Earl Aelfheah

Is there an increase in people riding on the pavements? I haven't noticed it.

The comments about snobbery / people being 'up themselves' are interesting. Just going by this forum, I would say that most of the traffic in that regard is one way, and tends to involve looking badly upon any new arrivals or residents with a little money. I rarely hear people bad mouthing those that have lived in the area a long time or who are less well off. So I would argue it's more about fear of new comers / change than demonstrable snobbery on the part of the 'interlopers'.

All this insecurity and unease about the area and it's identity and people call it smug.

It's a suburban area. It's a pleasant place to live, but its not 'cool' and never was particularly. That's fine with me, if I wanted to live in Dalston I would.

Prices for properties in SE22 are around the average for London. For zone 2 they are relatively cheap (the emphasis being on 'relatively').

I understand that it was originally a ?4.18 million project at Denmark Hill, so a one year overrun and an additional 2 million pounds. In my opinion, as I have said before, someone should be held responsible for such mismanagement.

Too Good To Be True Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry that was a misquote... > > "Somehow, since the millennium, East Dulwich has > gone from being a relaxed, vaguely bohemian secret > to a caricature of middle-class urban living. The > online East Dulwich Forum is one of the most > active local area forums in the country, where > people get hot under the collar about unsightly > advertising hoardings, noise after 10pm, and > whether chain shops are welcome (Waitrose only, it > seems)" This is more a criticism of the Forum, the assumption being that it is representative of the whole community

The area is actually very mixed. My street has people of all kinds of background living on it and is by no means some kind of middle class ghetto. This forum sometimes paints a picture of the area which is not representative of the reality (at least the full breath and depth of it). Individuals may be smug, but people are people - I don't see anything that marks out denizens of ED as inherently more self satisfied or obnoxious than anywhere else. It seems to me that with the arrival of some more affluent residents over the last decade or so, the areas has actually become more diverse, rather than less.

Previous incarnations aside, sew east dulwich always struck me as an optimistically niche offering.

How can an area be smug. What does that even mean?

The castle has some occasional cover bands. Is a great space for live music with a little stage at the back. Shame they don't have better bands. Anyone looking to set something up, I would recommend checking it out as a possible location.

Breaking news..... This ain't Camden.

Lot's of activity in the new year usually.

FH has the east london line too.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You have been identified as an AB person with high > net income/wealth. > > John K That'll be why I haven't seen it then :-)

No mention of Dulwich on their website. Terrible name.

There are plans for the area?

Also, it's not cheaper to live out in the home counties and commute in when you add in the cost of a ?4-6,000 a year season ticket to the cost of your monthly mortgage. In the contact of that extra ?400 a month for a season ticket, on top of your mortgage, East Dulwich and Forest Hill are actually relatively good value.

Noooo, don't go to Forest Hill.

Anyone watching?

I find this thread and generally, the rising narrative of 'cyclists as a problem' across the media at the moment, really at odds with my experience. I am a car driver, a pedestrian and an occasional cyclist. Yes, I sometimes see bad behaviour by cyclists, but also by car drivers and often by pedestrians (walking out in front of traffic whilst texting for example). So which of these problems should concern me most. It seems to me that, if I were going to get exercised about one of these forms of antisocial behaviour, it would be dangerous car driving by a country mile. It's the most frequent observed in my experience and has by far the most serious consequences for other people. Is that to excuse the other forms of bad behaviour, of course not. But to fixate on cyclists specifically just seems odd to me. Maybe I've been missing all the deaths and injuries that cyclists have been inflicting on people, I don't know?

If you want to loose weight (I'm not even sure that this should be a goal in itself - 'be healthier / fitter' would seem better, but whatever), then why would you not just follow the route of a healthy, varied diet and regular exercise? I just don't get why people are constantly chasing weird, faddy diets that may or may not work, when we know exactly what does.

They knocked on my door at 20:45. I had just managed to get my kids to go to sleep and was not amused. CRUK is a worthy organisation, but harassing people on the door step, late in the evening like this is not a good move.

Clearly a grown man cycling at speed on the pavement is an idiot. It doesn't mean that I take satisfaction in seeing him hurt. I too feel sorry for the car driver, but my immediate concern in such a situation would be for the well being of the potentially injured man. I think this is Lowlanders point. Thankfully, I think this type of incident is extremely rare.

Doh!