SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Local Businesses | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Site Feedback | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors


Post Reply  Post Topic 
All Inn One and Fake News
Author Message
jgdoherty


Posts: 297
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #1
11-09-2019 01:57 PM

So here we have the triumphalist off-ward Cllr Liam Curran postulating on the other site once more about All Inn One.

Quote:
Cllr Liam Curran said,
I was not suggesting there is a need to wait ten years, I was making the point that The Greyhound was making money in 2007 and here is is in 2019, a very popular successful venue. There’s some important things to remember here:

1. The All Inn One was a success and can continue to be so.
2. We would have definitely lost the pub had the plans gone ahead.
3. The developer has never built a ‘hotel’ - always flats.
4. Licensees have given evidence to the Council that a financial success can be made of any of the small numbers of pubs left in Lewisham, by keeping them as pubs (see 1 above)
5. Planning experts told me they doubted that the hotel would have gone ahead. Building flats is far more profitable and this process fits a pattern.
6. As mentioned previously, The Rutland was a successful pub. The developer that took it over eventually submitted a plan to include a pub, that was turned into flats and an office.


Unfortunately for him he repeats his mistaken position regarding The Rutland Arms.

His earlier FAKE NEWS style statement, particularly around the matter of the sale of The Rutland Arms and the sequence of events that led to it, received a detailed rebuttal which demonstrated he was in error and which I won't repeat here.

He promised us a full explanation of why the rebuttal of his position was in itself in error.

We waited and waited and what we got was a dismissive couldof, wouldof. shouldof reply from Cllr Liam. That has proven to be his modus operandi - when he is caught in an error - attack the other posters. It would seem he would have us believe only Cllr Liam knows best and the rest of us are not in the know.

The Rutland Arms was only sold some long time after the publican died in service whilst working in his cellar. The sale took place after a long but unsuccessful effort by his widow to find a buyer for the pub as a going-concern.

Why does Cllr Liam persist with this erroneous behaviour? Would it not be best to leave this matter alone and cease the traducing of the good name of the deceased publican and his surviving family. Or does Cllr Liam deem it ok not to use accurate facts and to use fake news to augment his argument.

On the matter of All Inn One - what information is he party to that underpins his grandiose and illusory mis-statement "We would have definitely lost the pub had the plans gone ahead."?

The developer withdrew when he received formal notice from Lewisham planners that they would not be making a recommendation in their report to planning committee to grant planning permission. This letter is in the public domain.

Because of the withdrawal, the said report prepared for committee has not been placed in the public domain. It is not known what the report contains.

There is an argument to say that as the report had been prepared it should be placed in the public domain even if the committee to which it was addressed did not consider the matter.

Finally, I think most people would realise that there is no meaningful comparison between events at The Greyhound and All Inn One or indeed The Rutland Arms. Why Cllr Liam makes that comparison eludes common sense and demonstrates the risk that his desire only to make political points is without regard to the real-life consequences.

Wise words, used in other political circumstances, come to mind, "words have meaning and consequence".

Find all posts by this user Reply

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields