Forum Topics

Social Media takeover of planning application

I don't apologise for  another thread about the Palmhouse as this is something I've not seen before. Literally this - Incipio yesterday posted  a campaign message on Facebook in addition to one on Instagram.'We’re super excited to announce we’ve submitted an application to Wandsworth Council for a brand-new Putney venue called ‘The Palmhouse’ – woop! We’d like to build a beautiful living, landscaped rooftop garden on the top floor car park of the Putney Exchange. We’ll fill it with nothing but good stuff: vibrant greenery, signature palm trees, 3 seasonal & rotating restaurants and a bar. Everyone welcome - kids n’ all! Trust us, it’s going to be gooood – but WE NEED YOUR HELP! If you want to know more about it, please tag your friends that live in and around Putney below and get them to comment on our proposal - see link below - We are hopefully looking forward to joining the Putney Exchange family soon!'The planning portal has since been inundated with messages of support from both Putney and non Putney residents. Of course many of these 'supporters' have no idea that this new venue is  located so close to a residential area. Not that they would care if they knew as their quality of life will not be affected. If you object to the proposal please do so as soon as possible. Thank you.PS I have no objection to such a venue but the Exchange is entirely the wrong location to have it.

Lucille Grant ● 2839d14 Comments ● 2833d

The Information Commissioner’s Office Write....

From: Information Commissioner’s OfficeDate: 19 October 2018 at 5:23:56 pm CESTTo: John CameronSubject: Notification from ICO - your complaint about Wimbledon & Putney Common Conservators [Ref. FER0792745]19th October 2018 Case Reference Number FER0792745 Dear Mr Cameron,Your information request to Wimbledon and Putney Common Conservators Thank you for your correspondence of 9 October 2018 in which you make a complaint about the above public authority’s handling of your request for information. Your complaint has been accepted as eligible for further consideration and will be allocated to a case officer as soon as possible. We aim to deal with complaints in chronological order and, because of the number of complaints we are required to deal with, there may be a delay in allocating your case. Where possible and appropriate your case may be accelerated. Once your case is allocated to an officer they will contact you to explain how your complaint will be progressed. If you wish to send any further documentation while the case is awaiting allocation, please quote the reference number at the top of this letter. This will ensure that the information is added directly to your case. Please be aware that this is an automated process. The information will not be read by a member of our staff until your case is allocated to an officer. If you have any specific concerns before your case is allocated to an officer, please contact our helpline on 0303 123 1113, being sure to quote the reference number at the top of this letter. Yours sincerely Sent on behalf ofAlex GanotisGroup ManagerInformation Commissioner’s Office

John Cameron ● 2945d46 Comments ● 2836d

a good article explaining why we can't agree

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit-why-remain-leave-cant-agree-political-sociologist/With Brexit polarising the nation far more dramatically than traditional party politics ever has, it’s hardly surprising we’ve been dubbed the “Disunited Kingdom“. But what is it about Brexit that has created such deep divisions – and why do so many people, Remainers and Leavers, stubbornly refuse to acknowledge each others’ concerns and attempt to find some common ground? Political sociologist Paula Surridge, a senior lecturer at the University of Bristol, says Brexit taps into deeply held beliefs about the world, what we value and what we think society should be like. People who voted to quit the EU are unlikely to abandon their deeply held convictions just because the process of exiting the bloc is proving rather more grueling than any prominent Leave campaigner would have liked to admit prior to the referendum. Equally, those who voted to stay will almost certainly not be won over by the insistence of Leavers that a second referendum must not take place as the “will of the people” must be fulfilled. It’s rare that a day goes by without a business leader announcing their firm is relocating elsewhere in the world, or warnings being issued about the implosion of the NHS. Despite the bad news stories that continually pour in, few Leavers appear to have changed their minds since casting their vote in June 2016. “Why would they?” says Surridge. “What’s changed in anybody’s life since the referendum that would lead them to change their position?” Sticking to our guns Another reason that you’d still be hard pressed to convince people in either camp to switch sides is that humans excel at justifying the decisions they have already made. “If you’ve made a decision and then you hear its contentious you’re going to hold onto it all that more strongly. You’re going to rationalise it because you want to believe you were right to make that choice in the first place,” Surridge says. This type of mass rationalisation can often be observed after a General Election, she notes. “You’ll see somebody cast a vote and then their assessment of policies and what’s going on [in that party or with that MP] will improve – because they’ve cast that vote. “People align their assessments and their feelings about the world with decisions they’ve made.” Surely stories about stockpiling food and medicine, speculation about price rises and the prospect of chaos at our ports might give some pause for thought? Perhaps not. “If you’re a Leave voter you’ve heard those warnings for three years but you’re life hasn’t changed necessarily,” Surridge points out. “Why would you believe them any more now than you did at the time of the 2016 campaign?” “Until somebody actually goes to the chemist and can’t get the medicine they need, why are they going to believe those stories?” Not only is it perceived as merely “talk”, Surridge says, “it’s talk from people they don’t trust in the first place.” The same applies to Remainers who steadfastly refuse to accept any counter arguments from Leave campaigners that such predictions are more to do with scaremongering and playing politics than they are based in reality. Whichever side of the divide you stand on, you are unlikely to be persuaded by arguments to the contrary when they are being made by people whose opinions you have for years held in contempt. Public vitriol reflects behaviour in Parliament What’s more, it should hardly be surprising if things get ugly between families, friends and strangers online when you consider the cacophony of yelling, jeering and braying the House of Commons descends into with such frequency. “If that’s how our politicians are behaving in Parliament, why do we expect the public who voted for them to behave any differently?” says Surridge. “Why do we expect voters to be willing to compromise when our politicians clearly aren’t?” Until politicians of all stripes in the UK take meaningful steps to end the combative, belligerent and downright hostile behaviour we have come to expect in Parliament, it seems that the wider public will replicate this approach – and who can blame us?

Lucille Grant ● 2841d34 Comments ● 2836d