Forum Topic

Unlike the Flower and Cheese Markets, the Antiques Market has no vested interest in the community. They also have the least amount of COVID-related protocol. Just a mere whiff that the organizer will police things. As if she'll waft about enforcing here and there.Unfortunately, the organizers yesterday forced GBK to remove more than half their outdoor seating to accommodate a stall. LBH barriers were used. This means LBH is in breach of contract by not upholding the legality of GBK's pavement license. Not to mention the moral and ethical responsibility to honor the license terms. It obviously also means GBK lost trade as a direct result of the Antiques market. If I'm not mistaken, the Cheese Market is to occupy the same footprint. If so, how will the Cheese Market work around the pre-existing license holders? Will this mean GBK loses out on trade again? Was this the case for other traders along the route?As I said, for events like these the bike lane should be used. If Chiswick is a destination then the cycle lane isn't needed for commuting on market days. Cycle parking can be at either end of the market limits. As we all know, you don't shop on bike. You arrive/depart on bike. But all shopping regardless of venue is done by walking up to or in to a venue for the transaction. Why severely limit the pavement for that experience? More so, why reduce trade for a local premise for the benefit of stall holder? Everyone defends more pavement/road space use for traders. Will they step up to the plate this time?

David Lesniak ● 1996d

I'm more optimistic about this monthly market - but I understand the problem.Most antique/ vintage traders can nowadays spot a good piece from 5 miles and know its potential value.  That's their core business.  And they often have customers waiting.    All the rest, what Nicholas calls junk and rubbish,  is wishful thinking and open to offers.  A lot of that was on display yesterday.So yes, if it's a bargain you're after, there's nothing to beat going early to a good old car boot sale where there's usually a few sellers who haven't much of a clue what they're selling.  There were a few goodish pieces mixed with the tosh yesterday.  Not a lot and nothing special but hopefully that will improve.What nobody should expect is any high end stuff at high end prices.  Shelves of Moorcroft and Clarice Cliff vases alongside a few nice pieces from Cartier and Rolex and the odd Victorian oil painting.  Or even much of the stuff on sale at The Old Cinema, some of which is borderline market fare whilst a lot more isn't.  Antique traders usually know where to find the customers for that level of stuff.There's antiques and there's “antiques”.  And then there's value and valuation.  The “vintage” antique market can't and doesn't have any recommended retail prices.  The value of any piece is only what a customer will give for it.  And when you make an offer to a seller, you give him a choice – to accept your offer, or face wrapping the object up and taking it back home when the market closes.To me that's worth a browse and perhaps a gamble on a sunny Sunday in W4 ...PS:  Yes Ed – I discovered CAVE in Wellesley Road a fortnight ago.  Nice shop with plenty of stuff that I'd have thought would do well at the new market..

Stuart Kerr ● 1996d

(QUOTE ED SAPER)  “that’s quite a diversionary barrage!”....Morning all...Indeed it is Ed.  And I already see this thread has successfully been diverted.  Mission accomplished.  Or not!!!So what is David Lesniak distracting attention from? Why does he conjure up this spite (above) in response to the innocent stuff you and I wrote yesterday?    I mean, do you remember painting W4 traders as  “feckless idiots”?  I don't.I most certainly don't.  Stuff like that is more bitchcraft than witchcraft.David is very clearly looking to twist.  But let me, just for a moment, stick.Saturday's two page spread “Cycle Wars” in the Daily Mail is what David is trying to avoid.  Yesterday I managed to locate a copy.  It's a carefully and craftily re-written piece by experienced hack, Mark Edmonds – obviously picking up from the Mail on-line version which I couldn't read because of my  advert blocker.The on-line story included (I think) Julian Pavey's controversial 2019 cartoon about mobikes being blown-up on Chiswick High Road.  MOBIKES was far and away the biggest story in town all that year.  They were littered on pavements all over town and forum records contain numerous threads and hundreds and hundreds of angry moans from posters.  But critically, in mid-2019, cycle lanes and LTN's were NOT on anybody's agenda.So late last week, the question on many W4 lips was how on earth did Julian's mobike cartoon find it's way onto a story 2 years later about “Cycle Wars”.  How on earth could anyone make such a connection?  I'll tell you something for nothing – there isn't a journalist in the world who could get back through our forum records to discover mobikes, scream “eureka” - and re-plant it into this new Mail story.Anyway (can't be bothered to look back and find) I'm sure I recall David Lesniak late last week informing the forum that Julian's image was “in the public domain” and therefore, how on earth the Mail got hold of it, was a complete mystery.Cut to Saturday's Mail:-A photo of an explosion on a Chiswick pavement is captioned as follows:-    “Crude attack: An animated video of a missile destroying a Chiswick bakery whose owner opposes road closures.”Cut back to 2019 and Julian's cartoon video:-As I remember, that video blew up mobikes NOT a bakery.  Is my memory wrong?  Tell me dear readers.  Anyway, I do remember David took huge offence.  And I do remember he was told by many of W4's finest that the video was not aimed at either him or Outsider Tart.  But he'd have nothing of that and pressed on seeking his own form of justice/revenge.Cut forwards to this Saturday's Daily Mail spread:-And I quote:-  “David Lesniak knows better than most how unhinged some pro-cycling campaigners have become.The owner of the Outside Tart Bakery and cafe on Chiswick High Road has been a vocal opponent of the new measures.  A crude animated video posted online by one such campaigner shows a heat-seeking missile being launched, flying into the sky above Chiswick and landing on Mr Lesniak's bakery.  The business is destroyed, disappearing into a hole in the ground.“This is not engagement in debate, Mr Lesniak told the Mail.  It is harassment and bullying.  We need to hold these people to account.”OK that's it!I'm sure posters will draw various and different conclusions.  For my part, this is hardly a bombshell of a tale.  And shouldn't be exaggerated beyond what it is  – not very nice.  Not at all nice.

Stuart Kerr ● 1989d

A few things, Ed.Why weren't Chiswick businesses consulted on CS9? Why was it we had to approach TfL for direct engagement? Which never came. Why did we have to believe what we were told when we all knew the facts were otherwise? Why did asking these questions did that earn us the label of "anti?" Oh wait, I know that one. Because it is politically expedient but based on nothing. So if you're going to avoid my question, I'll mention it again.I find surveys flawed. Ditto consultations. But they seem go-to devices of late. This survey is no worse and arguably better than those that came before. Actual people went and spoke to actual people. A conversation was had. Not some abbreviated and biased multiple choice scenario like most consultations where you aren't really able to let your thoughts be known, rather you have to choose from the extremely specific, curated answers provided. And then your told your opinion matters when you know it wasn't an opinion you gave but you ticked a box that was provided for you. But you know that.As for access via Devonshire Road - I've asked a similar question many times before. Just what the hell is access? Who gets it? Who doesn't? And if these idiotic white lists are being used to enable LTNs on one side of the tracks, why isn't the same device being used on the other side? Surely if you're advocating a business can use DR for access then the residents in that same area can do the same. Otherwise you're left with me suggesting why can't those businesses access the Glebe estate from Dukes Road, get as close as they can, park and simply walk the rest of the way? Well that and why do you need vehicular access in the first place when you can simply cycle or walk? Oh wait, businesses need vehicular access. Something I've mentioned but you've challenged. And yet here you are challenging precisely the same thing. It gets very confusing, doesn't it?Of course if POW and the Mews was to be included, that could easily add to the already large majority. So there's that. I reckon it would because they all cram their cars into the alley and if more spaces were available it would free things up for them. Just a thought.

David Lesniak ● 1988d