Jump to content

camberwell70

Member
  • Posts

    1,517
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by camberwell70

  1. DaveR Wrote:

    -------------------------------------------------------

    > To anyone living in central London, or even SE or

    > SW low numbers south of the river, this is surely

    > suburbs - zone 2/3 borders, reachable only by bus

    > and overground, most of it built since 1900. Inner

    > suburbs these days perhaps, but you couldn't call

    > it inner city or urban.

    >

    > (Pedantry alert)

    >

    > The number part of London postcodes does not

    > indicate how central you are - it's alphabetical

    > by postal area - so the rererence to 'low numbers'

    > doesn't make sense. And most of ED was built

    > before 1900, in the 1880s and 1890s.

    >

    > That aside, I agree that inner suburbs is the best

    > description - it fits the history, architecture

    > and the general feel.

    >

    > Re 'offensive all night party' - obviously not

    > literally all night, but I'd be pretty hacked off

    > about this:

    >

    > "the last guests left about 2:15 when we switched

    > off the music"

    >

    > if it was my neighbour, whether they'd warned me

    > or not.


    True. Inner suburbs but not Inner London.

  2. civilservant Wrote:

    -------------------------------------------------------

    > i was pointing out to the OP that some so-called

    > 'native' birds are actually migrants - unlike

    > parakeets which are now a settled species in this

    > country, (also grey squirrels, rabbits, chestnut

    > trees, sycamores and any number of garden plants -

    > all introduced, but now part of the 'native'

    > furniture)

    >

    > in the process, i seem to have outed uncleglen as

    > a peddler of fake news


    Haha

  3. rendelharris Wrote:

    -------------------------------------------------------

    > Not assault, but under S4 of the Public Order Act

    > there'd certainly be a case for a charge of

    > "Causing fear or provocation of violence" - two

    > men with a dog shouting obscenities at a woman

    > sounds pretty like. Or indeed behaviour likely to

    > cause a breach of the peace would be a another

    > option. But not assault though (legally, though

    > obviously it can certainly feel like one when

    > faced with it).

    >

    > N.B. re the "obviously gay" thing, at the risk of

    > causing annoyance some people are, through

    > behaviour, language, dress etc, fairly obviously

    > gay, aren't they? I must admit I might say "I was

    > having a chat with this gay bloke in a pub" in the

    > same way I might say "I was having a chat with

    > this black guy" or whatever, just an identifier.

    > Certain the OP didn't mean any offence, though

    > given the context perhaps "obviously a couple"

    > would have conveyed the same meaning and not

    > risked upsetting anyone.


    Its nonsense what you are saying.


    i thought you were intelligent.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...