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.

Friday, 30 September 2016


Never has this Council been under greater financial pressure so what gives it the right to waste money on an event with little connection to the lives of residents. 
It's pure waste.....



Monday, 26 September 2016


Council officers are like wolves who smell blood. 
When they sense a Cabinet member is not up to the job they circle around snapping, snarling and generally making clear to the hapless and hopeless councillor who runs the show.

Two cabinet members fall into this category: Cllrs Weale and Elizabeth Campbell. 

Both are are no  match for their departmental officers so happily sit back taking their £40,000 a year allowance letting officers run the show.
Though Daniel Moylan may be tyrannical no officer would dare to step out of line as they do with Campbell and Weale.

The Dame will be airing both these numpty's dirty linen soon.

Was Weale given a Cabinet position because she lost her City insurance job? It seems likely.
As for Elizabeth Campbell, her record is a disgrace.

Saturday, 24 September 2016


The Dame is often the butt of cruel and malicious nonsense. Fortunately, she has a thick skin and can bear the 'slings and arrows of outrageous fortune' with equanimity: to quote 'Warwickshire Willie'.
She reproduces this unfair email from one of her cantankerous readers, safe in the knowledge that her other, less censorious readers, will know how unfair the imputations are. The Dame has NO pets!

For a start, the Dame never censors comments, unless, of course, they are defamatory or vulgar.

To suggest Cadogan gets an easy ride is nonsense. 
In fact, the poor old thing was severely rebuked for publishing what one reader described as MISARA's over long criticism of the scheme.HERE
What, in the past, the Dame has said about Cadogan is that it is better that a local family own the estate rather than some greedy hedge fund or the Qatari's. She stands by that.

Dear Dame,

The other day a reader accused the Dame of having her 'pets'. I have to say, I tend to agree.
The Hornet seems rarely to criticise our sainted MP, or indeed, Cllr Dent Coad. As for Cllr Coleridge, she seems to have deleted quite a few comments that criticise him, yet never reacts to unpleasant comments about Cllr Feilding Mellen.
I turn now to Cadogan's plans for Sloane Street. 
Why has the Hornet not roundly condemned them? 

With the kindest and most respectful regards, dear Dame,

A long term K&C Resident

Saturday, 17 September 2016



If you want to make minor changes to your Edwardian Conservation Area flat expect to be pestered by a little group of busybodies from Hornton St, risibly described as the Conservation Dept. 
But demolish one of the last surviving Art Deco cinema's,replete with wondrous examples of Art Deco fittings and architectural features, and the Council will actually encourage you! 

Thus, no surprise the greedy Ritblat duo behind this act of vandalism so loves our Council.
If you have the money everything and anything is possible in the Rotten Borough.      
Since 1926 the vast Art Deco masterpiece has withstood wartime bombs and economic downturns. 
This Monday, the Ritblats will send in the JCB's and a piece of Royal Borough history will become a pile of dust.
The Ritblat family are determined to establish themselves as English gentry. Part of the ploy involves sponsoring the LAPDA antiques fair. 
Incongruous, then, they would do so whilst simultaneously destroying a unique and much-loved piece of 1930's Art Deco history.

Can one ever imagine the French turning down the chance to recreate, within this fine building, a community asset of real value?
In K&C big money does not just screams.
Cleverly, Ritblat Junior has boarded up the facade of the cinema but this is how it could be.

The question has to be asked....why does Tim Coleridge adamantly refuse to order the building be made an asset of Community Value. 
There is talk of an Independent Conservative group forming to challenge certain wards; it's driven by a council that hears but refuses to listen.
The Friends of the Odeon have an email list of twenty-eight thousand residents who oppose this demolition. 
Could it be used to stimulate a real opposition? 
We shall have to see......

Thursday, 15 September 2016


Still on the subject of Rocky....the Dame sees his new best friend is an obese looking property pr man by the name of Mr Bingle. Bingle likes to boast that he advises clients how to 'engage' with central and local government.
Uggh!...multi-chin man

Why on earth would Rocky need to 'engage' over lunch with this gross looking fatso and..... who paid?

Bungle is also a mate of Danny Boys Moylan......

The point is this.....
What possible reason could Bungle have for wishing to meet young Rocky? 
It is absolutely wrong for a Cabinet member, handling sensitive RBKC property issues, to be meeting the likes of Bungle.
If such meets take place a senior council officer should be present and a record of the meeting put on the record-just as would happen were it a government minister.
After all, funny biz could have been discussed.....


In March, young Rocky Feilding Mellen took himself off to Cannes.
Nothing wrong with that. 
In the 'old days' the Dame herself was a frequent visitor to that den of depravity and Russian 'ladies of the night'.

Every year, in March all the international property big shots descend on Cannes for a few days of cocaine and Dom Perignon fuelled debauchery plus shadowy property deals in dark corners.
Yes, it all sounds quite squalid.

But, the old Dame's simple mind wanders. What she wants to know is this. 

  • Did Rocky's visit to Cannes coincide with MPIM
  • If he went to the shindig did he go under his own steam,
  • If he didn't who paid
  • Who did he meet and was Royal Borough business discussed

Wednesday, 14 September 2016


Dear Dame

IS your Council LYING to you? CAN you trust RBKC?
This building has a propaganda poster beneath it entitled "The New Marlborough Primary School" and describing benefits such as "60 new pupils" -  a twist of the truth, since it's the same increase in intake the old school was scheduled for.
But what you may not know is that the building you are looking at IS NOT the new school! 

It is the commercial building that RBKC Council did not tell you about. 

  • The one that they are building on the pupils' playground. 
  • The one for which they FAILED to apply for disposal of playground, in so doing BREAKING AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT, until campaigners contacted the Dept for Education who insisted they apply.
This building is the reason why Marlborough school children will now be forced to play on the roof of the new school!

When the Council finally put in their application for permission to dispose of the playground, there was a public outcry and 158 objections were received.
The Playing Fields Advisory Panel rejected the Council's application to dispose of the playground in a damning report, advising the Secretary of State NOT to grant permission. However, the loss of playground was, in the Playing Fields Advisory Panel's own words a “fait accompli,” since planning permission had already been secured and building site works had already commenced, and as a result the then Secretary of State for Education Nicky Morgan did indeed grant permission to the Council.


A Resident and Parent

Tuesday, 13 September 2016


So why has Mr Stallwood, our boyish director of planning, agreed to join the Dame for tea and fancies with some of her lavender scented friends:dames d'un certain âge.
Well, every last Tuesday of the month, the Dame has a famous clairvoyant over to her vast Ennismore Gardens triplex to tell her ladies what the month has in store.
‘But, why young Stallwood?...Well, the truth is that our planning supremo can look forty years into the future and make astonishing revelations! 
The Dame's Seance

In fact, so accomplished is young Graham one wonders he doesn’t go on the telly and make a fortune-or even work full time for the awful Ratblats.

All sorts of miraculous events are being claimed for Crossrail 2. 
Most involve totally spurious claims about how the station will accelerate housing stock in the vicinity.
For example, Mr Stallwood claimed Crossrail 2 would ‘generate’ 3,500 new homes over a forty-four year period.

The Dame’s team of experts looked at the claims and found them deeply wanting...actually they were thoroughly mendacious.

When challenged Mr Stallwood reversed fast instead saying the station would ‘support’ 3,500: a world of difference!

He drew no distinction between whether these new homes would have occurred anyway even without the station. 
But, in any case, were it even true it would mean an addition of just a derisory 79 new homes annually over the 44 year period.
And where would the land for the 3,500 homes be found? 
Certainly not within 2k radius of the proposed station unless you demolish the social housing dominating the area.

The Dame’s expert also questions Mr Stallwood’s claim to be able to forecast 44 years into the future. 
Take, for example, the 44 year period since 1971. 
In that period we have had:
  •       The oil price shock,
  •       The 1990 property crash,
  •       The rise of China,
  •       The huge growth in international demand for property in up-market locations in a few cities where Anglo-Saxon conventions of property law prevail

So young Graham says the station will “support the delivery” of 3500 high-end properties whilst claiming the proposal would not reduce social housing!
All this when the GLA forecasts for population growth for RBKC, as a whole, are an increase of just over 10,000 people in the period to 2040. 
What are RBKC up to? 
Why claim 3500 new homes and lot's of stamp duty yet, when challenged saying it won’t affect social housing on the sites identified? 
Is this smoke and mirrors or do they have plans for all this social housing and if so why not be honest and transparent about it?

TFL has no cost benefit analysis of the station to justify it and RBKC, as its primary advocate, makes claims which, on closer examination, do not distinguish between normal housing development and that generated by the station itself.