Sue

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >> > Most Alcohol Free beers in the Supermarket are 50p > > > Becks Blue 275ml 50p Tesco ?2.65 The Bishop > > Barvaria 330ml 50p Tesco ?3.50 The E.D.T. > > Big mark up even if the pubs bought it from > Tesco.. > > DulwichFox Yeh well, you don't get a seat and your drink handed to you with a glass in a pub with music or sport on, heating and (hopefully) good company in Tesco, do you ?! ETA: Unless you want to crack open a couple of bottles there, sit on the belt and ask the checkout operator to join you in an alcohol free beer :))

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sparkling water and lime with ice and a slice is > what I used to drink in bars when I was off the > sauce many moons ago because in the main and > especially in those days alcohol free beer is > pretty rancid. Same here.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NEWS: Southwark Council filed new planning > applications on Christmas Eve, December 24th for > works in the cemeterires - Cutting down trees on > One Tree Hill and for cutting 2 acres of woods in > Camberwell Old and mounding over 48,000 graves. We > just found out about it yesterday. No notice on > cemetery gates, "stakeholders" not notified, no > notice in Southwark News. The consultation period > was to February 1 now it appears that the > consultation period has expired. We are figuring > out what is going on. If anyone knows something, > please post it or email me. > Surely you must have a contact in the relevant council department who can tell you directly what is going on? Presumably you have not been running your campaign all this time without first speaking to people in the council about their plans?

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can't see why anyone would be keen for TFL to take > over London's entire suburban rail network.... > > Take a look how they run the bus services... It > would be a complete disaster.. > Fox - think positive!! :)

> > PeckhamRose Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So there should be cameras at every junction, > > traffic light, one way system, at the point of > > every instruction sign, every bus lane, cycle > > lane, and you seriously think that would > improve > > things? Righty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I certainly think that it would, eventually, get a > lot of dodgy drivers off the road - yes. > I agree too. I think more cameras would be a deterrent. I'm bloody sick of people jumping red lights and therefore holding up traffic which is, for example, trying to turn right (or completely preventing them from turning right at all until the lights change again) and also meaning that pedestrians trying to cross can't safely do so either. And I can't see any point in having a 20mph limit which is by and large completely ignored and not enforced at all. The more cameras the better in my view. And I say that as somebody who has been done twice in the past for speeding.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Could someone please just do a very brief, very > clear synopsis off all of this? Who wants what and > why?! That will get edborders starting another load of threads again :))

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Harriet Harman and Sadiq Khan are > dodging us cause it is a hot potato - but everyone > else is with us. Hot potato? "Everyone else is with us"?!?! Perhaps Harriet and Sadiq have actually looked objectively at the issues. Journalists are just grateful for any story handed to them on a plate. Have you read over your more recent (in particular) posts on here? Do you honestly think this kind of approach can possibly be helping your cause? What do your fellow campaigners feel about it, I wonder?

Crikey, reading the threads from those links, how many places have gone since 2009! The Vale, the CPT, the Black Cherry ....

Aha. Psychic :))

Sorry just seen link above, had posted to say admin's post referred to a subsequent post, if you see what I mean, and that KK was right :))

missylewie appears to have left the building.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you "against" people should stick to your basic > points: > > You don't give a damn about trees, they aren't > even trees, they are scrub > you don't think 150 year old graves arn worth > saving, they were meant to be dug up or should as > they are ugly > you don't go into the woods anyway, not tidy > they are cemeteries! they were always cemeteries! > cemeteries! get it? cemeteries! > you don't give a damn about the future (global > warming, flooding, rotting dead juices flowing > down Forest Hill Road) > you liked the way things were in the past before > all these these bloody newcomers came in here, > embarrassing you by appreciating things about the > area that you never noticed. > Well, yes, that and the rest of your lengthy rant was certainly embarrassing.

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Sue, have asked the organisers this question and > here is the answer: > > "It's for very basic campaign costs - things like > printing, postage, materials, website, or paying > for things like tech support or graphics. Not > people's time, none of it goes to campaign > organisers." Well I'd bloody well hope none of it was going to pay for people's time or to campaign organisers! Though surely "tech support" and "graphics" involves people's time??? So it's to pay your costs of publicising the campaign. (The poster for our benefit was designed for free. And we paid for all the printing costs ourselves. Just saying.) So why did edborders originally say "the money will be used to help reforest and preserve graves in Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries" ? Though I see this has been changed in his post above. I'm guessing it has been changed because somebody on another thread pointed out to edborders that the money could not actually be used for that purpose unless he and his group were intending to use something along the lines of guerilla gardening tactics in the cemeteries, for which the council are responsible ......

minder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, well done for raising the ?2,500 you mention > for your cause but let somebody else get a look in > too! Sorry? I mentioned that in the other thread because the Woods people are having a benefit but they aren't saying (or hadn't yesterday, maybe they have now, I haven't been on the forum today until now) what the money will be used for. Whereas ours (and I would have thought all other??) benefit gigs made it quite clear in all the publicity where the money would be going. I'm not at all clear what your point is about "letting somebody else get a look in"?? I'm all for raising money for charity, the more benefit gigs the better as far as I'm concerned, provided it's for a worthy cause. But I shan't be doing another one in the near future, it's a hell of a lot of work even with many brilliant helpers :))

I'm amazed nobody remembers! It was somebody from the "old" Cherry Tree (actually it might have been the pub's previous name, but I can't now remember what that was) who put a fake post on the forum bigging up the Cherry Tree and saying that they were new to the area (I think) and had been trying out the local pubs, and all the other pubs nearby were crap and the Cherry Tree was wonderful. They used the (what I thought was) famous phrase along the lines of "and the customer service in x was so bad that I felt crushed and devalued". Unfortunately for them, somebody noticed that their previous post had been - I think - advertising for staff in (drum roll) The Cherry Tree!! DUH :))

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The ancient woodland on One Tree Hill: > > http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?2 > 0,file=204661 :) ETA: Well, that isn't working, is it. Sorry, you'll have to click on the link on edhistory's post on the previous page. Or wait! The wonders of modern technology! http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?20,file=204661

My mobile mechanic always lists in detail on the invoice exactly what he has done and bought. If it was me, I'd be asking my garage what "mmiscellaneous" covered!

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1625565,1625657#msg-1625657 http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1590943,page=1 Or is it just me?

Here you are, missylewie, this group will welcome you with open arms: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1590943,page=1 ETA: But then a glance at the first page of the forum section you actually posted in would have told you that ..... no?

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Explain There are numerous threads on here relating to "Save Southwark Woods" etc, one of which is active in this section of the forum today, and the person who started this campaign is called Lewis. Just seems a strange coincidence that a first time poster with a similar name should have a first post concerning this very subject. But as I say, I have a suspicious mind :) ETA: If this is just an unusual concidence, then of course I apologise profusely for my suspicions. but to the best of my knowledge there has never been a poster on the forum - let alone a first time poster - asking so specifically about green spaces and even seeking a local group relating to them ........ "I prefer wild places like woods" - well, a glance at a map would show you what parks and woods are in the area. I moved here for precisely that reason, having looked at a map of London.

Hmmm. ETA: Interesting choice of forum name and subject, but then I have a cynical and suspicious mind :))

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't know the exact use of the funds raised as > I do not manage the group. Am sure there are > costs to cover but I doubt these include tree > house construction. :-) But surely if you have a benefit concert, people need to know in advance where their ticket money and other donations are going?

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 5. You have got that right. This is the part > that we would most helpfully be discussing! But why does it need to be discussed again here? It's already been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere. Although I must admit, there have been so many threads started by members of your group, I am losing track completely of who has said what where. And please will somebody tell me what exactly your benefit night is raising money FOR? Are you all going to build tree houses, and live in them so nobody can cut the trees down? That should get you some publicity :)

Helpful advice from Grok as always. It's getting really tedious.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I cannot understand how people identify as being > 'anti cycling' just because they've seen someone > on a bike acting like a dick. The psychology is > actually quite ugly - picking on a visible 'out > group' and then indulging in a healthy bit of > confirmation bias to help identify and generalise > any observed negative behaviours to the 'group'. > Jeez, cylcists aren't even a coherent group in the > first place - The vast majority are also car > drivers. The idea that there is a particular > problem with cyclists causing carnage on the roads > through their unique lack of abidance for the > rules of the road, simply isn't born out by the > facts. Of all the modes of transport to direct > your ire at, cycling is surely the most benign > (after walking). People who rant against cyclists > are in my opinion, engaged in a rather obvious > form of displacement activity. I think civilservant was referring to malumbu's ridiculous post.