Sue

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it still au courant? I seem to recall its > being in vogue ten years ago. xxxxx It is Chez Sue. Blush. Ten years ago? It seems but yesterday .....

Salsaboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What Nigello said. > > In my experience (I was a regular church goer for > about 10 years) christian folk are some of the > most small minded, insular, nasty people you could > ever meet. xxxx What, all of them? In my experience, some people generalise from a very small sample ..... I am not a Christian, however I have relatives who are, and I have in the past lodged with a Christian family and also had devout Christians as neighbours. I would say that some Cnristians are lovely, warm people who are a pleasure to be around and clearly follow whatever Jesus said. I would also agree that some Christians are petty, small-minded, and divisive. It has made me laugh to see churches split themselves apart - very Life of Brian, in fact, though that wasn't about churches but about politics. I have also seen a Buddhist centre split itself apart for similar reasons .... divisive factions developed. Yes it's a joke but people are human ..... But please don't make these generalisations and apply them to everybody in a particular group. It really isn't helpful.

neilson99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I read today that Southern are introducing sleeper > carriages next month given the length of delays > between Peckham Rye and London Bridge. xxxxx :))

Didn't the bus driver do anything? (Not that they ever do).

Since I worked on the census, I take all its results with a large pinch of salt ....

Luca's has had a terrible press on this forum, with scarce a good word to be said for it. There are several threads. Do a search! Homemade can be good, but I've not been back since having a "stew" with only two tiny pieces of meat in it.

EvaC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry to disappoint some of you... xxxxxx "Some" ??

EvaC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just found out that Croydon Council intend to > purchase private houses in Upper and South Norwood > to house their homeless people. I can only see > this as a bad thing. Is there any other way to see > it? xxxxxx If I was homeless, I would see this as a very good thing. If I thought it was a bad thing to be homeless, I would see this as a very good thing. If I was a NIMBY, I would be shouting from the rooftops because homeless people were likely to affect the value of my house or make it slightly more difficult for me to buy one. FFS. ETA: Let's hope your circumstances don't suddenly change and you find yourself homeless. Maybe your view might change then. Or maybe it won't, and you will prefer to sleep on the freezing cold streets because you think it is wrong that kind people might offer you the chance of a home.

Surely as somebody has already suggested, the obvious thing to do is to speak to the people running the church and try to come up with a mutually acceptable solution. Though I really don't see why people attending a church should have to car share or park many streets away just so that somebody doesn't have to walk to their house occasionally. I expect some of those people have disabilities - why should they have to walk instead of you? But I stick with my posts made a year ago (goodness!). This is part and parcel of living in London in an area where there is no residents' parking (and thank goodness for that). You may think you have the right to park near your house, but actually you don't. If it is essential to you that you can always park near your home, then check out the parking situation before you move. If a church or other building likely to attract a lot of people at certain times is nearby, then check out the times of the services and other events and see whether you can park at those times. If you can't, and you are still determined to move there, then arrange your car use so that it doesn't coincide with church events. Otherwise, well .... move elsewhere! The church was there first! Or push for residents' parking (actually no - please don't :) )

Dan G Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Ganapati way better than > Indian mischief. xxxxxxx Ganapati way more expensive than Indian Mischief :)) Indian Mischief is vegetarian, Ganapati isn't. Both are mostly excellent :)

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't really care what tax they pay so long as > they're passing cheap prices on to me. xxxxxxx Yeh, must admit in this particular case I feel the same :))

Ah. Well if you didn't already know, eBay now do Nectar as well (fairly recently started). And what's more, with eBay, once you've set it up, you don't have to remember to go through the Nectar site each time :) And I think it's a bit unfair all this tax evasion criticism. If I could find a legal way not to pay tax, not that I pay much these days, I would bloody go down that road as well ! ETA: I'm sure there's probably at least one thread on the forum already about this, but it's up to the Government to change the tax rules, so blame them, bloody Tories making the rich richer and the poor poorer, GRRRRRRR.

Just been going through my old LPs, in an attempt to distract myself from what I should be doing, and realised that actually there are some covers I want to keep for nostalgia's sake - so I'm going to get some album frames ....

neilson99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Any chance admin could put a survey up here we can > vote on? xxxxxxx That would be an excellent idea, then maybe Surma (I think it is) can stop trading off their "best Indian restaurant as voted for by the users of the East Dulwich Forum", which was about a zillion years ago :))

I agree the return is rubbish, on the other hand if you shop in those places anyway and they are the cheapest price (or there is some additional advantage eg convenience), they're worth having. I saved up around ?150 over a few years which was very handy, and I've now got around another ?50. But I'd never buy anything just to get the points :) But I use Amazon quite a lot and it's often the cheapest when you factor in free delivery (not always). I haven't flown anywhere for years so that's not an issue for me :)

Ah! Been doing a bit of digging. Found this comment on Nectar's Facebook page. "Sooo Sainsburys launch e books. This is why Amazon was ousted!! Annoyed Kindle owner!!" GRRRRRR

I'm in Ulverscroft Road (on the odd-numbered side) and I'm pretty sure my garden faces East. It doesn't get sun in the evening except around midsummer, but also it's quite a small garden. It's good now I'm not working because I can sit in the garden in the sun in the morning, but when I was working it was a pain.

Was it just me who didn't know this? Is this some kind of moral stance because of tax evasion, or something else? I only found out by chance - just in time to make a purchase I had been putting off :)) On Nectar's website earlier this evening they had something about "reviewing their partnership with Amazon blah blah" but I can't find it now (probably looking in the wrong place), only this statement: From 1st February 2013 Nectar collectors will no longer be able to collect points with Amazon.co.uk. The good news ( :)) :)) :)) ) is that you can still collect Nectar points at over 500 online brands. Find out more here. The "Find out more here" takes you to the other shops, not to more information about why Amazon has been dropped/has left the scheme.

GEEKASAURUS Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We ate there recently and were disappointed. So > the owners have banned the forum mods from > allowing it to be discussed? xxxxxxx I don't suppose for a minute that they can ban the forum mods from allowing it to be discussed, but it is one of several restaurants in the same position on here. The forum owner/mods do not have the time or inclination to keep batting off complaints from restaurants, tradespeople etc that they are being unfairly criticised, and therefore err on the side of caution for fear of being sued. You may think that the likelihood of being sued is virtually nil, as posters on here are highly unlikely to be critical without a solid reason, but as I understand it that is the position. Various people have threatened the forum with legal action as a result of posts criticising their work or whatever, and as a result those posts have been removed. The stance of the owner/admin/mods is that they don't have time to investigate the truth of the matter, which is fair enough. They have enough to do. ETA: See the rules at the beginning of the business section of the forum. At the end, they say - "Do not mention L* C******, they threaten the forum with legal action if people do."

Burbage Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ant Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It may be worth noting that in the eight or so > > years I've been registered with DMC (Crystal > > Palace Road) I have hardly ever seen the same > > doctor twice > > I'm not surprised. The DMChealthcare website lists > it as a 'training practice'. Whether that's a bad > thing or not depends on whether you prefer being > treated by embittered cynics or inexperienced > idealists. xxxxxx I've only ever had excellent treatment from the GPs at DMC in Crystal Palace Road, apart from one many years ago who I'm pretty sure was a locum. And lately I've seen the same GP every time I've been even though I haven't specifically asked to do that. And if they think you need to see someone urgently they will override the usual booking system - at least that was my experience late last year. I had a telephone consultation and was given an in-person appointment the next day (I think it was). ETA: Though in some ways that was rather worrying!!!!

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is risky, but searching google for "big > disappointment east dulwich" is revealing xxxxxx Yeh, that's one of them :))

Duplicating the same information on a forum over and over and over again is somewhat more pointless than art, wine or eating out, in my opinion. But hey, each to their own, maybe a search didn't bring up anything of use :) People are constantly doing it with hairdressers, as well .....

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Best to go to Kings if the timing is workable > (last test I had there was quick, clean, painless > and didn't even leave a bruise) - > xxxxxxxxx It depends entirely on the particular person who does it. I've had both excellent and poor experiences at Dulwich over the years (and at my GP where once a nurse couldn't get any blood at all .... duh). Personally I'd rather go to Dulwich because you have to factor in the time getting to King's and back, not just the waiting time once you're there. I've been to Dulwich and been seen straight away, and other times had to wait about an hour, but if you take a book it isn't a big deal (assuming you haven't got a time-critical appointment afterwards, of course, but then presumably you'd choose another day to go ......)

I thought that was a bottle of orange liquid until I looked closer .....

Huggers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the other thing, my boy had a feeling about the > approaching boy. I'm telling him now, act on > instinct, cross the road, turn around....! follow > your instincts! xxxxxxxx I absolutely agree with this. ETA: Glad your son is OK.