"at the expense of hospitality businesses"Who doesn't love a bit of Campbellism with their coffee (I take it black, Ed).Speaking as the only hospitality business owner here, I find the whinging a bit odd.Please could someone tell me which business it is that will lose out on daytime trade? Which one put out tables on the street during the day? Which one was able to do this all along pre-COVID? (oh wait, I know the answer to that one - none). I can think of three all of which benefit more from the evening economy. Be that as it may, we're talking about, at most, two day's worth of lunch trade which they never were able to offer to that degree. You then also have the added 6-7 nights worth of evening trade, again, which there never were able to offer to that degree by spreading out into the street. So as Kieran says, a balance. An offset. And a bonus is some ways for hospitality. But this isn't only about hospitality which the boys all know. they just ignore that fact because it suits their rhetoric. Patients to clinics don't matter. Customers for galleries don't matter. Ladies who might want to meet and shop amongst the multiple fashion outlets and then have a snack - irrelevant. You know, friends from outside W4 who dare to meet up here so they have the car. Pet owners don't matter as they've demonstrated numerous times though likely they own dogs and cats but won't admit to it or have pet food delivered. Dog grooming? Pointless. Someone wanting to do any of the above, park have lunch while the pooch gets groomed or Nan gets her treatment - all of these people don't matter. This is not how the boys live and how very dare you if you live that way. Their choices matter. Yours do not.Paul loves his rhetoric. Lately I'm thinking Ed does, too. But what we have is only a temporary solution with an end date. If hospitality meant so much to all the boys, precisely where is the evidence of their lobbying efforts to help all venues across the entire borough? One would think Paul would be shouting from the rooftops about Fauconberg Road - that's closest to him. But no. Conclusion: he doesn't care because that's not part of his agenda. One would think Ed would be screaming about his neck of the woods especially since he has carped about it being neglected. But no. Not part of his agenda. Tom says not a word about traders in Bedford Park. Nobody says anything about the High Road. The cycle lane doesn't get used after rush hour. Why can't traders set up there? A whole lotta real estate doing nothing after rush hour. And perhaps most important, where is the lobbying about license fees? Where is the demand the system gets overhauled so come September 2022 when these current amenities expire, the sector has the support it needs to transition into the next phase?If all the naysayers and finger pointers really, truly, deeply care about hospitality as they represent (read pretend), where is the righteous indignation aimed at supporting the entire sector across the entire borough? In its absence we are left with one conclusion: political posturing, and nothing more.Note to other readers: you may want to take cover as the arrows are about to fly at me, but aim is not really a strong suit with these fellas.
David Lesniak ● 1948d