Comments

DAMESATHOME@YAHOO.CO.UK
send the Dame your information, discretion assured.
Comments are welcome but do not necessarily reflect the view of the Dame.
Offensive/inappropriate comments will be deleted and the poster banned.

Wednesday, 2 December 2015

NOT IN MY BACKYARD PLEASE!

The Dame has just received this letter.
By the way, she exhorts more of you to share your views. You all have her discreet email address....please use it.











My Dear Dame
There are persistent rumours that the "No Crossrail2 in Chelsea" protesters are running a petition on the streets to move the Crossrail 2 station site back to West Chelsea. Their website mentions meetings Greg Hands MP and discussions with regards to the use of Imperial Wharf as a possible site.

We have been down this road before!


Defenders of "not in my back yard" have previously applied pressure on the Council to move it away from the long-protected site at Chelsea Fire Station. 
And it has now been moved eastwards to Sydney Street, away from the homes of many of the campaign's organisers.

We believe campaigners should focus on saving ALL of Chelsea from Crossrail 2 and not just the immediate area around their homes.

We say: if you are truly committed to campaigning in the best interests of all of Chelsea's residents stop proposing that the station be built outside other people's homes. 

We all love Chelsea, whether east or west, and the station will cause disruption and chaos to residents wherever it is located. 
Concentrate on having the proposals well and truly mothballed, not merely moved elsewhere. 
Kicking it a "safe distance" down the road is quite simply NOT acceptable. 

Yours faithfully

xxxxxxxx 

64 comments:

  1. Victoria Borwick votes for bombing Syria. Waste of life & money. We should be asking her to stand down as MP she does not represent the majority of her constituency. Warmonger! Blood on her hands!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why is the council twitter telling us to support HS2?

    I thought they were supposed to be neutral. Pooter Cockell has retweeted.

    HS2 is over budget and does not help anybody but those few lining their pockets.

    https://twitter.com/RBKC/status/671713426218090496

    Where is Greg Hands? The Yank is probably too busy enjoying bombing Syria!

    HS2 will effectively create a bland area which most development in London has done, it is a force for evil! Evil I tell you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've been sussed. This is a PR Johnny, you can smell 'em a mile off

      Mistakes:

      1. In all my time in Worlds End & Chelsea no one has ever mentioned 'a transport blackhole' we have cars and buses & ability to walk to tube
      2. 'Other End' what other end we have lived as a community in Chelsea no resident or business owner has referred to Chelsea East, Central & West
      3. We are not in need of tube station at Worlds End we do own cars and those who don't use buses and walk to the tube.
      4. The only people who use the word 'Nimby' are HS2 and RBKC Officers & Councillors.

      HS2 pay hundreds of thousands for PR and this is what they get.

      You have been found out and I claim my prize!

      Delete
    2. This was for 10:39 sorrry 12:06

      Delete
  3. These protestors should be focusing on protecting all of Chelsea not lobbying Greg Hands MP to put it on Imperial Wharf.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have yet to hear of a single person in Chelsea who wants a Crossrail 2 station at Imperial Wharf - with the notable exception of Greg Hands himself.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's all very well for the rich people of central and east Chelsea who can afford cars, resident's parking and taxis - but what about all the poor people in south west Chelsea, Stanley ward; you know (or perhaps you don't) the 'Other End' of the Kings Road - 'Worlds End' indeed, a transport black hole. They are in desperate need of a tube station - but they are not as vocal as the NIMBYs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not a tube station !!!!!!

      Those that live in the west of Chelsea come from many economic backgrounds.

      I would be very careful with regard to labelling the West of Chelsea or Chelsea Harbour in need of a station.

      Delete
    2. 10:39 You've been sussed. This is a PR Johnny, you can smell 'em a mile off

      Mistakes:

      1. In all my time in Worlds End & Chelsea no one has ever mentioned 'a transport blackhole' we have cars and buses & ability to walk to tube
      2. 'Other End' what other end we have lived as a community in Chelsea no resident or business owner has referred to Chelsea as East, Central or West
      3. We are not in need of tube station at Worlds End we DO own cars and those who don't use buses and walk to the tube.
      4. The only people who use the word 'Nimby' are HS2 and RBKC Officers & Councillors.

      HS2 pay hundreds of thousands for PR and this is what they get.

      You have been found out and I claim my prize!

      Delete
    3. Actually I am not a 'PR Johnny'. Are you sure about this? Has anyone surveyed the opinions of the residents of the Worlds End and Cremorne council estates? It sure is a long walk to any tube station, and can you park a car anywhere you want to go?

      Delete
    4. Sussed again using the word 'surveyed', I even gave you tips what not say to make it obvious who you are but too stoopid!

      Some of us are good Christians and give each other lifts and a little exercise did no one any harm. You must be sitting in your armchair with your belly hanging out, if you think it's a long walk from here to Sloane Square, South Ken or Gloucester Rd, are you part of the obesity crisis?

      All your comments are inacurrate I have spoken to neighbours and we don't want or need a tube or HS2. The only reason YOU want the estates as the location is to evict us residents for a land grab and make it into some bland area for buy to let wallers, that much was let out of the bag by interested parties.

      From your language and poor oratory your obviously a RBKC officer, councillor or HS2's PR.

      Jog on!

      Delete
    5. Yes, those poor underlings who you consider not worthy of living in Chelsea. Let's speak for them.

      We could not possibly know what is in our best interests.

      Demolishing our homes and displacing our communities would best serve your best interests.

      Delete
    6. The residents of both of those estates and those living nearby voted overwhelmingly against a Crossrail 2 station during the first TfL consultation last year.

      In fact one of the many gripes of the current "no Crossrail in Chelsea" campaign is/was that the residents of that end of Chelsea were supposed to have voted "tactically" to have it at the Fire Station. The numbers actually say otherwise - just as many voted for no station at all as for a station anywhere else - but they do confirm the level of opposition to a station in West Chelsea.

      Delete
    7. Thank you 13:51 I didn't know that. Reasoned facts rather than abuse are always welcome. For the record I support the Fire Station location, but rather than NO station at all in Chelsea I would like to see one somewhere, and public transport access to World's End / Lots Road (ah, it is now apparently a 'Village') is bad. I am sure there are plenty of sites which don't involve demolishing housing.

      Delete
    8. The residents in these areas do not want or need a station.

      They already have good access to Imperial Wharf, Fulham Broadway, Earls Court, South Kensington and Sloane Square. All within walking distance !!!!

      And if you feel so impassioned Glebe place seems a good site as any.

      Delete
  6. Gillespie Robertson3 December 2015 at 10:58

    Unlike your other commentators I prefer to be open and see no reason to be anonymous. Our campaign is openly and publicly "nimby" ABOUT THE WHOLE OF CHELSEA, and not about any particular location. We have lobbied our MP ONLY for the Crossrail2 line to go straight from Clapham Junction to Victoria. We say that RESIDENTS should be heard and that decision makers should listen to them REGARDLESS of a age, gender, race, religion, wealth, politics, sexual orientation and anything else. Our supporters include people of all backgrounds.
    Gillespie Robertson

    ReplyDelete
  7. So pleased Mr. Robertson to hear that you are concerned with the whole of Chelsea.

    Then maybe you can have words with your web designers and your activists on the street.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's still on their web page.

      Delete
    2. Yes, the inference is that it is acceptable to put it on Imperial Wharf.

      Delete
    3. The residents of Chelsea Harbour and Lots Road Village are going to be so supportive of your campaign if you carry on suggesting that the station be built on Imperial wharf !!

      Delete
  8. Heard that they wrote to residents associations in the area proposing that the station be placed on the Wandon Estate next to the old Kings College site.



    ReplyDelete
  9. They thought no one would find out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Me, who writes this? And Why? No Crossrail in Chelsea means NO Crossrail in Chelsea because we are opposed to the route and the station in Chelsea. Are the comments above from people who oppose a Crossrail route and station in Chelsea (12.04 and 12.06)? Where the writer of the letter gets the idea that our petition advocates a station further west is beyond me, what don't they understand about "Routing the line to avoid the diversion to Chelsea would save both over £1bn and longer journey times on Crossrail2".
      The TfL report produced for Greg Hands shows that a direct Victoria - Clapham Junction route is the best transport option and best for the aims of Crossrail2.
      We are not NIMBY, we do not advocate a station in anyone else's back yard, we advocate removing a station from Crossrail2. Like Gillespie, I am happy to be on the record, it would be useful for those casting aspersions to be on the record to or some might suspect their motives.
      Just in case this needs emphasising, we oppose a station and route through Chelsea which was the motion put to the Chelsea Society AGM and voted through with a massive majority.

      Delete
    2. You should have a word with your web page designers... and those collecting petitions outside TFL consultations.

      Delete
    3. You should not be discussing other alternative sites.

      Delete
    4. Chris,

      The problem is that some of your activists are clearly having problems "staying on message". They have been overheard telling people that if they can collect enough signatures they can have the station "moved back to West Chelsea where it belongs". I'm sure they thought no-one would hear what they said but they did. And unsurprisingly those residents of West Chelsea who did overhear that particular conversation are far from impressed.

      I suggest you have a word with your activists and reiterate the fact that the campaign is for no station anywhere in Chelsea, not to merely have it moved half a mile down the road where it won't bother them (much).

      Delete
    5. Well said !

      Delete
    6. Anyone suggesting that the station be moved back to West Chelsea doesn't appear to have thought things through very well.

      A Crossrail 2 station anywhere in Chelsea, even a Crossrail 2 station at Imperial Wharf or Fulham Broadway, will still require the tunnels to run under most of Chelsea. How else would the trains get from West Chelsea, Imperial Wharf or Fulham Broadway to Victoria?

      If you truly fear tunneling under your home you don't want the station anywhere in Chelsea or Fulham. You want the trains to run directly from Clapham Junction to Victoria.

      Delete
    7. I suspect those suggesting the station be moved back to West Chelsea are planning to negotiate some kind of dirty back-room deal with the Council.

      Chris should beware. Clearly not everyone is as committed to the aims of the campaign as he is.

      Delete
    8. Chris, you should make sure your soldiers toe the line.

      Delete
    9. You should keep a firm grip on your Glebe place colleague.

      Delete
  10. Dame please find out why RBKC council are allowed to support HS2 in the borough against our wishes. Especially by the twitter. Where is Paget Brown in all this? He has shown his support in his column in that London rag no one reads. Time for a coup me thinks.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Then they lobbied the council to move it to Sydney Street.


    ReplyDelete
  12. Away from Oakley Street and Glebe Place ...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Too much mess, noise and likely to adversely affect the collateral on those precious properties.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Let's put it somewhere else!!! But where ?

    We know ... Sydney Street, West Chelsea, Imperial Wharf...

    Not the Fire Station. Too close to home.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Maybe they need a lesson in Geography.

    THE BOUNDARIES OF CHELSEA

    ReplyDelete
  16. and where is your support for The Sutton Estate ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it would be nice and communal spirited for No 2 HS2 in Chelsea to extend their support to Sutton estates. After all they are part of the community too!

      Delete
    2. Has your organisation lobbied the council ? or contacted various organisations in order to support The Sutton Estate ? NO.

      But Chris Lenon has declared his ambition to pursue a political career.

      Self interest clearly overides community spirit.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, I must have missed something here. When did I declare my ambition to pursue a political career? News to me. I want to stop the Crossrail station in Chelsea - that's it.

      Delete
  17. The comment at 13:22 was not directed at the council but at you.

    Those who claim to love Chelsea in it's entirety.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 11.51, 12.24 and 12.46, where on the website is there any suggestion that there should be a staion at Imperial Wharf?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Chelsea Harbour and Lots Road Village residents are not happy.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yes, I can still see the inference that an alternative site for the station at Imperial Wharf would be attractive.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Under the meeting with Greg Hands !!!

    ReplyDelete
  22. So much for claiming to campaign for the station not to be in Chelsea.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hidden agendas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As the person who asked where on the NC2IC site is any support for Imperial Wharf, one of you (yesterday 15.14, 15.15, 18.35, 18.36, 18.38)suggested it was under the meeting with Greg Hands. I really can't see that. Please copy the precise offending words to make it clear to an old duffer like me. I can see that Greg Hands is pushing for Imperial Wharf but Greg Hands is not NC2IC. NC2IC is, as Chris Lenon wrote, exactly what it says - No Crossrail 2 in Chelsea.

      Delete
  24. Gillespie Robertson4 December 2015 at 10:53

    I don't understand all the anonymity, even though the "old duffer" at 09.46 today hits the nail right on the head . The NCIC website is perfectly clear. No Crossrail 2 in Chelsea means just what it says. We are doing our utmost to represent the interests of all residents of Chelsea, not any particular area. It just happens that the current TfL consultation is about only one option (the Kings Road one) in terms of Chelsea. (The anonymous person who suggested that our campaign wanted to see a station on Sydney Street rather than at the Fire Station because it's maybe 100 yards further east and thus further from some particular individual's house is frankly being rather absurd.) The fact that our MP is actually (unlike our Council's leadership) asking his consituents what they want (rather than telling them what they SHOULD want) is surely to be warmly welcomed ! On Sutton Estate, I for one have commented to the Council in no uncertain terms that the proposed reduction in social housing to make way for still more luxury residences for often absentee investors is totally unacceptable. Sutton Estate is pary of the Chelsea we are fighting to preserve !

    ReplyDelete
  25. Gillespie Robertson4 December 2015 at 10:55

    Part of Chelsea not pary of Chelsea !

    ReplyDelete
  26. I do understand that it is important to have the last word however inaccurate.

    To promote Imperial Wharf as part of your discussions with our MP on your website is a clever tactic.

    It suggests to those who see Chelsea as SW3 that Imperial Wharf is a viable alternative.

    You have done it before. Limit your campaign to protecting All OF CHELSEA and don't have discussions with politicians endorsing other sites.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It is not true that Greg Hands MP is only exploring Imperial Wharf as an option for the station.

    He is exploring all of the options with TFL: No option, King's Road, Imperial Wharf and Fulham Broadway.

    ReplyDelete
  28. There are two distinct issues here.

    The first appears to be that the manner in which Mr. Hands' efforts are being reported on the NC2IC website might lead the reader to believe that the campaign supports his proposals to have the station moved to Imperial Wharf or Fulham Broadway. If you happen to live near Imperial Wharf that might not be a particularly welcome development. And as it doesn't remove the need to tunnel under most of Chelsea it would appear to be a less than stellar outcome in any case. I would suggest that the website's editorial team should consider how best to report Mr. Hands' efforts in future.

    The second is what some of those collecting signatures for the NC2IC petitions have supposedly been saying when they thought no-one was listening. It is claimed that they have been suggesting that they intend to make use the petition to apply political leverage/pressure on the Council to have the station moved westwards ("back to West Chelsea where it belongs").

    Moving the station "back to West Chelsea where it belongs" is not an acceptable outcome - many of Chelsea's residents would be severely impacted, possibly displaced, local traffic levels would soar and tunnels would still run under most of Chelsea. Only the most selfish, duplicitous and uncaring individuals could consider this to be remotely acceptable. That such people appear to be actively involved in the NC2IC campaign is a serious problem.

    It would appear that Chris and Gillespie have a disciplinary issue that threatens the campaign. They need to either get the activists in question to behave appropriately and keep to the publicly declared aims on the campaign or just get shot of them. In my experience anyone who cannot be relied upon to stick to what is in truth a very simple "party line" is more trouble than they are worth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Lemon, "supposedly been saying"? . There is no intention to ask for the station site to be moved by NCIC, we don't want a station or route in Chelsea. The objective of NCIC is clear.

      Delete
    2. Your activists have been caught saying it. Just stop pussy footing around and deal with it.

      Delete
  29. Thank you 14:54 for expressing so eloquently how most of us feel.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Gillespie Robertson5 December 2015 at 09:42

    To the anonymous posters at 13.28 and 14.24 yesterday and again at 21.52, your hiding behind anonymity makes it appear that you are all (maybe you are one person) part of some dirty tricks effort attempting to undermine our 100 percent genuine message and to sow discord between different parts of Chelsea. The claimed remark about "moving it to West Chelsea where it belongs," to which you seem to hope by repetition to give some credence, WAS NOT MADE by any of the splendid people who give their time voluntarily day in and day out to inform the public and to oppose ( I will say it one last time) any CR2 station in Chelsea.
    The opening words of our website "WE OPPOSE....." makes our position AGAINST a West Chelsea station crystal clear .
    Either come out of your hiding place or have the decency to stay silent from now on please. We do understand that "the Dame" needs to allow anonymity to e.g. a whistleblower whose job might be at risk if he or she were outed, but these posters are either expressing totally misguided opinions or more likely making deliberately untruthful claims without any evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gillespie, were I in your position I would take the suggestion that some of my activists may have said things they shouldn't have seriously.

      Have you personally overseen all of the activists collecting signatures for your petitions? Can you vouch that none of them may have said what has been claimed? Unless you've been sat out there with them every hour of every day, which you clearly haven't, the answer is no.

      In which case the sensible thing to do is to accept that you may in fact have an actual problem that you need to do something about. It is not to accuse any residents who are justifiably concerned by what they have overheard that they are lying or out to cause mischief.

      Delete
  31. Only the truth is being expressed in the story. That is why The Dame published it.

    No hidden agenda.

    If your blog is to be believed you are declaring intent on having a future political career. I would concentrate on developing integrity.

    DO NOT SUGGEST BEHIND THE SCENES FURTHER SITES OUTSIDE OTHER PEOPLE'S HOMES.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gillespie Robertson5 December 2015 at 14:37

      You are obviously a coward as you choose to remain anonymous. Offensive and totally incorrect accusations and unjustified posts will get you nowhere. I don't have a blog and am far too old for a political career, but I would be willing to explain to you what "integrity" means if you would reveal who you are.

      Delete
    2. Integrity should start by taking steps to ensure that those working on the campaign's behalf behave appropriately.

      Delete

Comments are your responsibility. Anyone posting inappropriate comments shall have their comment removed and will be banned from posting in future. Your IP address may also be recorded and reported. Persistent abuse shall mean comments will be severely restricted in future.