For Sale & Items Offered
Sell or give away your articles
Rules for Selling Items on East Dulwich Forum
Only goods available for collection in SE22 and surrounding areas of South London may be listed for sale on this forum board.
Goods sold via EDF must be legal, safe, accurately described and fit for purpose.
The following items are not allowed to be sold or given away via the forum:
- Animals
- Tobacco
- Knives and other weapons
- Adult goods
Ensure your thread title accurately describes what you are selling. Please put the price of the item in the thread title where possible, e.g. "Leather Sofa - £50".
If you have a big list of similar items to sell at once (e.g. a garage sale) then please put them all in one thread. Do not create more than 3 topics per day per account.
Where possible, please attach a photo, or a link to a shop where the item can be purchased. To upload an image, simply click the 'Choose Files' link below the post text area.
All sale transactions must be organised independently between the buyer and seller. The East Dulwich Forum cannot have any involvement in the transaction and therefore will not take responsibility for disputes (e.g. faulty goods or misleading description). However, accusations of fraud are taken seriously - please report any such occurrences to the forum administrator via the Contact Us button at the bottom of the page.
8,784 topics in this forum
-
- 0 replies
- 183 views
-
- 0 replies
- 166 views
-
- 0 replies
- 174 views
-
- 0 replies
- 273 views
-
- 1 reply
- 316 views
-
- 0 replies
- 342 views
-
- 0 replies
- 224 views
-
- 2 replies
- 335 views
-
- 0 replies
- 232 views
-
- 0 replies
- 257 views
-
- 2 replies
- 325 views
-
- 2 replies
- 367 views
-
- 1 reply
- 426 views
-
- 0 replies
- 380 views
-
- 0 replies
- 193 views
-
- 0 replies
- 243 views
-
- 0 replies
- 242 views
-
- 0 replies
- 154 views
-
- 0 replies
- 208 views
-
- 0 replies
- 196 views
-
- 0 replies
- 167 views
-
- 0 replies
- 210 views
-
- 1 reply
- 200 views
-
- 0 replies
- 255 views
-
- 1 reply
- 306 views
.thumb.jpg.64f1cbaada43e604547cf5e12536be3c.jpg)
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum. The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake. So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself. Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody. -
We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them. -
Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit". I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green. James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. -
My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point.
-