Terrible News

[Eagle]

Noticed planning application for change of use on shop opposite Cobb's , near Kirk's Camera Corner.

Said planned to open a tattoo parlour.

How many bodies are now going to be desecrated if application succeeds. I hope the Council will see sense.

[leenewham]

Sigh, what an overreaction!

Nothing wrong with them if that's what someone wants. It's not my cup of tea, but I welcome this new business to Sydenham that is looking at going into the old Behind Bars bike shop that's been empty for over 6 years. What isn't good is to have lots of them. One tattoo parlour in North London has had people like Mr Pitt and Mrs Jolie turn up.

Which reminds me Eagle...

[Eagle]

I associate tattoo's with nautical gentlemen and criminals. I believe The Japanese do as well.

When you see someone of 70 odd with a tattoo , done probable 50 years ago when drunk, they look very embarrassing.

I welcome new shops , but surely positive shops , not ones that cause disfigurement of the human body.

[Willy]

The street drinker with the tatooed face must be very happy!

[Eagle]

Good Point Willy.

If one has a tattoo that would be visible with normal clothing then one should not get any benefits if unemployed as you have made yourself unemployable.

Simples

[leenewham]

Like David Beckham?
Or Brad Pitt?
Or Angelina Jolie?
Or Johhny Depp?
Or Colin Farrell?
Or Lilly Allen?

All of whom have tattoos which you can see while wearing 'normal' clothes, although obviously it's not on their face. And I doubt they would need benefits. I think your views on tattoos are outdated. I'm not a fan of them personally, but I think many of the artists are incredibly talented and the work is beautiful. I'm just not a fan of the artwork going onto skin!

[Rachael]

Or Samantha Cameron.

[leenewham]

Even Sir Ian McKellen has one (although it's a little one).

And he was Gandalf. And Magneto.

I'd be very happy to see Gandalf in Sydenham. Although I'd be a little scared if I saw Magneto.

[Eagle]

The list of so called celebrities does not impress me. Intelligence is obviously not one of their strong points.

I agree not applicable to the above , but what is your view of the people who think the NHS should waste its valuable funds removing the desecrations.

[14BradfordRoad]

Good Point Willy.

If one has a tattoo that would be visible with normal clothing then one should not get any benefits if unemployed as you have made yourself unemployable.

Simples

This one is a real cracker Eagle!

You can't be serious surely??... I suspect you're on a wind up you old devil!

[mosy]

Eagle, I'll take you at face value so, as we are supposed to live in a (relatively) free society which recognises that we own our own bodies, I'd rather that there are suitably hygiene-aware professionals who can do tattoos safely for those who want them.

What grounds would you suggest for the application's refusal incidentally? http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online- ... 212804.pdf I notice that a previous application for use as a takeaway was refused.

I am happier that the change of use requested from A1 retail is to sui generis (roughly meaning that a tattoo parlour doesn't fit easily into any of the classifications) than I would be if it were to become another A2 financial use.

[Eagle]

The grounds are that you have made yourself unemployable or very difficult to employ.

Rather like council not having to rehouse people who have made themselves homeless.

[stuart]

More people in Sydenham have tattoos then ride a bike. Indeed I suspect more people on STF have tattoos than ride a bike. Hence a bike shop becomes a tattoo parlour. Simples.

No point moaning - if it is a problem then there is only one real solution as Mr Tebbit would say ...

Stuart

[hairybuddha]

Can I please add 'simples' to the list of words that we don't use on here?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[mosy]

hairybuddha, "seemples" (per the advert) is in the latest Oxford English dictionary, so no you can't, so there.
"Simples" isn't, so you're right - it should be spelled proper init?

Edit: Oops! I've got that the wrong way round; it is "simples" which is in the English dictionaries, surprisingly from as long ago as 2009.