> I don't think it's the big chains that will fuck over what's left of the character if Brixton - it'll be the media savvy, social-network-aware quasi-'independents' like Brindisa (turnover in 2003: £10m).



God forbid the use of media to promote a business in the digital age. 

Can't help to see you list a good proportion of the village restaurants on your own brixtonbuzz listings site (http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/the-ulti...he-best-restaurants-and-cafes-in-sw2-and-sw9/). 

How does that tally and wouldn't it just contribute to the fucking over of Brixton's character?


----------



## Rushy (Aug 21, 2014)

Ms T said:


> I'm not sure why. It's run by a lady from Streatham who also runs the bar in the Hideaway.  She's very nice and they know their wine.


I'm generally suspicious of anyone who chooses to live in Streatham.


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 21, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I'm generally suspicious of anyone who chooses to live in Streatham.


People _choose_ to live in Streatham?? 

I always assumed they had no choice in the matter...


----------



## editor (Aug 21, 2014)

elmpp said:


> God forbid the use of media to promote a business in the digital age.
> 
> Can't help to see you list a good proportion of the village restaurants on your own brixtonbuzz listings site (http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/the-ulti...he-best-restaurants-and-cafes-in-sw2-and-sw9/).
> 
> How does that tally and wouldn't it just contribute to the fucking over of Brixton's character?


Ah right. So it's actually a left-leaning non-profit site that's contributing to the problems. Thanks for clearing that one up.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 21, 2014)

Kevs said:


> now I'm beginning to sound like a nosy neighbour... but we were kicking a ball around last wednesday in the park, kept hearing it, it was driving us mad, so I rang the reception and asked if they only had the one abba song, and do they want to borrow 'abba gold' off us? I'm geussing it's a particularly tricky routine they're perfecting, I didn't enquire further.



So Abba was there again last night - although this time slightly earlier and slightly quieter.

I think I also saw Dexter doing laps of the park on a bike?


----------



## elmpp (Aug 21, 2014)

editor said:


> Ah right. So it's actually a left-leaning non-profit site that's contributing to the problems. Thanks for clearing that one up.



Yes, directly contributing. I don't need to explain the mechanics of web traffic and SEO to a webmaster.

The constant negative comments about the villlaaaaage (and particularly its visitors) just grate so. At the very least you should acknowledge it as a complex, varied argument in which we're all involved to some extent (and running a left-right-central site that publicises said businesses certainly qualifies) and tone it down?


----------



## editor (Aug 21, 2014)

elmpp said:


> Yes, directly contributing. I don't need to explain the mechanics of web traffic and SEO to a webmaster.
> 
> The constant negative comments about the villlaaaaage (and particularly its visitors) just grate so. At the very least you should acknowledge it as a complex, varied argument in which we're all involved to some extent (and running a left-right-central site that publicises said businesses certainly qualifies) and tone it down?


As a local resident who is seeing the impact of the village on my own community I have every right to hold whatever opinion I like, thanks.

I find it hard to find much positive to say abut the place these days. I believe it's been one of the biggest drivers of gentrification (and, in turn, a contributor to the displacement of long standing communities) in Brixton, and much as I supported it when it first opened, I don't like what it's become now.

That's not to say I dislike every business in the place because I don't, but if you talk to some of the people on my estate, you'll find they pretty much say the same as me. Some go a lot further, in fact.

As a whole, I avoid the place, although it's often hard to avoid _it_, what with all those twats using the green space outside my block as a toilet.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 21, 2014)

The village is a symptom, not a cause. The causes of Brixton's gentrification are this:

 

And this:


----------



## elmpp (Aug 21, 2014)

editor said:


> As a local resident who is seeing the impact of the village on my own community I have every right to hold whatever opinion I like, thanks.
> 
> I find it hard to find much positive to say abut the place these days. I believe it's been one of the biggest drivers of gentrification (and, in turn, a contributor to the displacement of long standing communities) in Brixton, and much as I supported it when it first opened, I don't like what it's become now.
> 
> ...



You're repeating yourself. 

Why publicise said businesses then?


----------



## leanderman (Aug 21, 2014)

editor said:


> The reggae bar I don't want to name has got busier and busier and it was rammed tonight. And it was brilliant!



Lots of people, even past 1am.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 21, 2014)

Crispy said:


> The village is a symptom, not a cause. The causes of Brixton's gentrification are this:
> 
> View attachment 59884
> 
> ...



Exactly. It's basically population growth. 

London has 1.3 per cent more people than a year ago, according to the ONS. That is extraordinary.


----------



## editor (Aug 21, 2014)

Not all population growth comes pre-loaded with gentrification though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I tend to agree. But I thought his view was interesting angle. He also said that what attracts people here will be lost as Brindisi , Champagne et Fromage type business increase. He also was scathing about the wine bar in Atlantic road.  ( I mention this as some who post here think that its only some Urbanites who go on about this. Its not. )So this will lead to Brixton becoming less popular again. He was more optimistic that Brixton will remain, or rather parts of it, affordable.
> 
> He also does not trust a Labour Council to keep Brixton affordable. Pretty common comment i hear around Brixton.



TBF, it's pretty common because it's based in the reality that some of our Labour councillors (including at least one of Coldharbour's) have expressed derogatory opinions about social housing, and how they'd like less of it, and more owner-occupation.  When your councillors, those elected to supposedly represent the views of all their constituents, express views that effectively disenfranchise some of those constituents, then trust goes out the window, and rightly so, on the part of the constituents!


----------



## boohoo (Aug 21, 2014)

Norbury now has a tea room and another boutique cafe place open up, all in less than a year - if you can gentrify Norbury, then nowhere is safe.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 21, 2014)

I was chatting to my neighbour today who's lived there for 30+ years and who grew up in Arlingford Rd. Her 80 year old mother downsized and moved to Croydon about 10 years ago but would dearly love to come back. She may not be able to - just the stamp duty on a house in our road is now 35K.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 21, 2014)

Ms T said:


> I was chatting to my neighbour today who's lived there for 30+ years and who grew up in Arlingford Rd. Her 80 year old mother downsized and moved to Croydon about 10 years ago but would dearly love to come back. She may not be able to - just the stamp duty on a house in our road is now 35K.



Yesterday I asked a drain-clearing workman, who has lived on Gresham rd for all his 35 years, what he thought of Brixton Village and all that.

He said he doesn't go there but loves the changes - because they are bumping up the price of his home, which he lives in alone and cost just £14,000.


----------



## editor (Aug 21, 2014)

leanderman said:


> He said he doesn't go there but loves the changes - because they are bumping up the price of his home, which he lives in alone and cost just £14,000.


Well, yes, It's an entirely different story if you're lucky enough to own a property as opposed to renting one.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 21, 2014)

editor said:


> Well, yes, It's an entirely different story if you're lucky enough to own a property as opposed to renting one.



But not too bad if you have a social housing landlord - LA or RSL - my parents have lived in a LA now RSL place for 38 years, have double the space that we do and pay half the rent that we do and they aren't in the suburbs. 

Although social housing is not as safe as it use to be with the threat of sites being developed, it's a darn sight better than being with a private landlord.


----------



## shifting gears (Aug 21, 2014)

I walk past the coldharbour lane entrance to the village on my way home every night - and rarely if ever have I seen such a homogenous gathering of people as those clogging the tables outside. It's like Being John Malkovich, except everyone is Teuchter.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 21, 2014)

shifting gears said:


> I walk past the coldharbour lane entrance to the village on my way home every night - and rarely if ever have I seen such a homogenous gathering of people as those clogging the tables outside. It's like Being John Malkovich, except everyone is Teuchter.



really? I've not met lots of people like teuchter - had you had a few drinks?


----------



## editor (Aug 21, 2014)

boohoo said:


> But not too bad if you have a social housing landlord - LA or RSL - my parents have lived in a LA now RSL place for 38 years, have double the space that we do and pay half the rent that we do and they aren't in the suburbs.
> 
> Although social housing is not as safe as it use to be with the threat of sites being developed, it's a darn sight better than being with a private landlord.


A lot on the tenants I know on my estate are really worried that we'll get booted out.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 21, 2014)

editor said:


> A lot on the tenants I know on my estate are really worried that we'll get booted out.



Through redevelopment?


----------



## editor (Aug 21, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Through redevelopment?


Yep - perhaps along the lines of the nearby Guinness Trust . They've already floated the idea of demolishing the Barrier Block, but thankfully that genius plan seems to have been put on the shelf. For now.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 21, 2014)

editor said:


> Yep - perhaps along the lines of the nearby Guinness Trust . They've already floated the idea of demolishing the Barrier Block, but thankfully that genius plan seems to have been put on the shelf. For now.



Seems that people are doing what they did a hundred years ago, displace the poor to benefit the rich. 
However they should be obliged to house you though of course they could ship you to the edge of Lambeth or Streatham!


----------



## madolesance (Aug 21, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Seems that people are doing what they did a hundred years ago, displace the poor to benefit the rich.
> However they should be obliged to house you though of course they could ship you to the edge of Lambeth or Streatham!



Surly the edge of Lambeth is Streatham?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 21, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Through redevelopment?



I hear a lot of concerns from Council tenants that Council housing as it was will go within ten years times. The Lambeth Council tenants had to lobby (Labour) administration hard to stop them using time limited tenancies instead of secure tenancies.

The Labour Council is still pushing every now and then for Council estates to vote to transfer out of Council control. One recently at Cowley estate looks like its been knocked back.

If a Labour government gets into power will it protect Council housing? After all the last Labour government brought in ALMOS. Which Council tenants widely saw as first step towards getting rid of Council housing.

As for RSLs/ Housing Associations. Some are starting to use the new "affordable" rents (up to 80% market rent). I know for a fact that at least one RSL in Brixton area is bringing in the new time limited tenancies.

If another Tory government is elected with a new Tory Mayor of London I doubt that social housing as its been known since post WW2 will exist for much longer.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 21, 2014)

madolesance said:


> Surly the edge of Lambeth is Streatham?



There is more than one edge to Lambeth!!


----------



## shifting gears (Aug 21, 2014)

boohoo said:


> really? I've not met lots of people like teuchter - had you had a few drinks?



Nah I don't get paid till tomorrow.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 21, 2014)

Crispy said:


> The village is a symptom, not a cause. The causes of Brixton's gentrification are this:
> 
> View attachment 59884
> 
> ...



Incorrect analysis. Shortage of housing does not automatically lead to "gentrification".

There is no shortage of housing for the rich. Take houses I see in Mayfair for example. They are left empty for a lot of the time. 

Little affordable housing has been built in London for years. 

Countries with different economic systems can have a housing shortage but not gentrification. 

A cause of the gentrification in London can be traced back to Thatchers deregulation of the City ( the "Big Bang") in 80s. Up until then London was losing population. The City turned London into a centre for casino capitalism. This did little for the average Londoner but made London sexy again for the financial class. Also London had a no questions asked policy for the new uber rich like Russian Oligarchs. Who found they liked London. Safe secure with access to lawyers etc. Unlike the chaotic mess they made of there own country. 

This did not have to happen. Economic forces were let rip in 80s onwards. It was left to the "free" market.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 22, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Incorrect analysis. Shortage of housing does not automatically lead to "gentrification".



Doesn't seem incorrect to me.

It's quite plausible that a housing shortage pushes up property costs and drives gentry types out of Fulham, Clapham etc and into Brixton.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Doesn't seem incorrect to me.
> 
> It's quite plausible that a housing shortage pushes up property costs and drives gentry types out of Fulham, Clapham etc and into Brixton.



What I am saying is that its a superficial analysis to automatically link gentrification to house prices. 

Gentrification is a cultural process. There is no concrete reason why an increase in house prices automatically leads to an increase in "Champagne et Fromage" shops. Its arbitrary. As its arbitrary it needs a social explanation.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 22, 2014)

Agreed. I'm sure it's far more nuanced, but an influx of people means the poorer areas become more attractive over time


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 22, 2014)

The shops simply follow the movement of people, not very often the other way round I would have thought; although oddities always occur


----------



## leanderman (Aug 22, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> The shops simply follow the movement of people, not very often the other way round I would have thought; although oddities always occur



Which is why we are being deluged by small outlets of the big supermarkets.

Lambeth has become the number one local authority for young-sharer households.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 22, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Incorrect analysis. Shortage of housing does not automatically lead to "gentrification".
> 
> There is no shortage of housing for the rich. Take houses I see in Mayfair for example. They are left empty for a lot of the time.
> 
> Little affordable housing has been built in London for years.



There is quite a lot going on between Mayfair and new affordable housing.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 22, 2014)

shifting gears said:


> I walk past the coldharbour lane entrance to the village on my way home every night - and rarely if ever have I seen such a homogenous gathering of people as those clogging the tables outside. It's like Being John Malkovich, except everyone is Teuchter.



These sort of posts are exactly why I don't really want to meet you lot in real life. 

What did you really intend with the last sentence apart from a puerile dig?


----------



## boohoo (Aug 22, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I hear a lot of concerns from Council tenants that Council as it was will go within ten years times. The Lambeth Council tenants had to lobby (Labour) administration hard to stop them using time limited tenancies instead of secure tenancies.
> 
> The Labour Council is still pushing every now and then for Council estates to vote to transfer out of Council control. One recently at Cowley estate looks like its been knocked back.
> 
> ...



My parents place is an  LA transfer to RSL and it's interesting how the RSL are making more things the responsibility of the  tenants. Hilariously they tried to charge my parents a service charge for  communal space - which hadn't happened for the last 35 years. I suggested my mum sent them a bill for 35 years of gardening.

In an ideal world social housing should be for whoever wants it and for a life time, however as demand has become high, the RSL/LA are rethinking their models - if this means new time limited tenancies so that more people have the chance of benefiting from a low rent for a period in their life until they have set them self up, then so be it. I prefer this to the "affordable rents"  options.

And being guaranteed somewhere to live over a long period through some social housing provider is better than the uncertainty of being in private rented.


----------



## shifting gears (Aug 22, 2014)

And I feel likewise.

A puerile dig was exactly the aim - it's exactly his MO here: see his own recent puerile dig which generated pages and pages of the same old shit. Look forward to not meeting you in the near future!



snowy_again said:


> These sort of posts are exactly why I don't really want to meet you lot in real life.
> 
> What did you really intend with the last sentence apart from a puerile dig?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 22, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Incorrect analysis. Shortage of housing does not automatically lead to "gentrification".
> 
> ...
> 
> This did not have to happen. Economic forces were let rip in 80s onwards. It was left to the "free" market.



You're entirely right, and my post was incredibly simplistic. I just couldn't be bothered to ggogle image search Thatcher, Tower block demolitions and guffawing bankers. This situation was avoidable.

The village is still a symptom, mind you.


----------



## editor (Aug 22, 2014)

Crispy said:


> The village is still a symptom, mind you.


I think it's more than that. I think it was a key element to the gentrification of Brixton.

Its highly-reviewed restaurants and quirky stores featured VERY prominently in the publicity material of every upmarket new build in Brixton and played a big part in calming the nerves of hesitant investors and reassuring them that it was a safe and cool place to place. I don't think it was coincidental that the development mock ups and publicity shots showed a vastly disproportionate amount of white people strolling through the happy clappy village and along Coldharbour Lane.

Prior to the Village's gentrification, Brixton rarely got positive press. The Village changed that and open the floodgates.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 22, 2014)

i think that if you're a social housing tenant in london the assumption that they have to rehouse you (let alone rehouse you locally) if they redevelop your block is increasing a flawed one.  we need to look at the heygate as the model for modern london social housing redevelopment.  if they decide to redevelop the barrier block, it WILL be to knock it down and build luxury flats on it and there WILL be no space for the current tenants.  reading between the lines, it is clear that there is no place for social housing tenants or indeed social housing in the london borough of lambeth.


----------



## Winot (Aug 22, 2014)

editor said:


> I think it's more than that. I think it was a key element to the gentrification of Brixton.
> 
> Its highly-reviewed restaurants and quirky stores featured VERY prominently in the publicity material of every upmarket new build in Brixton and played a big part in calming the nerves of hesitant investors and reassuring them that it was a safe and cool place to place. I don't think it was coincidental that the development mock ups and publicity shots showed a vastly disproportionate amount of white people strolling through the happy clappy village and along Coldharbour Lane.
> 
> Prior to the Village's gentrification, Brixton rarely got positive press. The Village changed that and open the floodgates.



So what do you think should have been done about the Village specifically, and by whom?


----------



## elmpp (Aug 22, 2014)

editor said:


> I think it's more than that. I think it was a key element to the gentrification of Brixton.
> 
> Its highly-reviewed restaurants and quirky stores featured VERY prominently in the publicity material of every upmarket new build in Brixton and played a big part in calming the nerves of hesitant investors and reassuring them that it was a safe and cool place to place. I don't think it was coincidental that the development mock ups and publicity shots showed a vastly disproportionate amount of white people strolling through the happy clappy village and along Coldharbour Lane.
> 
> Prior to the Village's gentrification, Brixton rarely got positive press. The Village changed that and open the floodgates.



Not to mention inclusion in left-leaning listing websites also


----------



## editor (Aug 22, 2014)

Winot said:


> So what do you think should have been done about the Village specifically, and by whom?


I don't really know, to be honest. Probably not much because money always wins out in the end.

The market was listed on account of its West Indian/Caribbean heritage so I think more could have been done to protect that. You'd now be hard pressed to find much Caribbean influence on a Saturday night, and I think that's a shame.

Personally, I loved it when it started, when local traders and artists were given a chance to have a unit for a few months for free/low rent, but once they were elbowed out of the way as the cash tills started to ring, I started to lose interest.


----------



## editor (Aug 22, 2014)

elmpp said:


> Not to mention inclusion in left-leaning listing websites also


Yes. That must have made a massive difference. Too big to measure probably.


----------



## editor (Aug 22, 2014)

This looks interesting: William Shakespeare in Windrush Square as The National Theatre’s ‘Watch This Space Festival’ comes to Brixton today


----------



## Biscuits (Aug 22, 2014)

When someone looks to buy they typically look at the areas that they can afford to live in and then pick their favourite. People I know who are in the same position as I was a few years ago are now looking (because of price rises) in Streatham, Mitcham and Colliers Wood. 10 years ago young professionals would have been able to have afforded Fulham, 5 years ago Clapham.

The problem is that in an ever increasing market when people move out of London to, for example, raise a family, they typically hold onto their London flat and rent it out. That causes prices to increase as the supply declines.

There should be a rapid and urgent building of council houses for all types of people – funded by heavy taxes on buy to lets.


----------



## editor (Aug 22, 2014)

Biscuits said:


> There should be a rapid and urgent building of council houses for all types of people – funded by heavy taxes on buy to lets.


Now you're talking. Tax those parasites hard.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 22, 2014)

Our builder bought a house in a (then) unfashionable part of Fulham in 1985 or thereabouts for £13K!  Nobody wanted to live there apparently!  And he tells me that in 1984 there wouldn't have been any white people living on our street (not so sure about that).  My builder is ace - he used to play cricket with Viv Richards and hang out with Peter Hain and Darcus Howe at the Caribbean Social Club in the '60s.  He knows everybody and everything.


----------



## editor (Aug 22, 2014)

Ms T said:


> And he tells me that in 1984 there wouldn't have been any white people living on our street (not so sure about that).


Hugely unlikely, I reckon.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 22, 2014)

editor said:


> Now you're talking. Tax those parasites hard.



It's foreigners who really benefit from buy-to-let etc.  They are exempt from capital gains tax, for example.  A lot of so-called "affordable" homes are sold off-plan to middle class investors from Singapore or China.  There needs to be hefty property taxes on foreign buyers in this country - and quick.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 22, 2014)

editor said:


> Hugely unlikely, I reckon.


He is prone to exaggeration.


----------



## editor (Aug 22, 2014)

Ms T said:


> It's foreigners who really benefit from buy-to-let etc.  They are exempt from capital gains tax, for example.  A lot of so-called "affordable" homes are sold off-plan to middle class investors from Singapore or China.  There needs to be hefty property taxes on foreign buyers in this country - and quick.


Loads of home grown buy-to-let investors do rather nicely out of it too.


----------



## simonSW2 (Aug 22, 2014)

Today's McSweeney's essay has a certain resonance, and a few salty LOLz:




*WE PROVIDE MEALS THAT ARE COMPLETELY UNAFFORDABLE AND UNAPPEALING TO PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.*

*BY PABLO GOLDSTEIN*

When we founded Hirl five years ago as a locally owned cannery in the cramped confines of a former pupusería, we never dreamed that our modest storefront would change the world. What was originally established as a creative collective intended to vertically integrate both the production and sales of artisanally crafted jams, soon morphed into a bustling, award-winning restaurant that brings in food aficionados from across the world. But despite all our accolades during these whirlwind years, Hirl has managed to stay true to the two tenets of our business:

Using only the freshest, naturally-occurring ingredients on Mother Gaia, and providing meals that are completely unaffordable and unappealing to people who actually live in this neighborhood.

*OUR MISSION*
Opening a restaurant is one of the most daunting business decisions a person can make. When you decide to enter an industry where 60% of new enterprises close within the first year, you better be damn sure you know what you’re doing, not just in the kitchen but with the ol’ bean counters too! So here at Hirl, we serve food that you could easily find at Denny’s but with an exotic twist that allows us to mark up the average price of a meal to $34. In the mood for two pieces of toast, a couple of eggs over easy, and several strips of bacon? Then you’ll treasure our open-faced brioche toast with imported ricotta and handmade boysenberry jam, cage-free fried eggs with a dollop of lacto fermented hot sauce, and our signature Bahn Mi pan-fried pork belly. It’s unnecessarily complicated food fit for an 18th-century European monarch or any modern urban dweller uncomfortable making eye contact with poor people.

And don’t forget our signature $8 to-go mason jar of gourmet coffee! Bring it back and you’ll get a $1 rebate for sustaining the sustainability of our sustainable program. On your first visit to Hirl, you’ll probably notice that we don’t serve drinks in plastic bottles or aluminum cans. Unfortunately, these recyclables were attracting residents who collected them en masse in order to supplement their income. Life is far too short to spend your days trudging in the rat race. But with our green viability plan, we simultaneously stay true to our canning roots while also gently nudging the natives away from their relentless focus on capitalism.

*OUR PHILOSOPHY*
Hirl subscribes to the doctrine that nothing is more important than tradition… the tradition of Christopher Columbus, the original gentrifier. Let’s be honest: Who would you rather have sitting at the table next to you? The 102-year-old woman whose father built the very first house on this block thanks to a Spanish land grant? The elderly Japanese-American widower whose home was “bought” by his neighbors during World War II and returned to him after his release from the Manzanar internment camp? Or the actress who plays Sally Draper on _Mad Men_? Don’t look directly at her! Keep your cool, man. Dammit, I said don’t look at her! God, you’re such a fucking dork sometimes.

We strive for absolute guest satisfaction. There is nothing more important to us than serving our clientele of hip creative types in search of the authenticity that can only come from eating seared polenta cake next door to a wine and cheese shoppe that used to be a piñata store. Since the only hardship they face is the crushing anxiety that their ex-girlfriend will eventually change her Netflix password, we make sure to forge the ultimate rugged dining experience: Baristas who won’t reveal our almond milk-only policy until you verbally go through every single variety we don’t carry. Cramped tables and chairs that were repurposed from scavenged school desks culled out the dumpsters of nearby middle schools. Ridiculously long lines that, if they aren’t already blocking the path for stroller-pushing mothers, are artificially elongated by our unnecessary Line Up™ iPad system. Here at Hirl, you’ll feel right at home… if you pretend your home is a century-old Mexican and Central American neighborhood teeming with the overlooked history of Los Angeles’s working class instead of the suburb you grew up in 20 miles east of Berkeley.

*OUR FUTURE*
From our humble beginnings selling jam to white people with way too much disposable income, to convincing those same diners that poached quail eggs is a totally normal thing to consume, Hirl has never been about getting bogged down in stasis. When we moved into this barrio, the rent was cheap and affordable for anyone, whether you were raising a family on a minimum-wage income or trying to pass off fruit preservatives as a whimsical luxury good. And although our quirky foodstuff, like the small pox-infected blankets at Fort Pitt, has eliminated most of the generations of families who grew up in this neighborhood, we at Hirl will never forget that our main goal is to serve food that locals have zero interest in eating, even when the demographics of said locals change.

Which is why we’re pleased to announce that in 2015, our revamped menu will be anchored by our lunch special: four tacos and a soda for only $5.


http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/...people-who-actually-live-in-this-neighborhood


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 22, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> snip ...
> 
> A cause of the gentrification in London can be traced back to Thatchers deregulation of the City ( the "Big Bang") in 80s. Up until then London was losing population. The City turned London into a centre for casino capitalism. This did little for the average Londoner but made London sexy again for the financial class. Also London had a no questions asked policy for the new uber rich like Russian Oligarchs. Who found they liked London. Safe secure with access to lawyers etc. Unlike the chaotic mess they made of there own country.



Yes - who wants London houses just to be somewhere for rich foreigners to park their money? 

I think the increase of London population in the 80s was partly due to Thatcher trying to close the North down. It was grim up north - no jobs anywhere.
I'm of that 'on-yer-bike' generation - London seemed to be full of us then scottish, welsh, geordies, scousers, mancs, yorkshiremen, brummies - It was a while before I met any born and bred londoners.  I'm one of the lucky ones who did ok, and stayed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2014)

snowy_again said:


> These sort of posts are exactly why I don't really want to meet you lot in real life.
> 
> What did you really intend with the last sentence apart from a puerile dig?



Perhaps he intended to see whether anyone reacted to his post in a self-righteously priggish manner?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2014)

editor said:


> I think it's more than that. I think it was a key element to the gentrification of Brixton.
> 
> Its highly-reviewed restaurants and quirky stores featured VERY prominently in the publicity material of every upmarket new build in Brixton and played a big part in calming the nerves of hesitant investors and reassuring them that it was a safe and cool place to place. I don't think it was coincidental that the development mock ups and publicity shots showed a vastly disproportionate amount of white people strolling through the happy clappy village and along Coldharbour Lane.
> 
> Prior to the Village's gentrification, Brixton rarely got positive press. The Village changed that and open the floodgates.



So kind of a pump-primer for the last (and ongoing) wave of gentrification, then, reassuring both investors and potential incomers that they and their money were safe.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> i think that if you're a social housing tenant in london the assumption that they have to rehouse you (let alone rehouse you locally) if they redevelop your block is increasing a flawed one.  we need to look at the heygate as the model for modern london social housing redevelopment.  if they decide to redevelop the barrier block, it WILL be to knock it down and build luxury flats on it and there WILL be no space for the current tenants.  reading between the lines, it is clear that there is no place for social housing tenants or indeed social housing in the london borough of lambeth.



This is why those of us who live on Cressingham Gardens are so determined to resist options 4 and 5 of Lambeth's proposed "development plan" for the estate - it'll mean decanting, with no "right of return", all so the council can effectively socially-cleanse another hundred households of povs from the borough (because let's face it: Increasingly "rehoming" of this type is out-of-borough, if not out-of-region!).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2014)

elmpp said:


> Not to mention inclusion in left-leaning listing websites also



Please considered sticking your head in a bucket of piss for a couple of hours, you tediously cod-tendentious twit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2014)

Winot said:


> So what do you think should have been done about the Village specifically, and by whom?



There's nothing to be done. Any social damage caused can't be reversed, and both the local authority and the developer/owner of the Village will have known that.  Lambeth, in cahoots with whoever will have them, have decided to do a spot of demographic engineering.  They're not the first inner London local authority to do so, and they won't be the last.  They've decided to ride the wave of the up-and-comers, rather than continuing to paddle in the rockpool of majority working-class wards.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2014)

Biscuits said:


> When someone looks to buy they typically look at the areas that they can afford to live in and then pick their favourite. People I know who are in the same position as I was a few years ago are now looking (because of price rises) in Streatham, Mitcham and Colliers Wood. 10 years ago young professionals would have been able to have afforded Fulham, 5 years ago Clapham.
> 
> The problem is that in an ever increasing market when people move out of London to, for example, raise a family, they typically hold onto their London flat and rent it out. That causes prices to increase as the supply declines.
> 
> There should be a rapid and urgent building of council houses for all types of people – funded by heavy taxes on buy to lets.



It'll never happen - neither a heavy tax on buy-to-let (with nearly half of the House of Commons involved in it), or a true mass social housing building programme (because of the deflating effect on the house price bubble, which is currently still propping up an otherwise not-very-active economy).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2014)

simonSW2 said:


> Today's McSweeney's essay has a certain resonance, and a few salty LOLz:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That article makes me want to go to the USA just to shit on the floor of that emporium.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 22, 2014)

Biscuits said:


> The problem is that in an ever increasing market when people move out of London to, for example, raise a family, they typically hold onto their London flat and rent it out. That causes prices to increase as the supply declines.



This has/is happening in our street. Not good.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 22, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's nothing to be done. Any social damage caused can't be reversed, and both the local authority and the developer/owner of the Village will have known that.  Lambeth, in cahoots with whoever will have them, have decided to do a spot of demographic engineering.  They're not the first inner London local authority to do so, and they won't be the last.  They've decided to ride the wave of the up-and-comers, rather than continuing to paddle in the rockpool of majority working-class wards.



Lambeth's role in this is exaggerated. Bigger forces are also at play.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 22, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> I think the increase of London population in the 80s was partly due to Thatcher trying to close the North down.



Population hardly rose in the 1980s, but it did stop falling.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Lambeth's role in this is exaggerated. Bigger forces are also at play.



I realise it's the case that there's a fair bit of pressure and influence being exerted from central government, both through the likes of Pickles, and due to grant cuts, but it still rankles that we have officers and councillors who're more than happy to go with the flow, especially if it looks like it might benefit them.


----------



## uk benzo (Aug 22, 2014)

Maybe it is a bit naive of me to suggest that instead of reflexively shunning BV establishments, why not approach them directly and voice your concerns? The change has happened whether we like it or not. Even if a few of the establishments take on board what you've said, it is a positive result.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 22, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Perhaps he intended to see whether anyone reacted to his post in a self-righteously priggish manner?



Such a charmer! Lovely passive aggressive smiley too. 

It was early. He mentioned he'd got to pay day a week before me, and his post seemed just troll-y. I wrote back. You're the one deciding to carry it on.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 22, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> That article makes me want to go to the USA just to shit on the floor of that emporium.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2014)

boohoo said:


> My parents place is an  LA transfer to RSL and it's interesting how the RSL are making more things the responsibility of the  tenants. Hilariously they tried to charge my parents a service charge for  communal space - which hadn't happened for the last 35 years. I suggested my mum sent them a bill for 35 years of gardening.
> 
> In an ideal world social housing should be for whoever wants it and for a life time, however as demand has become high, the RSL/LA are rethinking their models - if this means new time limited tenancies so that more people have the chance of benefiting from a low rent for a period in their life until they have set them self up, then so be it. I prefer this to the "affordable rents"  options.
> 
> And being guaranteed somewhere to live over a long period through some social housing provider is better than the uncertainty of being in private rented.



I do not understand your argument. You say that your parents have lived in social housing for 35 years. Then you agree with time limited tenancies until people "have set them self up". When exactly will your parents being moving on? According to your argument they have benefited from 35 years of low rent. Plenty of time to "set them self up".

If you think time limited tenancies are the best that can be done as this is not an ideal world why do you criticise your parents RSL for trying to increase there income by new service charges?

Time limited tenancies and affordable rent regime go together. 

Council tenants have struggled hard to keep secure tenancies. What is needed is a housebuilding programme. All the money that went into "quantitative easing" ( which went into repairing banks balance sheets ) could have been used to build Council housing.


----------



## editor (Aug 22, 2014)

uk benzo said:


> Maybe it is a bit naive of me to suggest that instead of reflexively shunning BV establishments, why not approach them directly and voice your concerns? The change has happened whether we like it or not. Even if a few of the establishments take on board what you've said, it is a positive result.


What do you suggest should be said to them and why do you think they would be interested given that they all appear to be doing rather well as things are?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2014)

Biscuits said:


> The problem is that in an ever increasing market when people move out of London to, for example, raise a family, they typically hold onto their London flat and rent it out. That causes prices to increase as the supply declines.
> 
> There should be a rapid and urgent building of council houses for all types of people – funded by heavy taxes on buy to lets.



I agree this is happening.

The problem for the Labour party is that some of its supporters have buy to let properties. My friend in North London kept her old flat on when she bought a house nearby. She has a buy to let mortgage on her old flat. She regard its as her pension. As pension funds are so crap.

She is active Labour party supporter. Involved in campaign work around health. ie she is not just out for a fast buck.

When I mentioned to her Ed Milibands recent proposals to reform private rented sector she went off one like some tory. How his (imo mild proposals) would destroy private renting etc. And said her friends agreed with her. I was somewhat surprised as she is Labour party supporter. Also realized that her friends also did the same as her and kept old flats on as buy to let when they moved.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 22, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I agree this is happening.
> 
> The problem for the Labour party is that some of its supporters have buy to let properties. My friend in North London kept her old flat on when she bought a house nearby. She has a buy to let mortgage on her old flat. She regard its as her pension. As pension funds are so crap.
> 
> ...


 
I've met a few lefties who have a buy to let - really surprised me!


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Yes - who wants London houses just to be somewhere for rich foreigners to park their money?
> 
> I think the increase of London population in the 80s was partly due to Thatcher trying to close the North down. It was grim up north - no jobs anywhere.
> I'm of that 'on-yer-bike' generation - London seemed to be full of us then scottish, welsh, geordies, scousers, mancs, yorkshiremen, brummies - It was a while before I met any born and bred londoners.  I'm one of the lucky ones who did ok, and stayed.



I remember meeting Northerners in London in 80s. It was so bad up North that they came to London. Thatcher destroyed the North.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 22, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I do not understand your argument. You say that your parents have lived in social housing for 35 years. Then you agree with time limited tenancies until people "have set them self up". When exactly will your parents being moving on? According to your argument they have benefited from 35 years of low rent. Plenty of time to "set them self up".
> 
> If you think time limited tenancies are the best that can be done as this is not an ideal world why do you criticise your parents RSL for trying to increase there income by new service charges?
> 
> ...



I suggested that I think social housing should be for life and for whoever wants it. You mention council housing building which would be great but this is not happening so what to do? 

My parents are now financially in the best position they've ever been. However my dad's dementia is getting worst so moving him would not be a good idea. I'm sure with time limited tenancies, there would be some reasonable argument to why people can't move such as illness, disability, kids still at school. 

Regarding the RSL's service charge, it was introduced at a rate that applied to a tower block not a hall way in a house. My parents also got charged for the tree that had to be removed because it's roots were too near the drains - the tree was there when they were moved into the house and it's in the neighbour's garden.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Population hardly rose in the 1980s, but it did stop falling.View attachment 59935



Interested in how high London population was in 1939. Then started to gradually drop. Wonder why this was? Loss of Empire after WW2? Leading to London no longer being a centre of Empire?


----------



## boohoo (Aug 22, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Interested in how high London population was in 1939. Then started to gradually drop. Wonder why this was? Loss of Empire after WW2? Leading to London no longer being a centre of Empire?



No where for people to live?


----------



## ash (Aug 22, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Interested in how high London population was in 1939. Then started to gradually drop. Wonder why this was? Loss of Empire after WW2? Leading to London no longer being a centre of Empire?


From what I understand the city was a bomb site after the war nothing to stay for so people left.


----------



## Smick (Aug 22, 2014)

all these new towns built to get people out of town. They thought it was a paradise and a few years later people realise they are living in Harlow or Billericay or some other concrete dystopia.

The places that they left, their kids could only dream of living in.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2014)

boohoo said:


> I suggested that I think social housing should be for life and for whoever wants it. You mention council housing building which would be great but this is not happening so what to do?
> 
> My parents are now financially in the best position they've ever been. However my dad's dementia is getting worst so moving him would not be a good idea. I'm sure with time limited tenancies, there would be some reasonable argument to why people can't move such as illness, disability, kids still at school.
> .



This is naive.

What is wrong with supporting secure tenancies and building Council housing? Its not utopian. Its been done before.

You are sure that with time limited tenancies there would be reasonable arguments why people cannot move. Do you realise how stressful its would be for people to have to prove they are to ill to move? Like the bedroom tax it would be a legal nightmare. I very much doubt that kids at school argument would work.The whole of a persons life would be examined by officialdom and argued about every few years. Probably with a system decisions and appeals.

What to do is not to water down perfectly reasonable tenancy rights. And its not just me saying this. I have talked to people on Tenants Council and they adamantly were against new Council tenants being put on time limited tenancies. Even when told it would not affect existing tenants.

There position, correctly imo. is that watering down Council tenants rights is the thin edge of the wedge. It would also cause division on estates between those on secure tenancies and those on time limited ones. Who would have to prove that they should get tenancy renewed. The whole thing is a nightmare. What if you think you cannot afford to move on and Council said you had not tried hard enough? Would you lose your home? Lawyers would love to look into Human Rights angle on this.

Also the Council tenants were against it as they wanted stable communities on there estates and neighbourhoods. Not people who would never be sure if they could live there in a few years time.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2014)

Smick said:


> all these new towns built to get people out of town. They thought it was a paradise and a few years later people realise they are living in Harlow or Billericay or some other concrete dystopia.
> 
> The places that they left, their kids could only dream of living in.



Actually I think you could be right on this. 

Did hear a radio programme where people talked of moving out of poor quality housing in central London to "new towns". It was considered the thing to do then.


----------



## Smick (Aug 22, 2014)

The slums! They cleared out properties by Waterloo, Camden, Vauxhall and promised a life of plenty in a nice rural environment. And most of those houses which people were moved out of would be more worth millions.


----------



## Belushi (Aug 22, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Actually I think you could be right on this.
> 
> Did hear a radio programme where people talked of moving out of poor quality housing in central London to "new towns". It was considered the thing to do then.



Most of my Mums family moved out to a new town in the sixties and seventies. Clean, fresh air, grass, trees, indoor bathrooms, fitted kitchens and carpets, jobs in new industries, low crime, kids can have their own bedrooms. New towns were the future and its easy to forget how down at heel London was in those days.

A generation later I couldn't wait to get out and move to the big smoke


----------



## Belushi (Aug 22, 2014)

Of course the governments planning to build New Towns again. Except they're calling them Garden Cities and pretending the postwar ones were never built.


----------



## colacubes (Aug 22, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Most of my Mums family moved out to a new town in the sixties and seventies. Clean, fresh air, grass, trees, indoor bathrooms, fitted kitchens and carpets, jobs in new industries, low crime, kids can have their own bedrooms. New towns were the future and its easy to forget how down at heel London was in those days.
> 
> A generation later I couldn't wait to get out and move to the big smoke



Innit


----------



## Ms T (Aug 23, 2014)

boohoo said:


> I've met a few lefties who have a buy to let - really surprised me!



As Gramsci said above, they regard is as their pension.  I have spoken to at least one Urbanite who now wishes they'd held on to their flat when buying another property.


----------



## Winot (Aug 23, 2014)

Brixton Rec news - there is a giant inflatable in the main pool from 2-3.30pm for kids (overgrown and otherwise). Hardly anyone here. Think it's on every Saturday.


----------



## se5 (Aug 23, 2014)

In local former pub/supermarket news it looks like there will be a Co-Op opening on Coldharbour Lane - there is an application for a variation of licence  conditions of the premises at 201 Coldharbour Lane made by Co-Operative Food (I think basically to change the licence from being a pub licence to a supermarket selling alcohol). 

201 Coldharbour Lane is of course the former Crown/ Mucky Duck so it looks like it will be a Co-Op instead of a Sainsburys local as had previously been suggested/feared. This at least brings some variety to the numerous 'local' supermarket shops we have across Lambeth!


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 23, 2014)

se5 said:


> 201 Coldharbour Lane is of course the former Crown/ Mucky Duck so it looks like it will be a Co-Op instead of a Sainsburys local as had previously been suggested/feared. This at least brings some variety to the numerous 'local' supermarket shops we have across Lambeth!



Much prefer to have a Coop store. I am member of Coop. I use the ones in the West End.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 24, 2014)

I was just walking home and could hear Big Ben striking midnight in the distance.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 24, 2014)

teuchter said:


> I was just walking home and could hear Big Ben striking midnight in the distance.



I was just walking home, after an evening out, and was passed, at Olive Morris House, by my niece going out, for a night out.

Embarrassing.


----------



## Smick (Aug 24, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Much prefer to have a Coop store. I am member of Coop. I use the ones in the West End.


The Co-op in Tulse Hill is fairly awful. While the organisation's intentions may be honourable, the shopping experience is awful. Also, none of the bargains which I read about on Hot UK Deals never seem to be in our Co. My brother is s big fan of his Co up in the North East but hates our one.


----------



## simonSW2 (Aug 24, 2014)

Smick said:


> The Co-op in Tulse Hill is fairly awful. While the organisation's intentions may be .



Yeah, the Tulse Hill shop is poor, and the Streatham Hill one isnt much better. The prices are also a bit weirdly steep on some basic things. However, intentions are good, so I prefer them to the usual Tesco-Sainsbury mafia.


----------



## se5 (Aug 24, 2014)

simonSW2 said:


> Yeah, the Tulse Hill shop is poor, and the Streatham Hill one isnt much better. The prices are also a bit weirdly steep on some basic things. However, intentions are good, so I prefer them to the usual Tesco-Sainsbury mafia.



I expect it will be like the one on Camberwell New Road which they did up last year - the focus is all on fancy danish pastries, 'artisan' bread, prosecco and chilled bottles of wine type premium products rather than standard supermarket fare I guess to reflect the increasingly rich demographics of the area and distinguish itself from the Tesco across the road.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 24, 2014)

The big thing with the Co-op used to be "99" Tea. I hope that hasn't gone down the pan!


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 24, 2014)

CH1 said:


> The big thing with the Co-op used to be "99" Tea. I hope that hasn't gone down the pan!



Its still 99 tea. Now its fairtrade


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 24, 2014)

Smick said:


> The Co-op in Tulse Hill is fairly awful. While the organisation's intentions may be honourable, the shopping experience is awful. Also, none of the bargains which I read about on Hot UK Deals never seem to be in our Co. My brother is s big fan of his Co up in the North East but hates our one.



The one I use in Soho does do the deals.

But does not do much from the Coop simply value range.

I do think its pricey. Especially as the Coop was meant to be an alternative for the average person. I remember where I grew up people would fill up the little books with dividend stamps from Coop shop.

The intentions are honourable- animal welfare, fairtrade and paying suppliers well.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2014)

snowy_again said:


> Such a charmer! Lovely passive aggressive smiley too.
> 
> It was early. He mentioned he'd got to pay day a week before me, and his post seemed just troll-y. I wrote back. You're the one deciding to carry it on.



Nope, I'm the one illustrating that you're a prig.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2014)

teuchter said:


>


Do fuck off, you sententious bore.


----------



## Smick (Aug 24, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> The one I use in Soho does do the deals.
> 
> But does not do much from the Coop simply value range.
> 
> ...


There are deals, just not very good ones. I think that it is maybe all done at a regional level. You can pick up a Rustlers cheeseburger for a quid but whether that's value I don't know. I'd be sceptical about animal welfare and fair trade s well.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2014)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> I do not understand your argument. You say that your parents have lived in social housing for 35 years. Then you agree with time limited tenancies until people "have set them self up". When exactly will your parents being moving on? According to your argument they have benefited from 35 years of low rent. Plenty of time to "set them self up".
> 
> If you think time limited tenancies are the best that can be done as this is not an ideal world why do you criticise your parents RSL for trying to increase there income by new service charges?
> 
> ...



The whole issue of time-limited tenancies is a Trojan Horse, in my opinion. Something deliberately designed to transfer the sort of minimal rights private renters "enjoy" into public sector rental. Of course, a social housing shortage of the proportions we're looking at, means that RSLs have the upper hand in coercing prospective tenants into accepting inferior tenancy conditions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2014)

boohoo said:


> I've met a few lefties who have a buy to let - really surprised me!



In my opinion, you cannot be meaningfully left-wing, and be a _rentier_ at the same time.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The whole issue of time-limited tenancies is a Trojan Horse, in my opinion. Something deliberately designed to transfer the sort of minimal rights private renters "enjoy" into public sector rental. Of course, a social housing shortage of the proportions we're looking at, means that RSLs have the upper hand in coercing prospective tenants into accepting inferior tenancy conditions.



Ideally there would be more social housing built and secure tenancies for any kind of renters - however can't see either of these things happening.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 24, 2014)

teuchter said:


> I was just walking home and could hear Big Ben striking midnight in the distance.


Not near Brixton surely - how could you hear Big Ben over the sound of Brixton Town Hall striking midnight?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 24, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The whole issue of time-limited tenancies is a Trojan Horse, in my opinion. Something deliberately designed to transfer the sort of minimal rights private renters "enjoy" into public sector rental. Of course, a social housing shortage of the proportions we're looking at, means that RSLs have the upper hand in coercing prospective tenants into accepting inferior tenancy conditions.



Thanks for the reply. For some reason I did not get an alert on this reply. Only saw it by chance. Do not know why.


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2014)

A friend pointed on Facebook that the new trendy cocktail bar at 384 Coldharbour Lane has security outside its doors at 2pm. Which seems a bit fucking ridiculous.


----------



## Kevs (Aug 24, 2014)

Had the lovely privilege of ordering the last ever meals at Bickles. Shame it's going.


----------



## colacubes (Aug 24, 2014)

Kevs said:


> Had the lovely privilege of ordering the last ever meals at Bickles. Shame it's going.



Yeah, I saw the sign today.  Proper shame   Lovely people and great food.  I think tomorrow is their last day isn't it?


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2014)

Kevs said:


> Had the lovely privilege of ordering the last ever meals at Bickles. Shame it's going.


A real, real shame.


----------



## Kevs (Aug 24, 2014)

colacubes said:


> Yeah, I saw the sign today.  Proper shame   Lovely people and great food.  I think tomorrow is their last day isn't it?


You may be right about that actually. I'm a bit pissed.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 25, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> In my opinion, you cannot be meaningfully left-wing, and be a _rentier_ at the same time.



i agree with this 100%.


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2014)

Ruddy Nora. The Dogstar is rammed full and there's some wonderfully fucked people all walking into each other and looking suitably confused.


----------



## gabi (Aug 25, 2014)

editor said:


> Ruddy Nora. The Dogstar is rammed full and there's some wonderfully fucked people all walking into each other and looking suitably confused.



Are you, perchance, in the gents looking at the mirror?


----------



## Ms T (Aug 25, 2014)

I tried to get a quote for home insurance the other day from John Lewis.  They wouldn't even give me a quote because apparently I live in a flood-risk area.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 25, 2014)

Ms T said:


> I tried to get a quote for home insurance the other day from John Lewis.  They wouldn't even give me a quote because apparently I live in a flood-risk area.



From the Effra?


----------



## Rushy (Aug 25, 2014)

Ms T said:


> I tried to get a quote for home insurance the other day from John Lewis.  They wouldn't even give me a quote because apparently I live in a flood-risk area.



It'll be surface water flooding. Heres's the surface water flooding map from the EA.
http://watermaps.environment-agency...&y=174500&x=532500#x=531479&y=174873&scale=11


----------



## Ms T (Aug 25, 2014)

boohoo said:


> From the Effra?


They didn't know. It was a "computer says no" moment. The guy on the phone was baffled. Not had a problem with any other insurer. There was a problem with flash flooding some years ago, but our property wasn't affected and they've improved the storm drains since then.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 25, 2014)

Rushy said:


> It'll be surface water flooding. Heres's the surface water flooding map from the EA.
> http://watermaps.environment-agency...&y=174500&x=532500#x=531479&y=174873&scale=11


Ok. No one else seems to use this map, luckily.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 25, 2014)

Ms T said:


> I tried to get a quote for home insurance the other day from John Lewis.  They wouldn't even give me a quote because apparently I live in a flood-risk area.


Yeah,we had to take out flood cover, I wonder is it because of the burst pipe?


----------



## Manter (Aug 25, 2014)

Ms T said:


> They didn't know. It was a "computer says no" moment. The guy on the phone was baffled. Not had a problem with any other insurer. There was a problem with flash flooding some years ago, but our property wasn't affected and they've improved the storm drains since then.


That's a bit odd.... They can usually be very precise to the house. My parents and their neighbours get charged different amounts for insurance because they are a flood risk and my parents' house isn't


----------



## Greebo (Aug 25, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> Yeah,we had to take out flood cover, I wonder is it because of the burst pipe?


You could have a point  there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Ideally there would be more social housing built and secure tenancies for any kind of renters - however can't see either of these things happening.



Fundamentally, as long as our "system" is run along neoliberal lines, it's economically impossible, and ideologically unsound.
Give the less well-off security, when you can profit from their insecurity?  Not going to happen, is it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> i agree with this 100%.



Unfortunately for us (i.e. "the masses"), the bulk of our political classes wouldn't.


----------



## buscador (Aug 25, 2014)

Ms T said:


> I tried to get a quote for home insurance the other day from John Lewis.  They wouldn't even give me a quote because apparently I live in a flood-risk area.



We had this nonsense too - they wanted to know if anyone within 100 yards of our flat had been flooded. Well, yes, I could go round all of the streets knocking on doors and asking if those buildings had been flooded but it doesn't seem a very efficient way of organising insurance. I can't remember what the outcome was and I dare say I left it to friendofdorothy to deal with (as usual.)


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2014)

gabi said:


> Are you, perchance, in the gents looking at the mirror?


No, perchance I was not.  I don't get so fucked that I walk into people and look confused. Well, apart from that one time at Boomtown that will never be repeated.


----------



## Ol Nick (Aug 25, 2014)

Winot said:


> It's still there.


Let's just remove it. Take down the  boards. Put them back in the house they belong to. What actually is anyone going to do? Next time I'm pissed and wandering about Brixton I'll do it.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 25, 2014)

Ol Nick said:


> Let's just remove it. Take down the  boards. Put them back in the house they belong to. What actually is anyone going to do? Next time I'm pissed and wandering about Brixton I'll do it.



Just found an email from the developer, Anthony Thomas of Antic, telling me building work there would be complete by spring.

He's ignored the enforcement notice, telling him to remove the boards.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 25, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> i agree with this 100%.



Can you be a property owner and meaningfully left-wing?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 25, 2014)

nagapie said:


> Can you be a property owner and meaningfully left-wing?



what's that got to do with the discussion?

can you tell the difference between owning one thing and owning lots of things in a manner that ensures that others go without?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 25, 2014)

Ms T said:


> They didn't know. It was a "computer says no" moment. The guy on the phone was baffled. Not had a problem with any other insurer. There was a problem with flash flooding some years ago, but our property wasn't affected and they've improved the storm drains since then.


  Sorry can't remember which company - but it was one of those hounding us for business for contents insurance - We are within a 100m of the (underground) river Effra, but they didn't want to know that.  They did ask the bizarre question 'has any of your neighbours within 100m ever claimed for flood damage?' yes I know people around here were flooded yes, but were they within 100m, did they claim? I've no idea - that could include people 3 streets away - how could I possibly know? they seemed genuinely surprised when I couldn't answer. 

There were some people on basements on Railton rd you were flooded by sewer water up to ground level about 6 or 8 ft in some cases. If you go to the bathroom shop on the corner of Dulwich rd and Effra terrace in their basement showroom if you look up at the ceiling there is a mark on the ceiling - caused the the Effra exploding and the solid metal grid cover hitting the ceiling! in the great HH flood of 2004.
We have flood defences now provided by Thames Water - but they are only any good if you are at home to put them in place when the rain starts. 

If I ever move, I want to live at the top of a hill - not a basement in a river valley.  Yes buscador  you were quite right we should have bought those thigh length waders when they were on special offer in Lidl a decade or so ago.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 25, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> what's that got to do with the discussion?
> 
> can you tell the difference between owning one thing and owning lots of things in a manner that ensures that others go without?


What we need to do is add up the total floor area of residential buildings in London, then divide it by the number of people living in London. Or should it be divided by the number of people who want to live in London? Anyway, then we have a number of square metres per person, and anyone who owns a property that exceeds this figure in floor area is banned from being meaningfully left wing.


----------



## colacubes (Aug 25, 2014)

You know that thing where you have someone on ignore, and then you decide to have a look at what they said, and then realise, that it's the usual rubbish missing the point trolling nonsense for the lulz that you can't be arsed with.  Yeah, that.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 25, 2014)

That thing where you want to let someone know they're "on ignore", when they're not really?


----------



## nagapie (Aug 25, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> what's that got to do with the discussion?
> 
> can you tell the difference between owning one thing and owning lots of things in a manner that ensures that others go without?



It was a genuine thought and question and while not exactly the same, not unrelated.

There is certainly a view that those who buy mean others go without by raising the price to levels many cannot afford and ensuring that the only call for social housing comes from those less well-off thereby reducing the impact of the demand on politicians. London is a prime example of this.

When I met mr nags he said that he would never own a property. Unfortunately he hooked up with me and I was already a property owner and still am. Like most people I have capitulated to the idea that I need a house of my own, mostly for security in old age reasons. But this doesn't mean I don't have sympathy with the idea that property owning is part of the problem.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 25, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Sorry can't remember which company - but it was one of those hounding us for business for contents insurance - We are within a 100m of the (underground) river Effra, but they didn't want to know that.  They did ask the bizarre question 'has any of your neighbours within 100m ever claimed for flood damage?' yes I know people around here were flooded yes, but were they within 100m, did they claim? I've no idea - that could include people 3 streets away - how could I possibly know? they seemed genuinely surprised when I couldn't answer.
> 
> There were some people on basements on Railton rd you were flooded by sewer water up to ground level about 6 or 8 ft in some cases. If you go to the bathroom shop on the corner of Dulwich rd and Effra terrace in their basement showroom if you look up at the ceiling there is a mark on the ceiling - caused the the Effra exploding and the solid metal grid cover hitting the ceiling! in the great HH flood of 2004.
> We have flood defences now provided by Thames Water - but they are only any good if you are at home to put them in place when the rain starts.
> ...


The thing is we weren't flooded in 2004, but the houses at the other end of the row were. I've never been asked about flooding before, and obvs we have had buildings insurance the whole time.


----------



## buscador (Aug 25, 2014)

Ms T said:


> The thing is we weren't flooded in 2004, but the houses at the other end of the row were. I've never been asked about flooding before, and obvs we have had buildings insurance the whole time.



Exactly the situation here.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 26, 2014)

nagapie said:


> It was a genuine thought and question and while not exactly the same, not unrelated.
> 
> There is certainly a view that those who buy mean others go without by raising the price to levels many cannot afford and ensuring that the only call for social housing comes from those less well-off thereby reducing the impact of the demand on politicians. London is a prime example of this.
> 
> When I met mr nags he said that he would never own a property. Unfortunately he hooked up with me and I was already a property owner and still am. Like most people I have capitulated to the idea that I need a house of my own, mostly for security in old age reasons. But this doesn't mean I don't have sympathy with the idea that property owning is part of the problem.


 
sorry, i was a bit in argumentative mode then, my apologies for being a bit politics-forum with you then.

one day i'd like to work towards all property owned in kind and no-one going without or having too much.  for now we're going to have to destroy the livelihoods of the landlords and the speculators by a combination of housebuilding and redistribution of wealth.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2014)

nagapie said:


> Can you be a property owner and meaningfully left-wing?



I think that that is possible, because at root a "property owner" is more often a mortgagee, and someone who is effectively paying money to a bank in order to occupy a property.  The difference is that you (may) build equity.  Obviously, you couldn't be meaningfully communist, but (at least in comparison to the soft-left Parliamentary froth) you can be genuinely socialist in most ways that matter.
It's also essential that in terms of politics, we as individuals and communities acknowledge political realities "on the ground"< and work with what we've got, not with what we'd ideally like.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2014)

nagapie said:


> It was a genuine thought and question and while not exactly the same, not unrelated.
> 
> There is certainly a view that those who buy mean others go without by raising the price to levels many cannot afford and ensuring that the only call for social housing comes from those less well-off thereby reducing the impact of the demand on politicians. London is a prime example of this.
> 
> When I met mr nags he said that he would never own a property. Unfortunately he hooked up with me and I was already a property owner and still am. Like most people I have capitulated to the idea that I need a house of my own, mostly for security in old age reasons. But this doesn't mean I don't have sympathy with the idea that property owning is part of the problem.



I think we need to differentiate owner-occupiers, from Buy-to-Let speculators.  The former are people whose primary motivation is a secure roof over their heads (in which group I'd include those who own a home in one place, but work in another, and rent out their home in order to pay rent on somewhere nearer to where they work).  The latter are _rentier_ scum.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> sorry, i was a bit in argumentative mode then, my apologies for being a bit politics-forum with you then.
> 
> one day i'd like to work towards all property owned in kind and no-one going without or having too much.  for now we're going to have to destroy the livelihoods of the landlords and the speculators by a combination of housebuilding and redistribution of wealth.



Perhaps with some bastinado for _rentiers_ thrown in?


----------



## superfly101 (Aug 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think that that is possible, because at root a "property owner" is more often a mortgagee, and someone who is effectively paying money to a bank in order to occupy a property.  The difference is that you (may) build equity.


But that was in the days of care at NHS source was free. You now have a £37,000 limit of all assets before you have to pay for your old age care as it's been shifted to Councils.

So pay the bank 2x the cost of the house via a mortgage then lose all but £37,000 on you needing residential care. 10 years ago your house would have been inherited now it will be sold to fund care. Unless you have an accountant who understands trusts. We all have them don't we?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 26, 2014)

amongst the principals of socialism, as i see it, is the idea of _solidarity_.  part of solidarity is that you may go without in order to strengthen the demands of your class.  most of us have neither house, no pension, and are unlikely to have that.  the boss class have given us a set of threats generally encouraging us to compete against each other for housing so that we don't end up starving to death on the streets or dying of preventable illnesses in one of the wealthiest nations on earth.  we compete to line their pockets.

so this leaves us (the working classes, and increasingly the lower middle classes too) with only two real options.

Option One: unity and refusal to compromise - voting in (or revolution but lets assume democracy) someone who will sort out the economic problems, arrange it so that there is not a competition between workers to pay hand over fist in the vaguest hope of future security because we're all in it together and a working class homeowner without independent wealth to keep them in their retirement has the same set of needs as a working class non-homeowner &c.   

Option Two: we compete on their terms for limited housing.  House prices go up, job security and conditions go down, rent prices go up as the vast profits made by landlords enable them to buy more houses putting the squeeze on further more people.  It becomes increasingly difficult for working class (and increasingly the lower middle classes too) to get on the property ladder at all, and then once you do you are required to continue to vote against the interests of your class in order that your precarious purchase remains viable.  Because now you have a house you can barely afford, you need it to retain the value it has and so can't vote against building further houses in the quantities needed or it will destroy your investment.

I think we all know which Option the electorate has chosen. 

You say to me your house protects you from being left destitute by the state in later life.  Your vote, your action should be doing that.  Is this what your votes protect, a state that threatens people with destitution after a lifetime generating tax for them?   

Pretty words.... come back to me if i can i ever afford to put my money where my mouth is.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 26, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> [P]art of solidarity is that you may go without in order to strengthen the demands of your class.



Strengthen the demands of your class or meet the needs of all?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 26, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Strengthen the demands of your class or meet the needs of all?



both are the same thing - socialism should be trying to meet everyone's needs or its not socialism, just another bollocks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 27, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> amongst the principals of socialism, as i see it, is the idea of _solidarity_.  part of solidarity is that you may go without in order to strengthen the demands of your class.  most of us have neither house, no pension, and are unlikely to have that.  the boss class have given us a set of threats generally encouraging us to compete against each other for housing so that we don't end up starving to death on the streets or dying of preventable illnesses in one of the wealthiest nations on earth.  we compete to line their pockets.



And thanks to Right-to-Buy, the solidarities experienced by council tenants on estates are also much weaker than they were 30, 20 or even 10 years ago (although thankfully there appears to be something of a resurgence at least in tenants' associations.



> so this leaves us (the working classes, and increasingly the lower middle classes too) with only two real options.
> 
> Option One: unity and refusal to compromise - voting in (or revolution but lets assume democracy) someone who will sort out the economic problems, arrange it so that there is not a competition between workers to pay hand over fist in the vaguest hope of future security because we're all in it together and a working class homeowner without independent wealth to keep them in their retirement has the same set of needs as a working class non-homeowner &c.
> 
> ...



That's what happens when you indoctrinate 2 generations from the cradle-onward with the cult of individualism. Even for those of us who see past it, it can be difficult to struggle against it, not least because educating yourself (or others) to the benefits of class solidarity is usually something connected to adverse experience - IMO you have to experience the grim effects of a lack of social solidarities before you can fully appreciate the absolute need for such solidarities - and some people won't ever be troubled (or so they believe) by such effects.



> You say to me your house protects you from being left destitute by the state in later life.  Your vote, your action should be doing that.  Is this what your votes protect, a state that threatens people with destitution after a lifetime generating tax for them?



Pretty much.
It seems to me that whatever duties the masses owed the state, with regard to the Social Compact, that the state has abrogated the compact so often (with regard to minimising services, minimising the security we should be able to expect as part of our agreement to the social compact, and much else) that we no longer owe them anything except our contempt.

Pretty words.... come back to me if i can i ever afford to put my money where my mouth is.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Rushy (Aug 27, 2014)

Impressive smash on Brixton Hill last night - ran across when I heard it as did a couple of neighbours. From what I understood from a passenger of the bus, two cars were racing at about 90mph up the hill, clipped two busses and spun out. One of the cars was well an truly buggered. I think the driver did a runner. Lots of people with smartphones stood in puddles of leaking fuel taking pictures. I don't think anyone was badly hurt.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Aug 27, 2014)

"Lots of people with smartphones stood in puddles of leaking fuel taking pictures." 
Phones are overtaking humans in evolutionary terms.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 27, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> You say to me your house protects you from being left destitute by the state in later life.  Your vote, your action should be doing that.  Is this what your votes protect, a state that threatens people with destitution after a lifetime generating tax for them?


Well, the idea is that when you get to retire you can sell it off, move abroad, sell it and give a bit to your kids etc, it's your money and your choice, not what the state thinks is best for you. It's pretty difficult to argue against people having that choice.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

OvalhouseDB said:


> "Lots of people with smartphones stood in puddles of leaking fuel taking pictures."
> Phones are overtaking humans in evolutionary terms.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 27, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's pretty difficult to argue against people having that choice.



that's true - i'd rather criticise the system that means that making this choice helps to remove the amount of choices that other people have - but that doesn't mean that there isn't a critique to be made of home-ownership at this time in history.  we shouldn't have to be in this mess.  owning or not owning a house should be a matter of choice for everyone, a decision they can make according to their own preferences.  it shouldn't be like it is.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

Brixton is more and more becoming a split community.

There's the Brixton for those who are lucky enough to own their own house. They're the sort of people who are generally very enthusiastic about the gentrification, the nice new shops, the lovely upmarket restaurants and bars because - for them - life is getting better every day as their assets soar in value.  They're sitting pretty.

And then there's the Brixton for renters - people who are living in fear of either losing their tenancy altogether (this now includes council tenants) or having such huge price hikes thrust on them that they'll have to leave the community they've been part of for years. And some are as angry as fuck about this, and their frustration grows with the lack of support and solidarity shown by some parts of the community.

It seems that a lot of those in the former group are either unable to comprehend what life is like for those at the other end of the spectrum, or they're simply not interested or don't care. In fact, some would be happier if those in Brixton council estates were made to move on so 'nice' new accommodation can be built for the better off (and, yes I have heard this directly).

And there's certainly no question that some of the posters here are fitting some of these stereotypes.


----------



## elmpp (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> Brixton is more and more becoming a split community.
> 
> There's the Brixton for those who are lucky enough to own their own house. They're the sort of people who are generally very enthusiastic about the gentrification, the nice new shops, the lovely upmarket restaurants and bars because - for them - life is getting better every day as their assets soar in value.  They're sitting pretty.
> 
> ...



One of the most-quoted reasons for those explaining why they originally moved into Brixton was the fact that the rents were cheaper than elsewhere. How can one reasonably complain when rents rise?


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

elmpp said:


> One of the most-quoted reasons for those explaining why they originally moved into Brixton was the fact that the rents were cheaper than elsewhere. How can one reasonably complain when rents rise?


There was a _reason_ why the rents were cheap and people generally used to move to Brixton to become part of that cheap renting community. No need to do that now, though.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 27, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> that's true - i'd rather criticise the system that means that making this choice helps to remove the amount of choices that other people have - but that doesn't mean that there isn't a critique to be made of home-ownership at this time in history.  we shouldn't have to be in this mess.  owning or not owning a house should be a matter of choice for everyone, a decision they can make according to their own preferences.  it shouldn't be like it is.


I agree, a tax an second homes would be great, would free up a lot of housing stock.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> I agree, a tax an second homes would be great, would free up a lot of housing stock.


A FUCKING MASSIVE one too.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 27, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> I agree, a tax an second homes would be great, would free up a lot of housing stock.



definitely, amongst other things.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> It seems that a lot of those in the former group are either unable to comprehend what life is like for those at the other end of the spectrum, or they're simply not interested or don't care. In fact, some would be happier if those in Brixton council estates were made to move on so 'nice' new accommodation can be built for the better off (and, yes I have heard this directly).
> 
> And there's certainly no question that some of the posters here are fitting some of these stereotypes.


Who are they, then?


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Who are they, then?


Oh, shush, you silly little man.  I don't do call outs.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 27, 2014)

elmpp said:


> One of the most-quoted reasons for those explaining why they originally moved into Brixton was the fact that the rents were cheaper than elsewhere. How can one reasonably complain when rents rise?



And we want a London open to all - and then find the soaring population inflates housing costs (absent an improbable building boom).


----------



## Rushy (Aug 27, 2014)

leanderman said:


> And we want a London open to all - and then find the soaring population inflates housing costs (absent an improbable building boom).


Some want all of London open to all -  all except their bit, that is.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

leanderman said:


> And we want a London open to all - and then find the soaring population inflates housing costs (absent an improbable building boom).


I want a London that has generous levels of social housing in all areas, rather than the exploitative developers/buy-to-letters profiteering paradise that it's turned into.


----------



## shifting gears (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> I want a London that has generous levels of social housing in all areas, rather than the exploitative developers/buy-to-letters profiteering paradise that it's turned into.



Amen to that.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> Oh, shush, you silly little man.  I don't do call outs.


You've already done the call-out. Too cowardly to put any names to it, though. Easier just to leave your judgemental accusation hanging there, than to actually have to back it up with anything, I suppose.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

teuchter said:


> You've already done the call-out. Too cowardly to put any names to it, though. Easier just to leave your judgemental accusation hanging there, than to actually have to back it up with anything, I suppose.


It was intentionally a general comment. People can make up their own minds if so inclined. Your predictable attempts to shit stir by making it personal have been noted though. Zzzzz.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 27, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Who are they, then?



We know who we are!


----------



## leanderman (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> I want a London that has generous levels of social housing in all areas, rather than the exploitative developers/buy-to-letters profiteering paradise that it's turned into.



Would need legislative and tax changes to stop the speculation - unlikely with our Parliament and traditions. 

Brixton has 'generous levels of social housing'. Many other areas do not.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Brixton has 'generous levels of social housing'. Many other areas do not.


Those  'generous' levels are depleting fast and none is being built to replace it. I want more. Lots more.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> Those  'generous' levels are depleting fast and none is being built to replace it. I want more. Lots more.



Need figures.


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 27, 2014)

It's been (in the main) an interesting few pages on gentrification in Brixton. Pity it will be closed in the next few days. But I guess the usual shit will start soon so maybe it's for the best


----------



## SarfLondoner (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> Brixton is more and more becoming a split community.
> 
> There's the Brixton for those who are lucky enough to own their own house. They're the sort of people who are generally very enthusiastic about the gentrification, the nice new shops, the lovely upmarket restaurants and bars because - for them - life is getting better every day as their assets soar in value.  They're sitting pretty.
> 
> ...



Its the system that is wrong not necessarily the people living in it. The government,councils, banks, estate agents and private landlords are fucking people over, rich and poor. I know people with fairly well paid jobs that have families and a mortgage and still struggle to pay the bills. What are they to do?


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 27, 2014)

As we speak my wife is in a second interview for a job in London. If she gets it we'll be moving back to Brixton (hopefully). I'm fucking nervous and excited


----------



## Winot (Aug 27, 2014)

Mr Retro said:


> It's been (in the main) an interesting few pages on gentrification in Brixton. Pity it will be closed in the next few days.



They're closing Brixton?!


----------



## Rushy (Aug 27, 2014)

Mr Retro said:


> As we speak my wife is in a second interview for a job in London. If she gets it we'll be moving back to Brixton (hopefully). I'm fucking nervous and excited


Good luck!


----------



## SarfLondoner (Aug 27, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Good luck!



I second that.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Aug 27, 2014)

Winot said:


> They're closing Brixton?!


Is Mike Tyson returning?


----------



## Greebo (Aug 27, 2014)

Mr Retro said:


> As we speak my wife is in a second interview for a job in London. If she gets it we'll be moving back to Brixton (hopefully). I'm fucking nervous and excited


Good luck with the interview Mrs Retro.  Here's hoping for your joint return to civilisation as you might just about still recognise it.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> It was intentionally a general comment. People can make up their own minds if so inclined. Your predictable attempts to shit stir by making it personal have been noted though. Zzzzz.


Virtually every day we have to endure your simplistic lectures about the haves and have-nots of Brixton. Telling us what we already know, not just because you repeat the same old stuff relentlessly, but because we also live here, see what's going on, and care about it. It's immensely insulting to imply that amongst the regular posters here, there are people who don't care about or aren't interested in the things that affect the least privileged in this neighbourhood.  Or who want people moved out.

Many of us here, including me, are relatively privileged - financially and otherwise - residents of Brixton. But so are you. So leave off with your implied judgements about people not caring as much as you do.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Virtually every day we ...<blah blah>


"_We_"? 

Please resist the temptation to post up any more of your deeply hypocritical and disruptive personal character assassinations as they add nothing of value to the boards whatsoever. Thanks.


----------



## ringo (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> There's the Brixton for those who are lucky enough to own their own house. They're the sort of people who are generally very enthusiastic about the gentrification, the nice new shops, the lovely upmarket restaurants and bars because - for them - life is getting better every day as their assets soar in value.  They're sitting pretty.
> 
> And then there's the Brixton for renters - people who are living in fear of either losing their tenancy altogether (this now includes council tenants) or having such huge price hikes thrust on them that they'll have to leave the community they've been part of for years. And some are as angry as fuck about this, and their frustration grows with the lack of support and solidarity shown by some parts of the community.
> 
> ...



 "They're the sort of people who are generally very enthusiastic about the gentrification" is a rubbish generalisation about people who have bought property. 

Your theory that owning/renting conforms to an idea of lucky 'have' and unlucky 'have nots' is simplistic and meaningless. You make it sound like these are paths people are born into with no ability for self determination. 

I know lots of people who decided in their 20s and 30s to save up to buy a house, and lots who decided not to. Those I knew who bought saved hard and made sacrifices, or received small windfalls they invested instead of spending. I'm sure many people in Brixton could have spent less money on travel, beer, techie toys, having fun etc and put that money into a deposit, but chose not to. 

All that a deposit does is give you a mortgage - a massive debt - you don't just get to automatically own a freehold outright and watch some mysterious flow of cash come pouring in. I'm not saying everyone has had the opportunity by any means, but pretending there are just two options is nonsense.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Need figures.


Let's put it another way. 
Are new council houses being built? No. 
Are people buying council properties? Yes.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

ringo said:


> "They're the sort of people who are generally very enthusiastic about the gentrification" is a rubbish generalisation about people who have bought property.


Sorry, I meant 'own' as in actually owning property outright, not being tied to a hideous mortgage which I know can be crippling. I should have been a bit clearer there.


----------



## ringo (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> Sorry, I meant 'own' as in actually owning property outright, not being tied to a hideous mortgage which I know can be crippling. I should have been a bit clearer there.



That makes quite a difference. Sounds like more of an age thing though. To own a house outright would suggest paying off a 20 - 25 year mortgage, so probably someone in late middle age/retirement. I imagine most people would like a quiet life and a return on their 25 year investment by then, and hoping to not have been left in negative equity by fluctuating house prices, which is not that uncommon. I know people who put their money into property instead of a pension because they couldn't afford to do both, it's still a risk they're taking on their future well being in their old age, not a winning lottery ticket. Might seem it looking at house prices this year, but people have lost their life savings several times in our lifetime and probably will again.

Not sure how it automatically leads to them becoming "unable to comprehend what life is like for those at the other end of the spectrum, or they're simply not interested or don't care". That's a broad generalisation.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

ringo said:


> Not sure how it automatically leads to them becoming "unable to comprehend what life is like for those at the other end of the spectrum, or they're simply not interested or don't care". That's a broad generalisation.


It was a broad and perhaps sloppy generalisation and clearly not everyone thinks like that, but I continue to be amazed by the sheer lack of understanding by some about the realities of life for those at the other end of Brixton's 'success story.' 

Like when someone excitedly tweets about a meal in some trendy restaurant "only" being £35 a head or whatever. That's what some people on my estate have to feed their families on for a week. 

But hey! These are the things that bother me. I've no doubt they don't bother others.


----------



## 299 old timer (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> Like when someone excitedly tweets about a meal in some trendy restaurant "only" being £35 a head or whatever. That's what some people on my estate have to feed their families on for a week.



One reason why I gave up reading the New Statesman back in the 80s - a review of a Japanese restaurant at something like £100 for two, joke champagne socialist mugs


----------



## teuchter (Aug 27, 2014)

I wonder how long you could feed a family for, on the price of a ticket to the opening night of Kate Bush at the Hammersmith Apollo.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

teuchter said:


> I wonder how long you could feed a family for, on the price of a ticket to the opening night of Kate Bush at the Hammersmith Apollo.


Congratulations. You have now hit rock bottom.

PS. It was a birthday present.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 27, 2014)

Lolol your conversations really do brighten up my day 

teuchter with his sneaky sideswipes followed by editor reacting angrily on cue. It's like a slick comedy routine


----------



## leanderman (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> Let's put it another way.
> Are new council houses being built? No.
> Are people buying council properties? Yes.



Lambeth is about to build some council houses (Somerleyton). Housing associations are building (eg shared on Effra rd).

Where people are buying council houses under this dodgy right to buy policy it does not diminish the total supply of housing. About 11,000 homes are being sold off annually - across the country.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Lolol your conversations really do brighten up my day
> 
> teuchter with his sneaky sideswipes followed by editor reacting angrily on cue. It's like a slick comedy routine


But they add precisely nothing to the topic under discussion, they cause disruption and no doubt make the place a lot less appealing to potential new contributors. So forgive me if I don't share your happiness at the endless hominems and unpleasant personal attacks.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Lambeth is about to build some council houses (Somerleyton). Housing associations are building (eg shared on Effra rd).
> 
> Where people are buying council houses under this dodgy right to buy policy it does not diminish the total supply of housing. About 11,000 homes are being sold off annually - across the country.


So - just to get this straight - you think there's more (or at least the same amount) of council housing stock that there was, say ten years ago? 

Lambeth has certainly got rid of vast chunks of its short life housing stock. Where are those people supposed to go?


----------



## leanderman (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> So - just to get this straight - you think there's more (or at least the same amount) of council housing stock that there was, say ten years ago?
> 
> Lambeth has certainly got rid of vast chunks of its short life housing stock. Where are those people supposed to go?



Yep - I don't think there is a lot less social housing stock in Brixton than ten years ago. 

Short life is a separate issue. 

I don't know what numbers were involved. 

But, as with right to buy, the housing is still used and in some cases, but not enough, has been retained by the council (eg bits of Rushcroft).


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Yep - I don't think there is a lot less social housing stock in Brixton than ten years ago.


So where do you think the replacement council housing stock has been coming from? Loads of flats in my block are now privately owned, and you'll see those for sale signs all over the estates and all I usually hear about is Lambeth flogging off properties.


> Amidst the worst housing crisis in decades, with the official homelessness rate rising by 14% in 2011-12 and social housing waiting lists reaching a cumulative total of five million people, it is clear that the logic of this equation does not add up. With rents and property prices skyrocketing across London, those who can afford to live in places like Brixton are increasingly only the highest earners. A single flat in one of the Rushcroft Road blocks was recently sold for £475,000.
> 
> Lambeth Council has announced intentions to sell three of the six Rushcroft Road blocks on the open market. With one estimated value of £5.5 million, these are headed quickly into the 'luxury flat' terrain. Two additional Rushcroft Road blocks, evicted a couple of years ago, were already sold on the private markets.
> 
> ...


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 27, 2014)

Winot said:


> They're closing Brixton?!



Don't worry, it's only for a little while. Brixton will re-open before long. Chill, soon come. DON'T LOOK AT YOUR WATCH.


----------



## Manter (Aug 27, 2014)

Rec pool is closed 'indefinitely' for 'Unscheduled maintenance'

They really are utterly useless.... To much to hope Lambeth were bright enough to put a clawback clause in their contract?!


----------



## leanderman (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> So where do you think the replacement council housing stock has been coming from? Loads of flats in my block are now privately owned, and you'll see those for sale signs all over the estates and all I usually hear about is Lambeth flogging off properties.



Well, right-to-buys are running at 11,000 a year nationally.

Up from around 8,000 last year.

A third are in London.

That is not a lot for Lambeth. 100 or so?

The signs you see may be the effects of 30 years of right-to-buy.

Pretty sure there have been no right-to-buys in this (long) road in recent times.

Not least because much of this part of Brixton is owned by L&Q housing association, which won't let tenants buy.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Well, right-to-buys are running at 11,000 a year nationally.
> 
> Up from around 8,000 last year.
> 
> ...


So what brand new (as opposed to refurbished/rebuilt) council housing stock have you seen going up in Brixton recently?
The big flog off of housing co-operatives has seen even more pressure on the remaining council homes, as there's obviously far less social housing about.

I'm still getting letters inviting me to go for RTB for for my flat and I've never seen so many 'for sale ' signs in my neighbourhood. 

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/housing/c...sing/buying-a-council-home-right-to-buy-guide


----------



## leanderman (Aug 27, 2014)

Manter said:


> Rec pool is closed 'indefinitely' for 'Unscheduled maintenance'
> 
> They really are utterly useless!



Instead I had to pay £10.30 (!) to book a badminton court for an hour.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> So what brand new (as opposed to refurbished/rebuilt) council housing stock have you seen going up in Brixton recently?
> The big flog off of housing co-operatives has seen even more pressure on the remaining council homes, so there's obviously far less social housing about.



I don't think I was arguing that council housing was being built.

Instead I said that the social housing stock is not much diminished over ten years.

And where it has been, tenants have become owners, with no net effect on supply and demand.

Short life, as the name implies, is a separate situation.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

leanderman said:


> And where it has been, tenants have become owners, with no net effect on supply and demand.


That might be the case if they hadn't put them on the market via the charmers at Foxtons.


----------



## T & P (Aug 27, 2014)

Manter said:


> Rec pool is closed 'indefinitely' for 'Unscheduled maintenance'
> 
> They really are utterly useless.... To much to hope Lambeth were bright enough to put a clawback clause in their contract?!


A bit of a trek, but until it's sorted out you could try the new pool at West Norwood...


----------



## Manter (Aug 27, 2014)

T & P said:


> A bit of a trek, but until it's sorted out you could try the new pool at West Norwood...


We're going to do a tour of the local pools- the rec is always a bit cold for the baby anyway, so it's a good spur to investigate others...


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 27, 2014)

Ed - But social housing only moves into private ownership when a council tenant exercises their right to buy? So are you saying that they shouldn't?


----------



## se5 (Aug 27, 2014)

Manter said:


> We're going to do a tour of the local pools- the rec is always a bit cold for the baby anyway, so it's a good spur to investigate others...



The Clapham leisure centre childrens pool  is good although gets busy at the weekend

Camberwell pool is also good


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

sparkybird said:


> Ed - But social housing only moves into private ownership when a council tenant exercises their right to buy? So are you saying that they shouldn't?


I'm saying that Thatcher should never have allowed the big council housing give-away to happen and subsequent governments should have stopped it in its tracks, given that it failed to deliver on its promise of new council housing being built with the money raised.

With no new council housing being built, it is insane to keep offering what little is left at discount prices, although I attach no blame to the tenants whatsoever.

With government policies about social housing making them feel ever more unsure about how safe their tenancy is, I don't blame any council tenant buying their own property. After all, how else can they can guarantee that they can stay part of their own community?


----------



## Winot (Aug 27, 2014)

Manter said:


> We're going to do a tour of the local pools- the rec is always a bit cold for the baby anyway, so it's a good spur to investigate others...



Peckham Pulse best for babies ime but phone ahead.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 27, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Lambeth is about to build some council houses (Somerleyton). Housing associations are building (eg shared on Effra rd).
> 
> Where people are buying council houses under this dodgy right to buy policy it does not diminish the total supply of housing. About 11,000 homes are being sold off annually - across the country.



It does, however, diminish the total supply of local authority social housing, and as for HA new-build, they've barely managed to service about 5% of demand for new social housing in any year in the last 20. In some cases they haven't even managed a replacement rate for LA social housing lost through RtB sales.
So while total supply may not have been diminished, total supply doesn't matter. What matters - what is relevant to what the ed is saying - is the supply of social housing, which *is* diminishing.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> I'm saying that Thatcher should never have allowed the big council housing give-away to happen and subsequent governments should have stopped it in its tracks, given that it failed to deliver on its promise of new council housing being built with the money raised.
> 
> With no new council housing being built, it is insane to keep offering what little is left at discount prices, although I attach no blame to the tenants whatsoever.
> 
> With government policies about social housing making them feel ever more unsure about how safe their tenancy is, I don't blame any council tenant buying their own property. After all, how else can they can guarantee that they can stay part of their own community?



I agree it is madness, but as you say who of us would look such a gift horse in the mouth? 

I'm not sure it does guarantee that they stay part of their own community though... the people I know who have RTB have sold up when they could and used the profits to buy with a mortgage something bigger outside of the area. (and said a big thank you for what they see as basically a free gift and a leg up onto the housing 'ladder')


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 27, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Yep - I don't think there is a lot less social housing stock in Brixton than ten years ago.
> 
> Short life is a separate issue.
> 
> ...



*2001 total LA dwelling stock for Lambeth was just under 35,000. As of 2011 it was around 25,500, so over 10 years, 9,500-ish Local Authority social housing units have been lost to those in need of social housing, mostly through RtB.
In the same period, RSL/HA holdings have increased from around 16,500 in 2001, to 23,000 in 2011. A gain of 6,500 dwellings.

Now, according to my maths, that means a total of 3,000 homes lost entirely to the social housing sector in Lambeth, so I'd say that even allowing for an even spread of losses and gains across the borough, Brixton is likely to have significantly less social housing than it used to.

*ONS local authority property holdings figures


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> I'm saying that Thatcher should never have allowed the big council housing give-away to happen and subsequent governments should have stopped it in its tracks, given that it failed to deliver on its promise of new council housing being built with the money raised.
> 
> With no new council housing being built, it is insane to keep offering what little is left at discount prices, although I attach no blame to the tenants whatsoever.
> 
> With government policies about social housing making them feel ever more unsure about how safe their tenancy is, I don't blame any council tenant buying their own property. After all, how else can they can guarantee that they can stay part of their own community?



As I've said elsewhere, another problem was that around '87-'88, the clause within Right-to-Buy contracts giving local authorities first refusal to buy back houses bought under the legislation, was removed, so that local authorities couldn't even minimally replenish lost stock.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

sparkybird said:


> I agree it is madness, but as you say who of us would look such a gift horse in the mouth?
> 
> I'm not sure it does guarantee that they stay part of their own community though... the people I know who have RTB have sold up when they could and used the profits to buy with a mortgage something bigger outside of the area. (and said a big thank you for what they see as basically a free gift and a leg up onto the housing 'ladder')


Well, yes, but tenants - including those staunchly opposed to selling off council housing - are increasingly feeling under pressure to buy because they're fearful that the council will flog off/demolish their housing or 'do' a Guinness Trust.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 27, 2014)

sparkybird said:


> I agree it is madness, but as you say who of us would look such a gift horse in the mouth?



Me.  If I had the money to buy my council flat, and I was that bothered about owning a property, I wouldn't exercise my "right to buy". I'd use the money to buy outside of London or in the London backwaters. My reasoning is two-fold:
a) Inner London prices are ridiculously high, and what buys a 1-bed flat here, could buy a larger property elsewhere, and
b) I ideologically disagree with Right-to-Buy, and believe it was and is a deliberately socially-destructive policy invented by Tories, in order to turn people into Tories.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 27, 2014)

Without getting angry, can someone explain why people don't like the right to buy? I know a lot of people opposed it but I never really understood why


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 27, 2014)

But the majority of people don't think like you, VP.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

sparkybird said:


> But the majority of people don't think like you, VP.


Pre-Thatcher, a  lot more would of though.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 27, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Without getting angry, can someone explain why people don't like the right to buy? I know a lot of people opposed it but I never really understood why


Because it diminishes the stock of council housing.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 27, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Without getting angry, can someone explain why people don't like the right to buy? I know a lot of people opposed it but I never really understood why



Right to buy sells off council housing without the money being earmarked for creating new social housing. 
If you want to read a book about this sort of stuff, I recommend Estates by Lyndey Hanley - well worth a read.


----------



## se5 (Aug 27, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Without getting angry, can someone explain why people don't like the right to buy? I know a lot of people opposed it but I never really understood why



Well there are the ideological reasons as seen above - 'property is theft', the philosophical - taxpayers' money financed the building of this housing and so it should be available to future generations not just for the private benefit of those who happen to be living in the community asset when the opportunity to buy arose -'selling off the family silver' kind of thing.

Then there is the more 'practical' objection that it reduces the amount of affordable housing available to people across London reducing the diversity of the community in terms of income and forcing those in less well paid jobs to move further out of London/ live in poorer quality housing. Selling off council housing is not necessarily an issue in itself but the way that the policy has been implemented from the early 1980s onwards means that there are now fewer affordable houses and flats in London. It also had an element of social engineering by the Tory government.

When the policy was introduced Thatcher specifically prevented local authorities from reinvesting the proceeds of housing sales in new housing as she wanted to reduce their power-base and create a new class of home-owners who she hoped would be free market capitalists (and Tory voters). Thatcher brought in discounts for tenants buying to make the whole thing more desirable.

Previously the Labour government and Labour & Tory councils had sold off council housing but had used the money they got to build new houses to replace and expand the housing stock.

There is also a problem that the housing that was bought under RTB was the more 'desirable' family housing -generally the houses rather than flats- which meant that councils were left with a much reduced stock of usually the hardest to let flats and so social housing went into a spiral of offering poorer quality housing and being seen as less desirable. 

This was the situation across the country: it has only really become more of an issue since the mid-1990s in Brixton as the area wasnt seen as being desirable. Since then  people have wanted to live in Brixton more and so the demand for council housing has gone up whilst at the same time people have seen that they can make a 'profit' by exercising their right to buy and then selling the housing on and moving to somehwere cheaper. 

However social housing is still a major factor in the local area: the situation in Lambeth and other inner city areas is very different to outer London and the rest of the country. For example the figures for Coldharbour Ward show that in 2011 58% of residents lived in social housing, whilst 16% lived in housing owned outright/ with a mortgage and 21% of households rented privately (see http://www.neighbourhood.statistics...m=0&r=1&s=1409172218656&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2505). Across England as a whole 63% of households are owner occupiers,  18% are council or housing tenants and and 17% rent privately. 

The problem of not building enough council housing is allied to a general problem that we have not been building enough housing generally over the past 25 years across the UK to meet demand. The number of people needing houses has grown as people are living longer, more people are divorcing, more people are wanting to live alone and more people have wanted to come and live in this country which all means that demand is greater than supply. The official stats show that each year something like 240,000 new households are created in England and Wales but the total number of new homes built last year was only around 120,000 and it has been around this level or less for a long time.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 27, 2014)

Sorry to interrupt, but I have important news for Badgers 

Blacker Dread's is becoming a jacket potato shop

As you were....


----------



## Rushy (Aug 27, 2014)

Ms T said:


> Sorry to interrupt, but I have important news for Badgers
> 
> Blacker Dread's is becoming a jacket potato shop
> 
> As you were....



Hopefully this will bring to an end the mawkish cross thread baked potato reminiscences.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 27, 2014)

A friend of mine got a council flat near Old St under RTB for something like 30k.  She then raised capital on the equity, rented the ex-council flat out for a while, then sold it and bought another property in Notting Hill as a buy-to-let. All the while insisting she was "working class".  I also know someone who rents his flat from someone who got it under squatter's rights. Now that really is working the system.


----------



## simonSW2 (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> So what brand new (as opposed to refurbished/rebuilt) council housing stock have you seen going up in Brixton recently?



In the interests of balance: 37 new flats for families in two small new blocks being built just off Christchurch Road / Brixton Hill junction on Garden Lane at the moment.ALL social housing.

Overall figures would be very interesting though. Provision 10 years ago versus now against overall number of households etc.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 27, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> *2001 total LA dwelling stock for Lambeth was just under 35,000. As of 2011 it was around 25,500, so over 10 years, 9,500-ish Local Authority social housing units have been lost to those in need of social housing, mostly through RtB.
> In the same period, RSL/HA holdings have increased from around 16,500 in 2001, to 23,000 in 2011. A gain of 6,500 dwellings.
> 
> Now, according to my maths, that means a total of 3,000 homes lost entirely to the social housing sector in Lambeth, so I'd say that even allowing for an even spread of losses and gains across the borough, Brixton is likely to have significantly less social housing than it used to.
> ...



Adding in maybe one or two thousand right to buys - which council tenants gain from -  that is a fall-off of around 4 per cent (35,000 to about 33,500).

And the pace of social housing new-builds may be picking up to close the gap entirely.

I would like to see a lot more social housing built however.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 27, 2014)

Thanks teuchter and boohoo I quote se5 for simplicity only



se5 said:


> taxpayers' money financed the building of this housing and so it should be available to future generations not just for the private benefit of those who happen to be living in the community asset when the opportunity to buy arose -'selling off the family silver' kind of thing..



Now that's an argument I can understand. Although I can't shift the idea that in a way this position sort of says there will always be x number of people requiring social housing. Surely we should be aiming for the end point of nobody requiring state aid? Unlikely I know, but it's a bit like the bank saying "here's a loan but don't worry we know we won't see our money back". However, my beer befuddled mind can't assess the time limit aspect - the right to buy only lasted for a short period? I thought from what was previously posted that it existed for quite some time (if not still existed)?



se5 said:


> Then there is the more 'practical' objection that it reduces the amount of affordable housing available to people across London reducing the diversity of the community in terms of income and forcing those in less well paid jobs to move further out of London/ live in poorer quality housing.



That I'm not so sure about as it rewards those that have (and I realise this doesn't sound good but I struggle after a few beers to find a better turn of phrase but) made an effort to improve themselves *enters bomb shelter*



se5 said:


> When the policy was introduced Thatcher specifically prevented local authorities from reinvesting the proceeds of housing sales in new housing.



However, that, which I happily assume to be true, alleviates my above comment.



se5 said:


> Since then people have wanted to live in Brixton more and so the demand for council housing has gone up



And I know for sure this will cause blood to boil, but I can't help feeling that if you require social housing, then your expectation to live a desirable area is secondary to your desire to live in state funded accommodation? I should point of out that whilst I agree with preventing ghettoisation(sp?), I do find it hard to walk past the Georgian mansions in expensive parts of London handed over to social housing without some envy.

I realise I'm a bit of a noob on the right to buy discussion, but I am trying to understand


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

se5 said:


> For example the figures for Coldharbour Ward show that in 2011 58% of residents lived in social housing, whilst 16% lived in housing owned outright/ with a mortgage and 21% of households rented privately....


Excellent answer, but it should be pointed out that the high levels of social housing in Coldharbour Ward is not representative of all of Brixton and the surrounding areas. 

If only it were...


----------



## Manter (Aug 27, 2014)

Winot said:


> Peckham Pulse best for babies ime but phone ahead.


Thankyou :/)


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> And I know for sure this will cause blood to boil, but I can't help feeling that if you require social housing, then your expectation to live a desirable area is secondary to your desire to live in state funded accommodation? I should point of out that whilst I agree with preventing ghettoisation(sp?), I do find it hard to walk past the Georgian mansions in expensive parts of London handed over to social housing without some envy.


Here. Have a read.


> *Who really gets government subsidised housing?*
> 
> Official figures show government spends more money on supporting owner-occupiers than social tenants..
> 
> ...


Could you list all these 'Georgian mansions in expensive parts of London that have been handed over to social housing' that you've been walking past recently please? Thanks.


----------



## se5 (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> Excellent answer, but it should be pointed out that the high levels of social housing in Coldharbour Ward is not representative of all of Brixton and the surrounding areas.
> 
> If only it were...



Coldharbour does have greater levels of council/social housing than probably 95%+ of England but I think the situation in Coldharbour is similar to wards in the Brixton area generally - Vassall, Stockwell, Tulse Hill, Larkhall etc - its places like Streatham and Clapham that are significantly different in terms of greater numbers of owner occupiers, fewer social housing tenants etc.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 27, 2014)

I lived in Pimlico and several of my neighbours lived in (Georgian) reduced rent accommodation through a housing association. Perhaps a housing association doesn't pass your social housing test, but it does to me (I worked for one briefly). Oh, and you forgot the facepalm emoticon you're so found of (although I smugly feel I've ruined that for you - yeah that's right I split an infinitive. I'm a maverick)

Here, I'll put in in for you   Seriously, enough with the passive aggressive posting. This is not an opportunity for you to score points, I'm actually trying to understand your (plural) point of view


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> I lived in Pimlico and several of my neighbours lived in (Georgian) reduced rent accommodation through a housing association.


So why on earth should that bother you?

And what does the style of architecture have to do with anything?  Would it be OK if they were living in Victorian or Modernist homes? Georgian style does not automatically equate to some kind of luxurious living.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 28, 2014)

se5 said:


> Coldharbour does have greater levels of council/social housing than probably 95%+ of England but I think the situation in Coldharbour is similar to wards in the Brixton area generally - Vassall, Stockwell, Tulse Hill, Larkhall etc - its places like Streatham and Clapham that are significantly different in terms of greater numbers of owner occupiers, fewer social housing tenants etc.



So - in the interests of mixed communities - new social housing should be targeted in Streatham and Clapham and, for that matter, Knightsbridge and Chelsea.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 28, 2014)

editor said:


> So why on earth should that bother you?
> 
> And what does the style of architecture have to do with anything?  Would it be OK if they were living in Victorian or Modernist homes? Georgian style does not automatically equate to some kind of luxurious living.



Errr...... Because I'm envious? Really you should read my posts more closely. Here, let me quote you quoting me saying that. 

And I've said before I'm a sucker for architecture hence why the architecture matters to me.





			
				editor said:
			
		

> SpamMisery said:
> 
> 
> > And I know for sure this will cause blood to boil, but I can't help feeling that if you require social housing, then your expectation to live a desirable area is secondary to your desire to live in state funded accommodation? I should point of out that whilst I agree with preventing ghettoisation(sp?), I do find it hard to walk past the Georgian mansions in expensive parts of London handed over to social housing without some envy.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 28, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> There were some people on basements on Railton rd you were flooded by sewer water up to ground level about 6 or 8 ft in some cases.



I helped dig up a blocked drain about half way up Railton Road years ago. Go down a bit and its wet clay. The sewer is the old river.


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Errr...... Because I'm envious?


Poor you.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 28, 2014)

Well, that was editors attempt to help me understand the right to buy situation. Grateful for any views from the original posters (or others) who might improve on editors attempts


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Well, that was editors attempt to help me understand the right to buy situation. Grateful for any views from the original posters (or others) who might improve on editors attempts


Keep me out of your disingenuous and disruptive antics please.

If you sincerely want to understand the ethics and arguments about Right To Buy there's plenty of sources on the web. You could start right here. Read it carefully please.


> *Safe as houses*
> When it was introduced almost 30 years ago, Right to Buy was hailed as 'one of the most important social revolutions of the century'. But far from seeing council estates transformed by their home-owning former tenants, it has led to fractured communities, the rise of exploitative landlordism and a lack of housing so severe that some councils are now trying to buy their old homes back.
> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/sep/30/housing.houseprices


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 28, 2014)

I'll be sure to check it out. Shame you didn't post it 10 or so posts earlier in answer to my original question; we could have saved ourselves an hour or silly point scoring


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> So - in the interests of mixed communities - new social housing should be targeted in Streatham and Clapham and, for that matter, Knightsbridge and Chelsea.



The Council did own property in Clapham but its been selling it as these properties command high prices. 

I agree that new social housing should be targeted in areas like Knightsbridge. One Hyde Park should have had some but it does not. Developers fight to stop it.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 28, 2014)

editor said:


> Keep me out of your disingenuous and disruptive antics please.
> 
> If you sincerely want to understand the ethics and arguments about Right To Buy there's plenty of sources on the web. You could start right here. Read it carefully please.



One of the depressing things about right to buy is how many such homes are now in the hands of the family of the Tory minister who pioneered the scheme.


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> One of the depressing things about right to buy is how many such homes are now in the hands of the family of the Tory minister who pioneered the scheme.


I can't hide my disgust and contempt for these profiteering scum.


> Great Tory housing shame: Third of ex-council homes now owned by rich landlords
> 
> The multi-millionaire son of a Tory minister who presided over the controversial “right-to -buy” scheme is a buy-to-let landlord owning scores of former council flats.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

And these stories make me sick too: 
*Ex-council homes: how to buy a bargain*
A new proposal to sell off council housing in some of Britain's best postcode areas could be a once-in-a-lifetime investment opportunity. It is no time for snobbery, says Graham Norwood.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 28, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Errr...... Because I'm envious? Really you should read my posts more closely. Here, let me quote you quoting me saying that.
> 
> And I've said before I'm a sucker for architecture hence why the architecture matters to me.



Can you clarify whether it is that you are envious of those who live in social housing in an area you quote below or you think that social housing should not be provided in those areas? 

As its the second is how I read what you posted below. 



> and I know for sure this will cause blood to boil, but I can't help feeling that if you require social housing, then your expectation to live a desirable area is secondary to your desire to live in state funded accommodation? I should point of out that whilst I agree with preventing ghettoisation(sp?), I do find it hard to walk past the Georgian mansions in expensive parts of London handed over to social housing without some envy.



BTW if you are referring to Pimlico I guess its one of the old estates run by Peabody. In which case its not state funded. They are old philanthropic charity who acquired land years ago.


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> I'll be sure to check it out. Shame you didn't post it 10 or so posts earlier in answer to my original question; we could have saved ourselves an hour or silly point scoring


If you're too lazy to bother with even basic research, I'll be fucked if I'm going to dance around to your stupid, disingenuous and faux-innocent questions. I'm certainly not fooled by your antics here, and I'll suggest you carefully read the rules about trolling again.


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> BTW if you are referring to Pimlico I guess its one of the old estates run by Peabody. In which case its not state funded. They are old philanthropic charity who acquired land years ago.


Almost certainly. 

Peabody (Peabody Trust), founded in 1862, is one of London's oldest and largest housing associations with around 27,000 properties. It is also a charity and urban regeneration agency.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 28, 2014)

editor said:


> If you're too lazy to bother with even basic research, I'll be fucked if I'm going to dance around to your stupid, disingenuous and faux-innocent questions. I'm certainly not fooled by your antics here, and I'll suggest you carefully read the rules about trolling again.



Classic editor


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 28, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Can you clarify whether it is that you are envious of those who live in social housing in an area you quote below or you think that social housing should not be provided in those areas?
> 
> As its the second is how I read what you posted below.



It's the second (ish) in the sense that I work hard but will never afford a property like that; and that is a bit grating. And it's ish in the sense I don't disagree with social housing in any part of London, just that selling off the property for maximum gain in order to build cheaper housing (acknowledging what was said before about that not being done) would be my preferred option


----------



## shifting gears (Aug 28, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> It's the second (ish) in the sense that I work hard but will never afford a property like that; and that is a bit grating. n



Aka "people in council housing are lazy and feckless and don't work hard"

Get fucked eh?


----------



## boohoo (Aug 28, 2014)

shifting gears said:


> Aka "people in council housing are lazy and feckless and don't work hard"
> 
> Get fucked eh?



Getting angry at someone who doesn't understand doesn't help.

SpamMisery

I grow up in a council house that is a 150 year old Victorian property - there were quite a lot where I lived. I'm not sure how the council acquired them (and I am interested to find out). But the area was interspersed with posh home owners, squats, derelicts, various homes like the old people's home, prefabs, the regular burnt out cars and a fair amount of tension in the street. But as a kid I think I would have rather lived on a quiet estate than a Victorian property where aggression happening outside the house was a fairly regular occurrence. The area has changed since then - the old people's home and the other homes got removed and turned into fake Victorian terraces and houses, the sites of the prefabs also got developed. The burnt out cars went as did the derelicts and squats. Some of the social housing went under RTB and the rest is now RSL - and the area is very wealthy middle class now. Places change.

Council housing has been stereotypes as a place where you have problem families and people who are fiddling the system - and this stereotype has been encouraged - it's a great way to resent those who have social housing and so when that housing is under threat, no-one wants to stand up and support them because they have been encouraged to believe that the people living there don't deserve it.

Because there is a decline in social housing, there is less opportunity for everyone to benefit from it if that is what they want.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 28, 2014)

I live in a Victorian terrace - there's still loads of social housing on the street.  I know this because a few years ago they were all painted at the same time.  Our next-door-but-one neighbour at the time actually got paid by the council to paint her own house, and her boyfriend got the contract for quite a few of the others.   

On a related topic - does anyone know what the rules are for council tenants keeping up their properties?  Our next-door-but-one neighbour (a different one) has boarded up the windows in the basement, both back and front, for no apparent reason (like broken windows), and the garden is a complete wilderness.  My next-door neighbour is seriously unimpressed.  Tbh, I'd be more scared of her than of the council - she's lovely but one fierce lady!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2014)

editor said:


> Here. Have a read.
> Could you list all these 'Georgian mansions in expensive parts of London that have been handed over to social housing' that you've been walking past recently please? Thanks.


This post is where the aggressive tone was introduced to what was a perfectly reasonable discussion. Shortly thereafter, SpamMisery gets banned for being "disruptive".


----------



## Rushy (Aug 28, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> The Council did own property in Clapham but its been selling it as these properties command high prices.
> 
> I agree that new social housing should be targeted in areas like Knightsbridge. One Hyde Park should have had some but it does not. Developers fight to stop it.


Given the stupid values of that site I'd much rather see a contribution towards housing elsewhere nearby. The prices there are 5 million for a one bed flat up to 65 million for a single floor (I'm ignoring the £140,000,000 rumours). Within half a mile of SW1 you could buy 160 x 2 bed flats for the value of one floor. The immediate area is already devoid of anyone but the oil type rich (who don't seem to bother living there) so sticking a couple of isolated families in there on principle doesn't seem like best use of resources.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 28, 2014)

teuchter said:


> This post is where the aggressive tone was introduced to what was a perfectly reasonable discussion. Shortly thereafter, SpamMisery gets banned for being "disruptive".


It was a bit like watching one of those bouncers in a queue who is secretly gagging for it all to kick off.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 28, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Given the stupid values of that site I'd much rather see a contribution towards housing elsewhere nearby. The prices there are 5 million for a one bed flat up to 65 million for a single floor (I'm ignoring the £140,000,000 rumours). Within half a mile of SW1 you could buy 160 x 2 bed flats for the value of one floor. The immediate area is already devoid of anyone but the oil type rich (who don't seem to bother living there) so sticking a couple of isolated families in there on principle doesn't seem like best use of resources.



This is true. But my general point obtains, just about - that social housing should not be built only in 'cheap' areas.


----------



## isvicthere? (Aug 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> So - in the interests of mixed communities - new social housing should be targeted in Streatham and Clapham and, for that matter, Knightsbridge and Chelsea.



"New" social housing? Not sure that's even "a thing" in neoliberal-shit Britain.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2014)

This discussion about the current housing crisis is well worth a listen for anyone interested:

http://www.sidrodrigues.com/2014/03/little-atoms-318-danny-dorling-naomi-alderman/


----------



## leanderman (Aug 28, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Getting angry at someone who doesn't understand doesn't help.
> 
> SpamMisery
> 
> I grow up in a council house that is a 150 year old Victorian property - there were quite a lot where I lived. I'm not sure how the council acquired them (and I am interested to find out)



Same in this street. Intriguing. I guess people abandoned the road and the council bought up the properties.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> This is true. But my general point obtains, just about - that social housing should not be built only in 'cheap' areas.


As a general point, fine. But 1/2 mile from what is generally reputed to be the most expensive land in the world is not a cheap area by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Same in this street. Intriguing. I guess people abandoned the road and the council bought up the properties.


Likewise near me there is a terrace of victorian houses (I think actually built as flats) which someone told me used to be council housing (maybe they still are - I don't know). I wondered how they came into council ownership, especially as they are a bit unusual in that each house contains more than one dwelling (if I remember correctly).


----------



## Winot (Aug 28, 2014)

Branksome Rd (south off Acre Lane) has a lot of housing association properties in the Victorian terrace along its 'long' side. I only know this because all the window frames were replaced recently.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 28, 2014)

I don't know but was it not part of the 60s building spree? Whole streets and areas were purchased for bulldozing and building new (e.g. St Matthews Road) but some weren't. Key central areas became short life because they had the potential for town center expansion but less central parts were returned to housing.


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

teuchter said:


> This post is where the aggressive tone was introduced to what was a perfectly reasonable discussion. Shortly thereafter, SpamMisery gets banned for being "disruptive".


I know you're desperate to have a go at me and keep on disrupting this forum, but that really is not an "aggressive" post at all. I asked him to back up his claim. There were several reasons for his ban, which included several warnings and a PM warning for his disruptive conduct across multiple threads, and his response to those contributed to his ban. If you have any further questions, PM me or take them to the feedback forum please.


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> This is true. But my general point obtains, just about - that social housing should not be built only in 'cheap' areas.


Indeed. And it was never meant to be that way.


----------



## gabi (Aug 28, 2014)

never one to agree particularly much with editor but SpamMisery was being a cunt. I reckon that should be written in to the FAQ as a reason for banning. Although that would probably result in about 3 posters left here i guess.


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

gabi said:


> never one to agree particularly much with editor but SpamMisery was being a cunt. I reckon that should be written in to the FAQ as a reason for banning. Although that would probably result in about 3 posters left here i guess.


There is (more or less): "Don't act like a dick and we'll all get along fine."


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

Not much Brixton stuff here, but this is a useful guide: 
Open House London Weekend 2014 – The Brixton Buzz guide to the best Lambeth locations


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Adding in maybe one or two thousand right to buys - which council tenants gain from -  that is a fall-off of around 4 per cent (35,000 to about 33,500).



I don't know where you're getting your maths from, but there's no *addition* to the social housing market through Right-to-Buy, however you try to spin it.  As I said earlier, the property isn't lost to use, but it *is* lost to social housing use.  "Council tenants" don't gain from RtB, because if you exercise the right, you're no longer a council tenant.



> And the pace of social housing new-builds may be picking up to close the gap entirely.



The pace of social housing new-build, whether by RSLs or local authorities, is miniscule measured against demand, and any attempt to "close the gap" needs to be measured against ever-expanding need, which new-build doesn't even keep up with.



> I would like to see a lot more social housing built however.



So would I.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 28, 2014)

sparkybird said:


> But the majority of people don't think like you, VP.



I'm aware of that, and that's one of the great successes of Thatcherism - to take people who saw no lack of dignity to living in social housing, and who were, for the most part, concerned for their fellow denizens, and turn some of them into people who looked down on those who weren't owner-occupiers; who decided to put their own advantage before the needs of others.  The death of altruism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 28, 2014)

editor said:


> Pre-Thatcher, a  lot more would of though.



Quite, and did.  When my best mate's gran bought her council maisonette in Battersea, she was the only person in her block to do so.  Most of her neighbours were horrified, because they saw the ramifications, both for themselves as council tenants with families, in possibly-diminishing social housing stock, and for her if she fell behind on her mortgage or similar.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 28, 2014)

editor said:


> So why on earth should that bother you?
> 
> And what does the style of architecture have to do with anything?  Would it be OK if they were living in Victorian or Modernist homes? Georgian style does not automatically equate to some kind of luxurious living.



What SM is manifesting is that phenomenon the likes of us council estate creatures are always accused of - it's "the politics of envy", except that for people like SM, it's perfectly permissible for them to manifest envy. After all, poor people getting to live in decent architecturally-interesting housing?  It's an abomination!!!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2014)

gabi said:


> never one to agree particularly much with editor but SpamMisery was being a cunt.


On this thread? Didn't really look like that to me.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 28, 2014)

teuchter said:


> On this thread? Didn't really look like that to me.



He did say he was drunk and he was antagonising however I think he's a bit fed up of being told he is wrong because he has a difference of opinion and when he does ask something genuine, he gets pulled apart and dissected and thrown to the lions.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 28, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> What SM is manifesting is that phenomenon the likes of us council estate creatures are always accused of - it's "the politics of envy", except that for people like SM, it's perfectly permissible for them to manifest envy. After all, poor people getting to live in decent architecturally-interesting housing?  It's an abomination!!!



But it's hard not to be envious when you are not particularly well off, working really hard and not benefiting from a low rent by having a council house.


----------



## happyshopper (Aug 28, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> The sewer is the old river.



I thought the river and the sewer were separate. The river flows into the Thames without any treatment.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Aug 28, 2014)

As I understand it the River Effra is now a culverted storm sewer. So not actual sewage.

It does indeed run into the Thames, just upstream but almost underneath the MI6 building. It runs under Ovalhouse, seperately from the sewage sewers.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 28, 2014)

OvalhouseDB said:


> As I understand it the River Effra is now a culverted storm sewer. So not actual sewage.
> 
> It does indeed run into the Thames, just upstream but almost underneath the MI6 building. It runs under Ovalhouse, seperately from the sewage sewers.


Subject of a great Time Team - where they carbon dated the timber jetty posts which stick out of the mud close to the Effra exit point at low tide and dated them at 3500yrs old. Then accidentally  snapped one off.

http://www.vauxhallandkennington.org.uk/firstbridge.shtml


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 28, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I helped dig up a blocked drain about half way up Railton Road years ago. Go down a bit and its wet clay. The sewer is the old river.



Some of the river Effra runs along Dulwich Road as a surface water drain with tributaries joining it at Brixton water lane - not sure about Railton Rd.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 28, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Subject of a great Time Team - where they carbon dated the timber jetty posts which stick out of the mud close to the Effra exit point at low tide and dated them at 3500yrs old. Then accidentally  snapped one off.
> 
> http://www.vauxhallandkennington.org.uk/firstbridge.shtml



I though they snapped the Roman one rather than the neolithic.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 28, 2014)

When I finished my studies shall we walk the Effra?


----------



## Rushy (Aug 28, 2014)

boohoo said:


> I though they snapped the Roman one rather than the neolithic.



Quite possibly - the series was over 10 yrs ago so I'm quite hazy!



boohoo said:


> When I finished my studies shall we walk the Effra?



Great idea. I'm in!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 28, 2014)

boohoo said:


> But it's hard not to be envious when you are not particularly well off, working really hard and not benefiting from a low rent by having a council house.



It should be simple not to be envious if you actually bother to analyse the issue.  Anyone who does so will arrive at the inescapable conclusion that it's Conservative policy that has meant they're having to pay out ridiculous percentages of their wages as rent, not those of us whose misfortunes are great enough that we actually *warrant* local authority social housing.  Blaming others for that is both lazy *and* misguided.
And I say "misfortunes" advisedly, with regard to the bulk of new council tenants in the last 20 years, because even back when I got my place nearly 20 years ago, you had to be a medical or psychiatric case *and* be living in extremely adverse conditions to get enough points to get a place in Lambeth.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 28, 2014)

boohoo said:


> He did say he was drunk and he was antagonising however I think he's a bit fed up of being told he is wrong because he has a difference of opinion and when he does ask something genuine, he gets pulled apart and dissected and thrown to the lions.



He was also replied to politely and given decent answers to his question.

And *everyone*, including the editor, gets "dissected" on here.  It's part of the dynamic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 28, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Subject of a great Time Team - where they carbon dated the timber jetty posts which stick out of the mud close to the Effra exit point at low tide and dated them at 3500yrs old. Then accidentally  snapped one off.
> 
> http://www.vauxhallandkennington.org.uk/firstbridge.shtml



That Tony Robinson is a fucking Jonah!


----------



## boohoo (Aug 28, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> He was also replied to politely and given decent answers to his question.
> 
> And *everyone*, including the editor, gets "dissected" on here.  It's part of the dynamic.



It's a tiring dynamic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 28, 2014)

boohoo said:


> It's a tiring dynamic.



I don't disagree!


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 28, 2014)

boohoo said:


> When I finished my studies shall we walk the Effra?


Yes I walk along parts of it most days - in fact my daily route to work takes me along the Effra. Can't recall where it starts though.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 28, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Yes I walk along parts of it most days - in fact my daily route to work takes me along the Effra. Can't recall where it starts though.



It starts near where I live.


----------



## RubyToogood (Aug 28, 2014)

I'd just like to draw the attention of Brixton residents to tomorrow's SE London drinks, a mere 10 minute train journey away: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/se-london-drinks-friday-29th-august-dulwich-wood-house.326215/


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 28, 2014)

boohoo said:


> But it's hard not to be envious when you are not particularly well off, working really hard and not benefiting from a low rent by having a council house.



I was in a office in Mayfair recently. The two receptionists were complaining about there neighbour who lived in social housing. I really do not understand this especially when one works in Mayfair. 

Perhaps its because I am around central London a lot the thought of being envious of someone who is maybe a little better off than me does not cross my mind.

Its what those in power want. 

It really is gross the wealth I see around Mayfair.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 28, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Given the stupid values of that site I'd much rather see a contribution towards housing elsewhere nearby. The prices there are 5 million for a one bed flat up to 65 million for a single floor (I'm ignoring the £140,000,000 rumours). Within half a mile of SW1 you could buy 160 x 2 bed flats for the value of one floor. The immediate area is already devoid of anyone but the oil type rich (who don't seem to bother living there) so sticking a couple of isolated families in there on principle doesn't seem like best use of resources.



The Candy Brothers One Hyde Park development did that

It was an issue at the time. From the Evening Standard article:



> Furthermore, the developers threatened to scrap their plans if the affordable homes had to be built alongside.
> 
> Labour peer Lord Campbell-Savours, who obtained correspondence sent to Westminster council, has accused designers the Candy brothers, working with Guernsey developer Project Grande, of seeking to "bully" the borough into minimising the amount of social housing.
> 
> He said: "Candy & Candy set out to prove that if they had the affordable development in Knightsbridge it would so undermine the retail value of their flats it would be more feasible for them to do commercial development. They were able to bamboozle the council into giving them permission to build off-site."



This does not have to happen. I was talking to a planner who worked on the Regents Place development and British Land did put affordable housing on site. 

The Candy Brothers built One Hyde Park as a secure place for the uber rich. They did not want any social housing onsite as it would put off buyers.  I agree with leanderman that place like Knightsbridge should have affordable housing in large developments onsite.


----------



## shifting gears (Aug 28, 2014)

boohoo said:


> But it's hard not to be envious when you are not particularly well off, working really hard and not benefiting from a low rent by having a council house.



Bollocks - because all the above applies to me, and it makes me positively happy that council tenants have decent places to live.

Honestly, the hand-wringing neoliberal guff that gets voiced here is enough to make me sick sometimes (that is a general comment, not aimed at you specifically)


----------



## Rushy (Aug 28, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> The Candy Brothers One Hyde Park development did that
> 
> It was an issue at the time. From the Evening Standard article:
> 
> ...


The principle is fine. But in reality, I would rather see 140 homes provided very nearby than 4 or 5 in the block. The ridiculous value of it makes that possible. I don't give much of a shit what the Candies wanted. But the symbolism just does not seem that important to me when we are talking about that kind of scale. I appreciate that you see it differently.


----------



## Manter (Aug 28, 2014)

What self respecting council tenant would want to live next door to an oligarch?


----------



## boohoo (Aug 28, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I was in a office in Mayfair recently. The two receptionists were complaining about there neighbour who lived in social housing. I really do not understand this especially when one works in Mayfair.
> 
> Perhaps its because I am around central London a lot the thought of being envious of someone who is maybe a little better off than me does not cross my mind.
> 
> ...



I imagine the receptionists aren't paid too much. A shame they don't seem to have an issue with the wealth flaunted in Mayfair.
 However we are continuously fed the story that rich people have fairly earned their money but people in social housing are on benefits so they are getting hand out that have come out of the tax payers pocket.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 28, 2014)

shifting gears said:


> Bollocks - because all the above applies to me, and it makes me positively happy that council tenants have decent places to live.



Good for you.  I am also happy that council tenants have decent places to live - I would like to see more of that for everyone who wants it.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 28, 2014)

boohoo said:


> I imagine the receptionists aren't paid too much. A shame they don't seem to have an issue with the wealth flaunted in Mayfair.
> However we are continuously fed the story that rich people have fairly earned their money but people in social housing are on benefits so they are getting hand out that have come out of the tax payers pocket.


Both extremes alternately paint their heroes and villains in order to split the people in the middle - a large proportion of whom are in remarkably similar boats.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't know where you're getting your maths from, but there's no *addition* to the social housing market through Right-to-Buy, however you try to spin it.  As I said earlier, the property isn't lost to use, but it *is* lost to social housing use.  "Council tenants" don't gain from RtB, because if you exercise the right, you're no longer a council tenant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am using your maths, which suggests hardly any decline in social housing supply in Lambeth over ten years. 

Demand has increased, as the population of London soars.


----------



## Smick (Aug 29, 2014)

A lot of new developments with affordable housing have separate doors for each set of dwellers, no chance of them ever meeting.

There are certainly no social benefits to affordable properties in flagship developments.


----------



## passivejoe (Aug 29, 2014)

http://landmark.lambeth.gov.uk/display_page.asp?section=landmark&id=1632

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LONDON-PP...Collectables_Postcards_MJ&hash=item5b04673f5a


The Beverstone Hotel... I can't work out if its still standing or not. Anyone know?


----------



## editor (Aug 29, 2014)

passivejoe said:


> http://landmark.lambeth.gov.uk/display_page.asp?section=landmark&id=1632
> 
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LONDON-PP...Collectables_Postcards_MJ&hash=item5b04673f5a
> 
> ...


Looks like it's long gone according to Street View.  https://goo.gl/maps/Qk7C4


----------



## editor (Aug 29, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Lambeth is about to build some council houses (Somerleyton). Housing associations are building (eg shared on Effra rd).


It appears that the actual amount of council housing that is going to be built in Somerleyton is speedily falling.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I am using your maths, which suggests hardly any decline in social housing supply in Lambeth over ten years.
> 
> Demand has increased, as the population of London soars.



My maths show that even including RSL gains, there's still a deficit of 3,000 social housing dwellings in Lambeth based on 2001 and 2011 figures for holdings, so how you arrive at "hardly any decline in social housing supply" is beyond me. 3,000 social housing units is a massive deficit to social housing supply.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2014)

shifting gears said:


> Bollocks - because all the above applies to me, and it makes me positively happy that council tenants have decent places to live.
> 
> Honestly, the hand-wringing neoliberal guff that gets voiced here is enough to make me sick sometimes (that is a general comment, not aimed at you specifically)



As I've said elsewhere, the "guff" is a result of people having had 35-ish years of being indoctrinated with the neoliberal model, so that the individualism, the self-concernedness and the fear of someone getting something for nothing has been somewhat naturalised.  It's why, when you mention socialism, trade unions, social solidarity or any other thing that is rational to working class behaviour, many members of the working class will reply with "wtf?", much as the middle classes have always done.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> As I've said elsewhere, the "guff" is a result of people having had 35-ish years of being indoctrinated with the neoliberal model, so that the individualism, the self-concernedness and the fear of someone getting something for nothing has been somewhat naturalised.  It's why, when you mention socialism, trade unions, social solidarity or any other thing that is rational to working class behaviour, many members of the working class will reply with "wtf?", much as the middle classes have always done.



When you speak in language like that it only speaks to those in the know. Might be why those members of the working class say "wtf?"

I couldn't really give you a clear definition of what neoliberal, socialism and social solidarity really meant. Sorry -spent too much time reading about the legends of king arthur and local history.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2014)

Smick said:


> A lot of new developments with affordable housing have separate doors for each set of dwellers, no chance of them ever meeting.
> 
> There are certainly no social benefits to affordable properties in flagship developments.



Which is why the old-fashioned socially-mixed council estates of the '50s to the '70s were the most sensible and forward -thinking piece of social engineering undertaken by govts, and why Thatcher was so hot to run "Right to Buy" and destroy not just class solidarity, but the germinating cross-class solidarities that could be found on some estates.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2014)

boohoo said:


> When you speak in language like that it only speaks to those in the know. Might be why those members of the working class say "wtf?"



When I speak in language like that, it's just to "short-hand" what'd otherwise take more space to explain.

Neoliberalism - the set of ideas that Thatcher introduced that took us away from people-centred politics - what we can do for each other, and what government can do for us - and gave us market economics as the basis for everything, allied to the unshakeable belief that private sector = good, and public sector = bad.  It introduced an idea that selfishness was absolutely fine (an attitude exemplified in the film "Wall Street" by the phrase ""greed is good"), and that principles like altruism - doing things simply because they were beneficial to others - were somehow the mark of a simpleton.

We've also seen trades unionism - the principle of belonging to a body that represents people in your trade - demonised because of the ideas of acting collectively (as opposed to neoliberalism's favoured idea of individualism - everyone out for themselves) that are behind unions.  Thatcher was so keen to break the NUM in the '80s not just for historic reasons, but because the NUM represented, red in tooth and claw, what the trades unions stood for, and her government were happy to break the law to do so.  Since then, union membership has plummeted, and part of that plummeting is down to the fact that people have been indoctrinated, by the media; at school etc, to believe that collective action is somehow wrong.

For me, that's why younger people say "what the fuck" when you mention such things - because they've been brought up to think of such ideas as alien (and of individualism as natural), just as I was brought up, a generation or two earlier, to believe that such ideas were perfectly natural for working class people to hold - ideas and institutions that glued us together, at home and in the workplace.



> I couldn't really give you a clear definition of what neoliberal, socialism and social solidarity really meant. Sorry -spent too much time reading about the legends of king arthur and local history.



Some of us did both!


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 29, 2014)

boohoo said:


> When you speak in language like that it only speaks to those in the know. Might be why those members of the working class say "wtf?"
> 
> I couldn't really give you a clear definition of what neoliberal, socialism and social solidarity really meant. Sorry -spent too much time reading about the legends of king arthur and local history.


 
this is a common problem.  the trouble is that it is hard to explain the current situation vs the alternatives without using the language.  it would be like trying to explain murals to people who don't know "painting" "wall" "arts council grant" or "redevelopment into luxury flats".  it's possible, but you have to go to first principals and teach everyone from the beginning what the concepts actually mean!


----------



## boohoo (Aug 29, 2014)

Thank you ViolentPanda  for your explanation. I have been reading about the Women's Liberation Movement and wondering what is stopping women coming together in the same way to shout about childcare issues (amongst other things) which really haven't been resolved. Has everyone just decided to talk about issues on the internet? 

I'm not sure whether there is a bit of romanticising from me about the WLM. Was also reading about Greenham Common and  watched this:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/video/2007/dec/12/greenham


----------



## boohoo (Aug 29, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> this is a common problem.  the trouble is that it is hard to explain the current situation vs the alternatives without using the language.  it would be like trying to explain murals to people who don't know "painting" "wall" "arts council grant" or "redevelopment into luxury flats".  it's possible, but you have to go to first principals and teach everyone from the beginning what the concepts actually mean!



But that is quite important. As a fan of public history, I like knowledge to be available to all even if that does mean explaining things in CAPITAL LETTERS.


----------



## editor (Aug 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which is why the old-fashioned socially-mixed council estates of the '50s to the '70s were the most sensible and forward -thinking piece of social engineering undertaken by govts, and why Thatcher was so hot to run "Right to Buy" and destroy not just class solidarity, but the germinating cross-class solidarities that could be found on some estates.


Absolutely. The continuing push to turn council estates into places exclusively for the needy, the unemployed and the poor disgusts me. Fuck Thatcher and the money grubbing cunts continuing her legacy. .


----------



## blameless77 (Aug 29, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Thanks teuchter and boohoo I quote se5 for simplicity only
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's a simple way to think about it. Person X has lived in Brixton since their late teens, or the early 90's. They settle, have kids, and build a life here. Meanwhile, Brixton moves from cheap and 'dangerous' neighbourhood into trendy and 'edgy' ones. Person X's rent creeps up and up...past their ability as someone who works as a nurse in the public sector to afford it. Therefore according to your logic, Person X should move out of the area where their children go to school, to somewhere else...where they have no social or family ties to support them... I guess there is a weirdly twisted logic to your point of view, but it's a bit neo-liberal for me...


----------



## Winot (Aug 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> As I've said elsewhere, the "guff" is a result of people having had 35-ish years of being indoctrinated with the neoliberal model, so that the individualism, the self-concernedness and the fear of someone getting something for nothing has been somewhat naturalised.  It's why, when you mention socialism, trade unions, social solidarity or any other thing that is rational to working class behaviour, many members of the working class will reply with "wtf?", much as the middle classes have always done.



I think you'll find that envy predates Thatcherism.

(My w/c grandad for example - born in 1912 and left school at 14 - used to complain that when the NHS came in *some* people took advantage and ended up with multiple wigs and pairs of false teeth!)


----------



## editor (Aug 29, 2014)

Winot said:


> I think you'll find that envy predates Thatcherism.


I don't think anyone has claimed that Thatcher invented envy!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Thank you ViolentPanda  for your explanation. I have been reading about the Women's Liberation Movement and wondering what is stopping women coming together in the same way to shout about childcare issues (amongst other things) which really haven't been resolved. Has everyone just decided to talk about issues on the internet?



I'm not sure about the current state of play, but there was quite a strong movement demanding what was basically free childcare for all, well into the late '80s. Unfortunately, like much other activism of the time, it got kind of buried with the arrival of identity politics, where solidarities between individuals morphed from being about shared *goals*, such as childcare, to being about shared attributes, so you had, for example, groups of women who'd been activist with regard to childcare fracturing into "black women for childcare", "lesbians for childcare", disabled women for childcare", etc etc. 

In my own (male) opinion, the reason why the subject of childcare isn't currently a hot topic is purely down to the media not representing it as a broad interest of women, regardless of what women in general might have to say, so it doesn't get debated anywhere *but* the internet.  Universal childcare doesn't make news, and goes against what our political masters believe is best for us, so we don't get to hear about it, sadly.



> I'm not sure whether there is a bit of romanticising from me about the WLM. Was also reading about Greenham Common and  watched this:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/news/video/2007/dec/12/greenham



I don't think it's romanticising. The WLM, or different elements of the movement at different times, has achieved a hell of a lot.  Okay, there have always been tensions in the WLM/feminism movements on the basis of "who do they represent?", and there have been many arguments that womens' lib and feminism have been bastions of white middle-class privilege at the expense of ethnic minority and/or working class people and their concerns, but that's the case with many mass movements, and you can only deal with such issues if and when they're brought to light, as many of the issues *have been* by feminists.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2014)

Winot said:


> I think you'll find that envy predates Thatcherism.



I haven't claimed that it doesn't. 
What I've said is that Thatcherism and neoliberalism, or rather the normalisation or naturalisation of Thatcherite and neoliberal attitudes among a broader spread of the population than previously, means that other older principles can be difficult for younger people, not raised with those older ideas, to fathom.



> (My w/c grandad for example - born in 1912 and left school at 14 - used to complain that when the NHS came in *some* people took advantage and ended up with multiple wigs and pairs of false teeth!)



As did a lot of people (complain about that, that is).  Interestingly (for me, anyway!), if you look at the media of the day, they pretty much led off with such claims, and made them a matter of national debate, so (as with the "Winter of Discontent"), I often wonder how many of those incidences were actually experienced, and how many were FOAF (i.e. "heard it from a *F*riend *O*f *A* *F*riend") tales.  I certainly know that the Winter of Discontent I experienced was almost entirely dissimilar to the Winter of Discontent retailed by the media then and now"!


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 29, 2014)

boohoo said:


> But that is quite important. As a fan of public history, I like knowledge to be available to all even if that does mean explaining things in CAPITAL LETTERS.


 
i think we do have a thread somewhere that is a glossary of political language....


----------



## SarfLondoner (Aug 29, 2014)

editor said:


> Looks like it's long gone according to Street View.  https://goo.gl/maps/Qk7C4


I think number 48 is nearer Corpus Christi or Sudborne road, Im thinking Olive Morris house may now stand on the original site of the boarding house.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 29, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Thank you ViolentPanda  for your explanation. I have been reading about the Women's Liberation Movement and wondering what is stopping women coming together in the same way to shout about childcare issues (amongst other things) which really haven't been resolved. Has everyone just decided to talk about issues on the internet?
> 
> I'm not sure whether there is a bit of romanticising from me about the WLM. Was also reading about Greenham Common and  watched this:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/news/video/2007/dec/12/greenham



I was there! bloody cold day and quite remarkable in everyway.  Are you going to the drinks tonight? shall I bring my photos? i recall women 'romanticising' about the WLM even then - 'I thought we would have changed the world by now, but I'm still stuck here with the kids' sort of thing


----------



## trabuquera (Aug 29, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Thank you ViolentPanda  for your explanation. I have been reading about the Women's Liberation Movement and wondering what is stopping women coming together in the same way to shout about childcare issues (amongst other things) which really haven't been resolved. Has everyone just decided to talk about issues on the internet?


 
Getting to a more equal society after thousands of years of women being viewed and treated as tradeable objects was probably never going to happen within a timespan of less than 50 years.

There are all sorts of issues which it might have been fondly imagined that feminism / the WLM would 'solve', which are still with us -even in societies where it's now the norm for women to work for pay and expect equality. (Porn, domestic violence, sexual assaults, pay gap, 'female premium' charged on goods and services, I could go on....)

Since the 1960s a lot of activism for women's rights (on pay, employment, contraception, abortion, economic independence) has been about individual rights i.e. why can't Woman A have the same rights as Man B - but in the workplace, judging on workplace performance alone is always going to favour men over women (until men can get pregnant, anyway.) It's been a much more individualistic struggle, if you like.

I personally think childcare is the next frontier for fighting sexism and needs total reform - and that is a matter for both men AND women, those who are parents AND those who don't have or even want children. It's not the fault of women (mothers or not) "failing to organise" to fight for their rights. It's a whole social blind spot about how to pay for the next generation. This is a fundamental and very knotty problem. How do you get a society to ensure all kids are properly provided for without leaving someone feeling marginalised, left out or exploited?

Plus, of course - talking about childcare risks being very boring to those who haven't got children and it doesn't draw media / public attention nearly as much as warring ideologies over porn, sex work, rape or street harrassment - which are still attracting lots of political energy (much of it wasted.)


----------



## boohoo (Aug 29, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> I was there! bloody cold day and quite remarkable in everyway.  Are you going to the drinks tonight? shall I bring my photos? i recall women 'romanticising' about the WLM even then - 'I thought we would have changed the world by now, but I'm still stuck here with the kids' sort of thing



I'm not sure I'm going to come along tonight as I'm in the middle of my dissertation but I'd really love to hear all about it and see photos. How exciting!


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 29, 2014)

boohoo said:


> I'm not sure I'm going to come along tonight as I'm in the middle of my dissertation but I'd really love to hear all about it and see photos. How exciting!


 
friendofdorothy i too cannot make it and i too would like to hear stories and view photos.  maybe next meet up?


----------



## superfly101 (Aug 29, 2014)

trabuquera said:


> Since the 1960s a lot of activism for women's rights (on pay, employment, contraception, abortion, economic independence) has been about individual rights i.e. why can't Woman A have the same rights as Man B


I'm left handed - we've been in leagues with the devil and getting burned at the stake since.... you think religious people still aren't doing this shit? My father in the 70s tried to convert me to right handed.

Other than that over to Violent Panda


----------



## Sirena (Aug 29, 2014)

This has probably been posted before but, if not, it might interest the people of Brixges Stane
http://cdn.londonist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/anglosaxonLONDON.jpg


----------



## SarfLondoner (Aug 29, 2014)

Sirena said:


> This has probably been posted before but, if not, it might interest the people of Brixges Stane
> http://cdn.londonist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/anglosaxonLONDON.jpg


That's great,


----------



## Rushy (Aug 29, 2014)

Sirena said:


> This has probably been posted before but, if not, it might interest the people of Brixges Stane
> http://cdn.londonist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/anglosaxonLONDON.jpg


Loving UULUUICH!

I didn't quite get what it was so looked up the accompanying text:



> Three years ago, we put together a map showing the London area in Anglo Saxon times (roughly speaking, 500-1066AD). It’s pieced together from many resources, showing our guess at the roads, rivers, forests and marshland that characterised the region. The main purpose was to highlight the many villages, hamlets and farmsteads whose names are still part of modern London. For example, the map shows ‘Wemba Lea’, the land belonging to a local chieftain by the name of Wemba. We know nothing about Mr Wemba, yet his name is familiar to millions, perhaps billions, through its continuation into our own times as Wembley. Similarly, Croydon is a corruption of Crog Dene, which meant something like ‘valley of the crocuses’.
> 
> We’ve now updated the map, based on feedback and further research. Close-ups can be seen in the gallery above, or we’ve provided a link to download the full picture. We’d love to receive further information: perhaps we’ve got the route of a road slightly wrong, or maybe (inevitably?) there’s a whole village missing somewhere. We’d like this map to become a team effort, gradually improving as Londonist readers provide new information.
> 
> The map comes with a few caveats. We’re attempting to show a period of several hundred years in one map. Some features might not have been present for the whole of that time span, and names changed. Features like marshland, forest coverage and farmland are often conjectural in their extent, as are certain roads. Corrections or additions can be left in the comments below, or by emailing matt@londonist.com.



Surprised that quite so many names were supposedly in existence back then. Quite amazing really. 
Pity that the A23 doesn't appear to have been named yet.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 29, 2014)

shifting gears said:


> Aka "people in council housing are lazy and feckless and don't work hard"
> 
> Get fucked eh?



Not what I said


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 29, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> BTW if you are referring to Pimlico I guess its one of the old estates run by Peabody. In which case its not state funded. They are old philanthropic charity who acquired land years ago.



It's not, it is Sanctuary Housing. I had a quick google and it appears they’ve received at least one multi-million pound grant in the past from HMG. They’re a registered charity so do not pay tax. They also describe the rent they charge as ‘subsidised’ – That counts as state funded to me, but I have no idea if this is the normal state of affairs for housing associations


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 29, 2014)

blameless77 said:


> Here's a simple way to think about it. Person X has lived in Brixton since their late teens, or the early 90's. They settle, have kids, and build a life here. Meanwhile, Brixton moves from cheap and 'dangerous' neighbourhood into trendy and 'edgy' ones. Person X's rent creeps up and up...past their ability as someone who works as a nurse in the public sector to afford it. Therefore according to your logic, Person X should move out of the area where their children go to school, to somewhere else...where they have no social or family ties to support them... I guess there is a weirdly twisted logic to your point of view, but it's a bit neo-liberal for me...



I don't disagree with you. I said earlier I disagree with ghettoisation and my preferred option is to sell expensive property and build cheaper buildings which can house many more families in the same area. But as someone pointed out, that doesn't seem to happen


----------



## boohoo (Aug 29, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> I don't disagree with you. I said earlier I disagree with ghettoisation and my preferred option is to sell expensive property and build cheaper buildings which can house many more families in the same area. But as someone pointed out, that doesn't seem to happen



What do you mean by ghettoisation?

In an ideal work, it would be nice to think that the expensive properties which have been sold off by local authorities would be used to go into creating more housing but this doesn't happened. So rather than lose the 'expensive' house from the pool of social housing, it should be kept so that we don't entirely lose these homes. It also doesn't have the same value if it is social housing (called Tenanted Market Value). 

Also this idea of the Victorian or Georgian house as being wonderful is subjective, there were times in the last hundred years when both types of property are  considered as ugly and people where happy to see them destroyed.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 29, 2014)

Ghettoisation as in not having rich and poor living in the same areas really.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 29, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Ghettoisation as in not having rich and poor living in the same areas really.



London has always had rich and poor living side by side. Check out the Charles Booth maps of rich and poor London in late Victorian London. 
With examples like the Heygate, it is quite possible that there will be more excuses to get rid of social housing to replace it with developments aimed at the rich and the poor will be pushed out (where I'm not sure - everywhere is getting expensive)

Another book for your reading list - the Blackest Street by Sarah Wise which is about the removal of a  slum to replace it with the Boundary Street estate (again late Victorian history)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2014)

trabuquera said:


> I personally think childcare is the next frontier for fighting sexism and needs total reform - and that is a matter for both men AND women, those who are parents AND those who don't have or even want children. It's not the fault of women (mothers or not) "failing to organise" to fight for their rights. It's a whole social blind spot about how to pay for the next generation. This is a fundamental and very knotty problem. How do you get a society to ensure all kids are properly provided for without leaving someone feeling marginalised, left out or exploited?
> 
> Plus, of course - talking about childcare risks being very boring to those who haven't got children and it doesn't draw media / public attention nearly as much as warring ideologies over porn, sex work, rape or street harrassment - which are still attracting lots of political energy (much of it wasted.)



I'm not a parent, but I do believe that childcare is *massively* important, especially if we (i.e. "society in general") are to be compelled to fulfil the desire of this and the last government for "those who can work" *to* work.  I'm not convinced, however, that the govt's approach (subsidy of private childcare, where provision varies starkly from locale to locale) is anything but wank.  To *actually* enable parents who *want* to work, childcare needs to be easily-accessible, cheap/free and publicly-provided, and it needs to be staffed by those who wish to do the job, regardless of their physical sex. Removal of the profit motive militates toward a more "co-operative" approach, IMO.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 29, 2014)

boohoo said:


> When you speak in language like that it only speaks to those in the know. Might be why those members of the working class say "wtf?"
> 
> I couldn't really give you a clear definition of what neoliberal, socialism and social solidarity really meant. Sorry -spent too much time reading about the legends of king arthur and local history.



When I have my chats with the guys in the off license they understand exactly what ViolentPanda is going on about. They have all lived through it.

I think you are underestimating what the average person can understand. One of the things that I object to is that people need a degree to have an understanding of how society works. 

Violent Panda is always to the point and I do not think his posts are written in an obscure way. 

This also goes for people I chat to on local estates.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 29, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Thank you ViolentPanda  for your explanation. I have been reading about the Women's Liberation Movement and wondering what is stopping women coming together in the same way to shout about childcare issues (amongst other things) which really haven't been resolved. Has everyone just decided to talk about issues on the internet?
> 
> I'm not sure whether there is a bit of romanticising from me about the WLM. Was also reading about Greenham Common and  watched this:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/news/video/2007/dec/12/greenham



Second Wave Feminism was not in reality a single movement. I think ViolentPanda is to harsh about identity politics.

Within Second Wave feminism their were different strands.

The two main differences were between Socialist Feminists and Separatists.

Marxist feminists used Marxism but said that he did not concentrate enough on unpaid labour. In Marxism society needs labour to reproduce itself. Marx concentrated on labour that is sold as a commodity in the workplace. Wages cover the amount needed to feed, house and clothe the worker ( reproduce labour) plus the surplus labour which the factory owner appropriates for himself ( and it was men in Marx day).

Feminist Marxist pointed out that it is also the unpaid labour of women that reproduce the workforce by childcare. Why they argued for state support for childcare. They also pointed out the many working class women worked and did most of the housework/ childcare.

( btw as I have read Capital volume one it has interesting insight of the labour movement and attitudes to women. Marx reports on how working men couched reduction of women and children working as moral good. That it was morally corrupting for men and women to work all day in factories. Reading between the lines seems to me that some young women found personal freedom in the new capitalist order despite the poverty. Which shocked middle class Victorian England and the respectable working man)

The more separatist strand was not identity politics. The argument went that the main division in society was gender not class or race. Thus Greenham Common was women only as it was not women who caused wars. It was protest against gender based violence. ie masculinity was the problem. Or rather the form it took.

What is known as identity politics started out as way to go beyond both viewpoints. The separatist strand was "essentialist". Meaning that it assumed that women were caregivers etc. When in fact social identity is socially constructed. ie its not a given. Feminist historians for example looked at how femininity changes over time. Its not fixed. Same goes with how children are brought up. Childhood is an historical construction. In Victorian times most children did not have a childhood in the modern sense. They worked. Even before capitalism children worked from an early age helping there parents.

The success of the WLM of that time is that , even though issues of childcare and equal pay etc are not resolved, most people do not deny they are an issue. Back in 70s that was not the case. Its easy to forget that its only in recent times that legislation around equal pay , abortion, gay rights have been made. So imo the WLM of that time served its purpose. It cannot just be re invented now.

Anyway a few thoughts.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 29, 2014)

Gramsci  Thank you - some interesting points. Some of the books I've read written in the 70s and 80s really do show how much has moved forward for women. 

You might find this book interesting: Women and the women's movement in Britain, 1914-1959 by Martin Pugh - he is very thorough about the women movement post the Suffragettes and pre-WLM. He also seems to get into splendid bunfights with Women historians especially those who focus on the Suffragettes:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/pughs-book-is-full-of-errors/166782.article


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 29, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Gramsci  Thank you - some interesting points. Some of the books I've read written in the 70s and 80s really do show how much has moved forward for women.
> 
> You might find this book interesting: Women and the women's movement in Britain, 1914-1959 by Martin Pugh - he is very thorough about the women movement post the Suffragettes and pre-WLM. He also seems to get into splendid bunfights with Women historians especially those who focus on the Suffragettes:
> http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/pughs-book-is-full-of-errors/166782.article



Thanks for that. I did not know that book. 


I tend to agree with the criticism of Pugh. He appears to be making that basic historical mistake of looking at the past from present views on sexuality. Intense friendships were normal in previous times. They would not be seen as homosexual in the way we might see it. In fact its a loss that everything is seen in purely sexual way now. Whilst there are more liberal attitudes its a mistake to see the past in our terms. 

Someone rang me and my train of thought was disrupted. 

Meant to say that Marxist feminism later moved onto ( and this is where identity politics is usually seen to have started) trying to relate gender, race and class. This led to fiendishly difficult theory that tried to move from essentialist arguments that one form of oppression was "in the last instance" the main underlying one to a non essentialist one. "Post Althusserian" if you want to look it up. Its this that gets panned as leading to identity politics.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 29, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Thanks for that. I did not know that book.
> 
> I tend to agree with the criticism of Pugh. He appears to be making that basic historical mistake of looking at the past from present views on sexuality. Intense friendships were normal in previous times. They would not be seen as homosexual in the way we might see it. In fact its a loss that everything is seen in purely sexual way now. Whilst there are more liberal attitudes its a mistake to see the past in our terms.



Pugh is quite patronising towards women in his books - it's hard not to find him irritating.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 29, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> My maths show that even including RSL gains, there's still a deficit of 3,000 social housing dwellings in Lambeth based on 2001 and 2011 figures for holdings, so how you arrive at "hardly any decline in social housing supply" is beyond me. 3,000 social housing units is a massive deficit to social housing supply.



3,000 minus any social tenants who privatised their properties and are provided for that way. That must be a four-figure number. So ... hardly any.

With RTB, would have been much better to give social tenants a deposit for a private house and keep hold of the social housing unit. Could hardly have cost any more.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 29, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Gramsci  Thank you - some interesting points. Some of the books I've read written in the 70s and 80s really do show how much has moved forward for women.
> 
> You might find this book interesting: Women and the women's movement in Britain, 1914-1959 by Martin Pugh - he is very thorough about the women movement post the Suffragettes and pre-WLM. He also seems to get into splendid bunfights with Women historians especially those who focus on the Suffragettes:
> http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/pughs-book-is-full-of-errors/166782.article



A contemporary feminist who cover all the debates well is Nina Power. 

I think you raise a good point about childcare. Even todays feminism spends a lot of time on issues like lap dancing bars etc. Even Nina Power concentrates on these issues. As they are the ones that are most talked about. 

The present recession has hit women hard. Cuts do affect women with children. But its not something that has led to resurgence of feminism.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 29, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Not what I said



Back in post 565 you said in relation to those who exercise right to buy. (se5   was saying thay RTB reduces affordable housing for those on lower income. Which is reason its not good idea). So you post that RTB is ok as it "rewards" those who "made an effort".



> That I'm not so sure about as it rewards those that have (and I realise this doesn't sound good but I struggle after a few beers to find a better turn of phrase but) made an effort to improve themselves *enters bomb shelter*



shifting gears said:



> Aka "people in council housing are lazy and feckless and don't work hard"



Its not exactly what you said but its what you meant in that previous post.


----------



## elmpp (Aug 29, 2014)

We've gone from gentrification to centre vs left conversation here


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> For me, that's why younger people say "what the fuck" when you mention such things - because they've been brought up to think of such ideas as alien (and of individualism as natural), just as I was brought up, a generation or two earlier, to believe that such ideas were perfectly natural for working class people to hold - ideas and institutions that glued us together, at home and in the workplace.
> 
> Some of us did both!



I would not agree on this. A lot of young generation I meet both from here and other EU countries have been badly affected by the economic crisis.

I would say that those in late 30s to 40s are more likely to say wtf..

I read this interesting article in Guardian which made a lot of sense to me from what I have noticed anecdotally.



> The change is so rapid that the contrast that matters is not just between the stereotypical cosseted baby boomers, with their indexed pensions and spacious homes, and their children (emphasised by Willetts) but between cohorts much closer in age. Life is very different for a “just in time generation”, now in their late 30s or early 40s, who had secure careers before the crash hit and perhaps bought a house when that was still realistic, and the under-35s, for whom work is perpetually insecure and home ownership an impossible dream.



Not helped by Osbourn doing his bit for the "rentier" class.



> The most fateful decision for young Britons has been George Osborne’s ditching of his promised rebalanced recovery in favour of a return to growth on the old model, a change encapsulated in his “help to buy” scheme. He reportedly quipped in cabinet last year that he would stoke “a little housing boom, and everyone will be happy as property values go up”. The chancellor’s joke was not one to bring a smile to young lips, since pump-priming assets rather than earnings could leave Generation Y locked out of renewed national prosperity indefinitely.



I think there are a lot of pissed off people leaving school/ college. Also people in 20s who are on low pay and seen it worth less. As article shows pay in real terms for many has dropped. 

I predict if this goes on there will be more social conflict in future. Not necessarily violent but more volatile electorate. The present consensus at Westminster is that getting into power depends on getting the "centre" vote.

An example is the Ritzy LLW campaign. A lot of whom are the younger generation.


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 30, 2014)

I mentioned earlier in the thread my wife had an interview for a job back in London. We found out late last night from the agency that she is going to get an offer next week. 

It looks like we're coming back to Brixton. It feels like coming home and I'm nearly shitting myself with excitement. I haven't really slept all night, never thought I'd be like this. I'm in my 40's but I feel like a 10 year old. X100


----------



## Ms T (Aug 30, 2014)

Congrats Mr Retro! Where did you move to?


----------



## boohoo (Aug 30, 2014)

elmpp said:


> We've gone from gentrification to centre vs left conversation here


well it makes a change.


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 30, 2014)

Ms T said:


> Congrats Mr Retro! Where did you move to?


We've been in Amsterdam for the last 6 years having lived in Brixton for 10 years before that. We've been very happy here but it's never been home really like Brixton was (even though we're Irish but the place gets under your skin).


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 30, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Its not exactly what you said but its what you meant in that previous post.



For the record, it's not what I meant.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2014)

leanderman said:


> 3,000 minus any social tenants who privatised their properties and are provided for that way. That must be a four-figure number. So ... hardly any.



9,500 Local Authority social housing dwellings were lost through RtB between 2001 and 2011 (and "social tenants" who exercised RtB are no longer "social tenants": They're owner/occupiers).
Compensatory to the loss of stock (bearing in mind the state of Lambeth's *need* for social housing above and beyond retained stock, running at around 17,000 residents, so if we're conservative, maybe 4,000 households plus), 6,500 RSL dwellings have been "added", leaving a *deficit* of available social housing properties of 3,000.
It's not about whether tenants have been converted to owner-occupation, it's about a removal of housing units from social use. A *net deficit of 3,000 properties* came about between 2001 and 2011, and no amount of havering or spinning on your part changes that fact.




> With RTB, would have been much better to give social tenants a deposit for a private house and keep hold of the social housing unit. Could hardly have cost any more.



Councils originally had schemes that *did* offer the above.  They were stopped at the same time as the first-refusal buyback schemes were stopped, around '87-'88.
The same schemes were instituted with regard to Housing Association properties when "Right to Acquire" was launched, in order to divert tenants away from taking as large a bite of the HA cherry as tenants had taken from the LA cherry, and although (IIRC) those schemes are still in place, they're not exactly over-subscribed, because the deposit offered is a fixed sum, rather than a percentage of possible market value of the property they're currently tenanting - i.e. most people would have to not only move out of their current area, but generally out a lot further to be able to make use of the deposit scheme.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2014)

elmpp said:


> We've gone from gentrification to centre vs left conversation here



The two are indivisible, at least in terms of the "politics" behind gentrification.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I would not agree on this. A lot of young generation I meet both from here and other EU countries have been badly affected by the economic crisis.
> 
> I would say that those in late 30s to 40s are more likely to say wtf..



  

People in their late 30s to 40s *are* "the young generation" to me (past my half-century and proud!). 

More seriously, though - while I agree that there's a hell of a lot more youth grassroots discontent and activism than there's been in a long time, due to the "credit crunch" and subsequent imposition of "austerity" economics, it's still more likely to be "wtf?" than "to the barricades!" or even "let's picket the job centre".



> I read this interesting article in Guardian which made a lot of sense to me from what I have noticed anecdotally.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That pretty much applies from the mid '70s-onward, with a few ripples, and for graduates, applies pretty much from the mid '90s-onward, especially if you studied a non-core subject and/or didn't attend Oxbridge.



> I predict if this goes on there will be more social conflict in future. Not necessarily violent but more volatile electorate. The present consensus at Westminster is that getting into power depends on getting the "centre" vote.
> 
> An example is the Ritzy LLW campaign. A lot of whom are the younger generation.



I've been saying for the past 6 years (since _der finanzkrise_) that "austerity" economics will push us (i.e. the masses) gradually toward a "tipping point" where the penalties for social conflict and aggressive (i.e. forceful) activism will be outweighed by both necessity, and by possible social gains.  Obviously, this will cause a fit of ameliorationism by whoever is governing at the time, as opposed to revolutionary change, but depending on the degree of amelioration, people may be satisfied with the _status quo_ for a while longer.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2014)

Mr Retro said:


> We've been in Amsterdam for the last 6 years having lived in Brixton for 10 years before that. We've been very happy here but it's never been home really like Brixton was (even though we're Irish but the place gets under your skin).



I like Amsterdam, but I couldn't live there after having seen the film "Amsterdamned".


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> That pretty much applies from the mid '70s-onward, with a few ripples, and for graduates, applies pretty much from the mid '90s-onward, especially if you studied a non-core subject and/or didn't attend Oxbridge.



From this



> Oxbridge graduates also have a stranglehold on top jobs. They comprise less than 1% of the public as a whole, but 75% of senior judges, 59% of cabinet ministers, 57% of permanent secretaries, 50% of diplomats, 47% of newspaper columnists, 44% of public body chairs, 38% of members of the House of Lords, 33% of BBC executives, 33% of shadow cabinet ministers, 24% of MPs and 12% of those on the Sunday Times Rich List.






> Milburn said that having such little diversity at the top of society was "not a recipe for a healthy democratic society".
> 
> He explained: "Where institutions rely on too narrow a range of people from too narrow a range of backgrounds with too narrow a range of experiences, they risk behaving in ways and focusing on issues that are of salience only to a minority but not the majority in society."


----------



## Mr Retro (Aug 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I like Amsterdam, but I couldn't live there after having seen the film "Amsterdamned".


Don't worry, you'd be fine.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 30, 2014)

Local band "The Thirst" in busking in Brixton today:


----------



## editor (Aug 30, 2014)

Here's my Friday night out in pictures: 






http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/08/an-entertaining-friday-night-out-in-brixton-august-2014/


----------



## leanderman (Aug 30, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> 9,500 Local Authority social housing dwellings were lost through RtB between 2001 and 2011 (and "social tenants" who exercised RtB are no longer "social tenants": They're owner/occupiers).
> Compensatory to the loss of stock (bearing in mind the state of Lambeth's *need* for social housing above and beyond retained stock, running at around 17,000 residents, so if we're conservative, maybe 4,000 households plus), 6,500 RSL dwellings have been "added", leaving a *deficit* of available social housing properties of 3,000.
> It's not about whether tenants have been converted to owner-occupation, it's about a removal of housing .



We'll have to disagree about the figures, chiefly the effect of RTB. 

However, we can agree on the necessity for more social housing, something even the FT calls for today.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2014)

Coldharbour Lane 6.45am.


----------



## gabi (Aug 31, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Local band "The Thirst" in busking in Brixton today:



I think there was a bit of a one hit wonder band a couple of years ago with the same name


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 31, 2014)

The synchronised swimmers got a big round of applause.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 31, 2014)

There's a new restaurant on Coldharbour Lane called Three Eight Four. Anyone been?
I was looking at the menu yesterday on the street and said out loud to myself 'oh god not another wankers' place', not noticing that the owner was opening up at the time  true though
http://www.threeeightfour.com


----------



## simonSW2 (Aug 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> There's a new restaurant on Coldharbour Lane called Three Eight Four. Anyone been?
> I was looking at the menu yesterday on the street and said out loud to myself 'oh god not another wankers' place', not noticing that the owner was opening up at the time  true though
> http://www.threeeightfour.com


It's the people who run seven in market row.
Food seems to be the usual menu of ribs, pulled pork, brioche bun blah - nothing new. I think booze and cocktails are the primary thing.
It used to be a fish and butchers shop that sold horse meat back in the day. There a great photo kicking around of it. I'd like to see horse on the menu again.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> There's a new restaurant on Coldharbour Lane called Three Eight Four. Anyone been?
> I was looking at the menu yesterday on the street and said out loud to myself 'oh god not another wankers' place', not noticing that the owner was opening up at the time  true though
> http://www.threeeightfour.com


My friend went and wasn't too impressed, but then he wasn't in the target demographic. 

Can't say I like the cod-Brooklyn iron framed frontage or the fact that they feel the need to have a bouncer outside all the time, but I'm sure the Village crowd will love it.


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2014)

simonSW2 said:


> It's the people who run seven in market row.
> Food seems to be the usual menu of ribs, pulled pork, brioche bun blah - nothing new. I think booze and cocktails are the primary thing.
> It used to be a fish and butchers shop that sold horse meat back in the day. There a great photo kicking around of it. I'd like to see horse on the menu again.


'Tis right here: 






From horsemeat to fish to curry to cocktails – the story of 384 Coldharbour Lane, Brixton


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 31, 2014)

editor said:


> 'Tis right here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sign says "fish restaurant" 

Years ago there was a cafe on this stretch of road. It was called "Silvas Nest". I think this might have been were it was located.


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2014)

Trot over to the September thread, if you please: 
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/brixton-news-rumour-and-general-chat-september-2014.327007/


----------

