DaveR

Last night somebody crashed into my car parked on Barry Road, and drove off. It was parked pretty much opposite Halliwell Court, between the junctions of Upland and Underhill Roads. It must have made a pretty loud noise, judging by the damage, so on the off chnace anybody heard or saw anything I'd be very grateful if you could get in touch.

This is a good website: http://www.lease-advice.org/

"That's the sort of disgraceful behaviour I expect of these alarmist, privileged mothers who spend their afternoons taking care of their offspring in fancy cafes around the area." And that's the sort of ridiculous over the top rubbish we expect of you. A mum says to a child something that is perfectly consistent with "don't bother that man", as opposed to "beware of that dangerous man" and suddenly we're off and running with yet another infantile class-based diatribe against the 'privileged'. And 'the Fox' is terrified to go into a cafe. FFS. It's still a fact that more women than men spend more time looking after young kids, so many places have lost of mums and few if any dads. It's really not hard (in my experience) to smile and be polite and in 99% of cases everybody is fine. The paranoia is in your head, DF.

"This is a thread about the M&S planning application, and there are people (regardless of what you think of them fazer) who want to have genuine engagement with James Barber and others on this subject." My impression is that both on this and the 'Local Councillor...' thread there are a small number of people with a vested interest who can't accept the outcome of as planning process, and want to post again and again and again, by turns lambasting poor old James for his lamentable inactivity, re-running all the arguments that it appears were considered entirely properly first time around, and hinting at dark and dirty conspiracies aimed at preventing them from parking outside their own houses. A harmless semantic chat is light relief for those of us who are not very cross indeed. PS James Barber has the patience of a saint, and is to be highly commended for his continued willingness to be badgered about this. This may come as a massive surprise to you, but I'm sure he has other issues to deal with.

Definite vs indefinite article, innit. Plus appropriate capitalisation (or not) "The High Street" "a high street"

It's always easier to decide not to do anything. As has been widely observed, Corbyn's stance does not represent either principle or pragmatism. He's not a pacifist - he has actively supported 'armed struggle' by various groups in various places in the past - but nor does he have an actual plan (even a hopeless one) for achieving a diplomatic resolution.

"Harriet Harman voted for." Almost every Labour MP with ministerial experience voted for. Party of govt vs protest party.

"James, you sound so defeatist, as though there is absolutely nothing you can do, and I find that hard to believe......" It must be nice to have your own personal councillor.

"I read this morning that Cameron has resorted to calling Corbyn a 'terrorist sympathiser'" Corbyn has a long history of being a terrorist sympathiser - Irish Republicans, Palestinians etc. He calls them 'freedom fighters' though.

"DaveR has a theory about East Dulwich being a Victorian railway suburb. There might be something to be teased out here." Easy, tiger. I used that description in a thread about blue bins, tbh as a rough characterisation of the essential ordinariness of the ED landscape. Having said that, AFAIK it's pretty uncontroversial that the majority of what we now see in SE22 was built in the late Victorian period, and that the majority of residential expansion during that time was driven by (or at least went hand in hand with) public transport development - buses, trams and suburban trains.

It's been pretty much established that any post including the words 'help save the Bussey Building' is likely to be grossly misleading.

"Apparently it's reversed snobbery when someone like me mocks the posh incomers who spend a fortune on coffee and organic carrots etc, but it's ok for them to change an entire neighbourhood and force house prices sky high and we should all shut up and not say boo to a goose." These are two completely different things, though. One is you pointing the finger at people and saying 'you're stupid and/or wicked'. The other is someone deciding to buy a house that they then live in. The latter might affect you indirectly, but it's obviously different. And if you didn't insist on repeating the 'you're stupid' mantra over and over again, people might take you seriously. Back on topic, I don't think anyone is denying that rapid change in a neighbourhood can be difficult and uncomfortable for long term residents who have got used to things being a particular way. The fact that over an even longer term the city has always changed doesn't make that any easier to deal with. It's also the case that the kind of gentrification that's been taking place across Inner London in the last 20 odd years has maybe been particularly disruptive, because it's coincided with massive changes in the way people shop and socialise; LL is evidence of that, with the massive increase in cafes/bars/restaurants and generally foodie places, plus upmarket and frankly twee gift type shops, generally replacing more 'down-to-earth' and often long-established businesses. And some of the new places are not overly concerned about offering value for money - it's more about lifestyle/aspirational stuff, as far as I can see. But none of this has happened because people are bad, or stupid, or because there's some kind of giant anti-working class conspiracy, and most of it can't be stopped. Planning authorities can't stop shop premises changing hands (though they can, and have stopped shops converting to restaurants). Petitions generally won't stop commercial landlords charging market rent and getting in tenants who will pay it. Being snarky about people who have beards, or eat hummus, isn't going to make anybody change - it just makes you look sad and bitter. And it's never all negative - more money in the neighbourhood ultimately benefits most people.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/hipsters-are-better-than-you-say-researchers-2013021259405 http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/features/gentrification-good-or-bad-20151005102592 It's all been said before

"You have the ring of Chipping Norton about you" Funny, because you have the ring of twat about you

The OP is not really worth responding to, but coincidentally someone posted a link a few days ago to the LSE Booth Project, which has scanned copies of the notes taken during walks his team of inspectors carried out in this area in December 1899. Here is the thread: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1603070,1604203#msg-1604203 The notes make a great read in themselves, but one of the things they reveal is that ED in late Victorian times had a mix of people from across a wide range of social classes, from comfortable professionals and businessmen who kept a full complement of servants, to those on the borderline of real (19th century) poverty. Since then the area has undoubtedly been through all sorts of ups and downs and changes, but the idea that it somehow naturally belongs to "decent working class Londoners" is an illusion.

Antwerp, Lyon, Munich all good for a few days.

"I think the biggest denial is within the Labour right to be honest, who seem unable to grasp why they have lost two elections - unable to grasp why traditional Labour supporters can't stomach their support for cuts" Putting all the yah boo sucks stuff aside for a moment, I'm genuinely interested as to whether Corbyn supporters actually believe that Labour lost the last two elections because they weren't left wing enough? And if so, is it because you think people who voted for a different party would have voted Labour (presumably not Tory voters, and they got a majority last time round)? Or because lots of people who didn't vote at all would have come out if there was a real socialist govt on offer? Corbyn has hinted in one or two speeches that he believes he can get more non-voters out to vote for him, but as I've observed before, it's a pretty risky strategy.

"This has nothing to do with "privacy". This has to do with people thinking they can write what they want because their real names and addresses aren't visible. To mention my place of birth is probably abusive (and illegal?) and you would never have said that to my face, and would never have written it if I were from any other country, or if your real names and addresses were made visible." Calm down. Nobody has done anything illegal, or as far as I can see, abusive. You've made it clear that you're a US citizen, and some have made points about that which you may disagree with. The main point is that you seem to think that anybody disagreeing with you needs to state their name, and that not to do so is cowardly, inappropriate etc. On this, as on the substance of your argument, I (and it seems many others) think you are wrong. No personal disclosure is required to debate a point, and although there are many examples of online anonymity being abused I don't think this thread is one of them. Caring about trees does not make you special, or even right. About anything. Having other people say that about you maybe uncomfortable, but once you start a campaign you have to be ready for it.

As I understand it, the proposal is to re-locate a number of similar businesses that are already close/next door to each other on Blenheim Grove to a specifically themed area, so it seems a bit extreme to talk about ghettos. If it's done right you can see how it might well be a more attractive location for customers, and although it's slightly counter-intuitive, the evidence suggests that businesses of this type do better when they are concentrated rather than dispersed. As ever, the devil will be in the detail - any new location needs to be made attractive and accessible, because it is a bit more out of the way, and it will need a marketing push.

"Wow - that last post was patronising - even by some EDF standards!" Mea culpa. If it is any consolation, I would have been equally scathing if someone had posted "the basic problem is that young people have no adequate means of self-expression; this would never have happened if more public money were available to support the exploration of teen identity crises through interpretive dance" - which is about as accurate.

"Although I disagree completely with Lewis Schaffer, I think attacking him for being an American is playing the man and not the ball. Apart from anything else, he's been here 15 years - I assume as a taxpayer - so he's as much entitled to an opinion as anyone." I agree, especially on the electoral point. But when you post this: "My name is Lewis Schaffer I am a Nunhead resident. I am an American Citizen. You can google me. Who, may I ask are you all? What do you gain by seeing these trees cut down? What do you gain by being so derisive to the people who want these places to be wild? Why can't you tell us who you are? A coward hides behind anonymity." you have to be prepared for a bit of personal flak, including for being a ghastly Yank who wants to know everybody's name, and doesn't understand (or want to understand) British attitudes to privacy. Anyway, hopefully there will be no more new threads along the lines of "Save the trees now, Limeys!"

"The basic problem is that the little scumbag who did it will only get a slap on the wrist from the soppy judicial system. No deterrent or punishment. Ridiculous. The Bleeding Hearts have been running the asylum for too long" It was only a matter of time before we had a genuinely insightful and expert view on what the "basic problem" is. Well done - the use of capitals for "Bleeding Hearts" is particularly persuasive. PS elbow = arm joint, arse = bit for sitting on. Just in case you were unclear.

"You could always run a petition yourself or another thread for chopping down those trees, spending millions subsidising some burials." Why would someone get up a petition asking the council to do something they've already decided to do? Why start another thread to debate the same issue (unless the intention of campaigners is to drown out any voices other than their own? It seems pretty clear that on this forum, at least amongst those that have expressed a view, there is substantial support for both sides. It's likely that in the wider area there are many, many people who don't care either way. This plan will either go ahead or not, and the world will not end. In the mean time it is incredibly tiresome to see multiple threads started by 'anti' campaigners, and posts on those threads saying "so you don't care about environmental armageddon/my child's favourite tree etc. etc." Please give it a rest.

"My name is Lewis Schaffer I am a Nunhead resident. I am an American Citizen. You can google me. Who, may I ask are you all? What do you gain by seeing these trees cut down? What do you gain by being so derisive to the people who want these places to be wild? Why can't you tell us who you are? A coward hides behind anonymity." Lewis, you obviously haven't lived here long enough to learn some manners. Being a single issue fanatic is, I'm afraid, inherently impolite. Try some moderation, a bit of pragmatism, above all respect people's rights to quietly but firmly disagree with you. This is England, after all, where 'winning friends and influencing people' is still considered a bit vulgar. Nothing personal, obviously. I suggest a nice cup of tea, perhaps with a biscuit. You'll feel much better.

I think the error is in making thread names repetitive, alarmist and potentially misleading.