Earl Aelfheah

Agree with Jeremy. Also, I do love the way that people create a narrative to fit their position. One minute it's a poor defenseless old lady fighting against a tide of vicious gentrifiers, the next it's undisclosed dark forces of greed and corruption. Does anyone actually know the true situation?

I've done this before. With Hops Burns and Black round the corner, it's temping on a sunny day to enjoy a beer whilst the kids are playing. I'm talking a small can of beer btw, not downing 2 litres of Strongbow. It probably is a bit wrong - rest assured, I feel suitably admonished.

Second hand/nearly new.

ED was never a shit hole as such, but it was exceedingly non descript and after Sainsburys opened, for a short while at least, fairly down trodden. That new places started to open and the area managed to reinvent itself a little is no bad thing. My previous post btw was a little mischievous, but I am (like many others I'm sure) getting bored of this whole debate.

All this 'it was better in the good old days' bullshit is getting tired already.

If you want 'old ED', just board up half the shops and open a few more nail bars and junk food gaffs.

Tory policy is often nothing to do with reducing costs (even where it purports to be), it's about reducing the size of the state regardless of the bill. We've seen it over and over again - public services and assets privatised at either a loss of with increased cost to taxpayers. It's purely ideological and lacks any pragmatism or coherence.

The irony is that for all their talk of cuts the Tories won't touch pensions, continue to pursue policies with the effect if increasing house prices (and so the housing benefit bill) and further weaken employees rights or ability to organise (driving yet more low pay).

A lot of people have no idea about where the benefits bill is spent. The idea that it all goes on 'work shy layabouts' is nonsense. Mostly it goes to pensioners, private landlords and towards subsidising low pay employers.

Omega Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta it's the owner of no. 51 that wants to sell > up and downsize for semi retirement apparently. > >....Yes the comments > that were already submitted before we received > notification are a bit odd but I assumed they were > from friends/relatives of the applicant so thus > they were already aware. Sounds like a bit of a greedy, self centred prick

I am pretty saddened by the election result outside of London. That said, Loz's analysis is not far off. Labour would also have made fairly radical cuts to Social Security. Withdrawal from Europe and the possible break up of the UK are two significant dangers to the UK economy now...Both BTW were made more likely by the Tory win IMO (another reason to rue the outcome). @derwentgrove - I think most of the more monied recent arrivals to ED are probably Tories.

It crushes me every time I see another front garden being concreted over.

I don't mind coots. Mallards on the other hand.. Very shifty eyes

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RosieH Wrote: > > > And for the love of god, this thread - what > kind > > of uptight nimby, judgmental area am I living > in? > > You are living in New Tunbridge Wells and I'll > thank you to behave in a neutral manner on these > 'ere streets or suffer the consequences. > > Are you chewing!?!!? From this forum you could definitely get that impression

Have a nice time foxy.

.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > God I wish I was more motivated to work today. I'm > involving myself in this nonsense for something to > pass the time. The forum would struggle if we were all motivated, productive employees :-)

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wasn't missing your point rahrahrah, I was just > not really agreeing with it. > > More people may die / get injured playing football > than cycling, but why do they die / get injured? > In a lot of cases it will be because of the > unpredictable actions of another player. Well sure, but in lot of cases it will be the unpredictable actions of another road user which lead to injuries on a bike. I just think that there is a general perception (misconception imo) that cycling is some kind of high danger activity. I don't believe the statistics bare this out and the perception dissuades people from getting on their bike / doing what they want to do. We shouldn't live in fear, especially when the fears are out of all proportion with the reality.

I just saw this by East Dulwich station. No sign of a helmet either:

But people are much more likely to get injured playing football and occasionally there are even serious injuries - people crack heads, run into goal posts etc. The fact that football isn't played on concrete missing the point. Contact sports almost invariably lead to some level of injury (there can't be many footballers who's never been injured), - where as cycling does not. The issue is one of ?availability bias? - the phenomenon of judging risks based on how easily we can bring examples to mind. Unusual and arresting events ? such as a lorry running a cyclist over - are plastered all over the media. A kid breaking his leg playing football is more commonplace but doesn?t make the news. It?s not unusual, it?s not novel. Cycling is not a particularly dangerous activity, but (as with anything) neither is it risk free.

Daddy Pig is gold

You really should expand on that tale.

Yeah, Mystery Incorporated is brilliant and makes several wry nods to the mistake that was Scrappy.

Skateboarding

Monsters inc and Monsters University are good, and the Wonder woman theme music.