James

I nominate myself. I am intelligent, articulate, witty and very good-looking to boot. Plus I have dealt with ignorant posters quite eloquently on a number of occasions. So me! ME ME ME

Drive to the Spa in Beckenham. Much nicer! A shame we don't have a pool like this.

Good for keeping fit too - what with those long walks to the station ;-)

I didn't know that you knew where I and my friends live Applespider! Wonders will never cease... And do you need a degree to know that the transport there is a bit rubbish compared to further in to East Dulwich? If you read my post again you will see that I gave a balanced view... face it the transport is not good there. You're further out and further from stations. Payback is that it's leafy, pretty and the houses are bigger. In fact there are some lovely places there. Still, it's not fair on people seeking balanced advice to distort the truth in order to big up your own area (trying to make yourself feel better?)

Probably because people always have a tendency to 'big up' the area where they live.

Transport is a bit rubbish basically. So ultimately it depends whether you're willing to sacrifice convenience for a leafier, quieter area and (probably) more space. I hear there are some lovely big old places up there - much more spacious than your average East Dulwich Victorian terrace conversion.

Was gonna say a couple of sandwiches from Le Chandelier but you'd be ?4 short

Mrs Slocombe from Are You Being Served? springs to mind. Comedy gold.

I fancied the cat woman out of Dogtanian and the 3 Muskerhounds. Which is wrong on three levels: 1) She was a cartoon 2) She was a cat 3) She was a she

Ugh, crocs... no WAY, EVER!

Totally agreeing with Sean's posts, and thought the 1984 clip was especially relevant. The tabloids are masters in the art of distraction, dredging up stories like this. The Sun's agenda at the moment seems to be driven by attempts to portray Brown's administration as soft on scroungers and "broken Britain." (What a coincidence that Cameron now has a social agenda.) All this distracts us from the fact that the biggest issue facing us is the credit crunch - in part caused by a laissez-faire attitude to the City - which the Tories would have pursued even further. Strangely the Sun is silent on this subject.

-- moved topic --

Good point Cassius. It shows that homophobia was (and is) still rife in professional football (how many 'out' footballers are there?) Racism still happens, but once again, it is much less widely acceptable.

>>Bad grammer does however give my class away and that pisses me off sometimes. Some middleclass grammer-nerds eyes glaze over when I talk as they assume, what I have to say is not worth listening to because the way I say it is not the way they do. I really don't think this is a class issue CWALD. If people are looking down on you because of your accent that's deplorable. But when it comes to grammar and spelling we have to uphold what's correct for everyone's benefit (the point has been made that allowing kids to get things wrong does them a disservice in the end). I don't think this is 'snobby' - quite the reverse in fact. Incidentally, I owe my good knowledge of basic grammar and punctuation to a fantastic teacher at (state) primary school.

I am not being ageist at all! If I were an old lady I'm sure I would find the Adventure Bar quite cutting-edge.

Incidentally I was born after 1970 too!

Pearl, are you an old lady? Is that why you describe the decor as "trendy and modern"?

I know! I only hope they are being taught how to spell and punctuate in school.

I think American spelling just makes things even more muddled. How exactly does "color" make any more sense than "colour"? I know English is pretty idiosyncratic but I am amazed at how bad a lot of people's basic grammar and spelling is.

The thread about the correct spelling of 'independent' got me wondering if I was alone in being vexed by the abundance of misplaced apostrophes (for the avoidance of doubt, it's = it is and its = belonging to 'it'). One mistake that has always annoyed me is your/you're (surely this is obvious?) However my latest bugbear is 'anymore' as one word (should be two words - 'anymore' as one word is American). Finally, the announcement on trains that tells you to ensure you have all your "personal belongings" - what other kind of belongings might you leave on the train? Aaaaaaagh!!! Am I turning into a grumpy old man? Or are worryingly huge numbers of people lacking basic spelling and grammar skills? (PS Before anyone accuses me of discrimination, yes I am discriminating... against poor use of English)

We have given up on Tesco's home delivery service now and were about to try Sainsbury's instead... oh dear, looks like they are rubbish too. From Tesco we've had missing shopping (sonmeone nicked it out of the back of the van apparently), one delivery left on the doorstep in crates while we weren't there (they turned up early!) and several late deliveries. The last straw was when the driver claimed we weren't at home when he called (it turned out that he had pressed the wrong bell). We had to beg the call centre to persuade him to come back; when he did he was grumpy and rude. That's the last time I shop at Tesco.

It's actually quite reassuring that so many people agree with the thrust of what I'm saying. I guess part of my initial point was that a comparison with racism is interesting because it shows what can be achieved. Witness the national outcry after some Celebrity Big Brother contestants made horrible racist remarks. My point is that we can and should apply the same 'intolerance towards intolerance' when it comes to homophobia.

Not a single person has yet explained to me why it is okay to use the word gay to mean sh*t but not okay to use e.g. a racial word (in my opinion neither are okay). I repeat, why the difference? Everyone keeps ducking this. Why the double standard? My flatmate works in a school, where the use of the word gay in this way is endemic. He often has to correct it. He has engaged in debates with the kids about it and whilst (thankfully) many are actively against homophobia, quite a few are virulently homophobic. Many of these kids won't know anyone openly gay; they may be brought up in homophobic households. So if they hear a word that means "homosexual" openly and repeatedly used to describe anything lame and rubbish - and this goes unchallenged - what conclusions do you suspect they will come to? In my opinion they will - and do - end up believing that gay people are abnormal, rubbish and okay to ridicule and harass. This can - and does - lead to bullying and misery. The problem is that, unlike people of different races, you can't (usually) tell who's gay by looking at them. This means that not only are gay people horrendously stereotyped, but also people tend to assume that 'normal everyday people' aren't gay. It's a vicious circle - many teachers are gay for example but fear coming out in case the kids and parents react badly. It's easier to stay quiet - who needs to know? But then we remain invisible. This means that it's really important to challenge negative attitudes where they appear. Regarding the "Is it coz I is gay?" remark, well, in the case of Matthew Causer from Liverpool, yes it was. Which is why I reject the suggestion that low-level homophobic language is somehow acceptable. We don't all live in tolerant Guardian-reading enclaves of London. In other words, I don't see the media men of East Dulwich going on a gay lynching anytime soon but the language we allow to fall into common parlance has huge consequences for impressionable minds who don't know any better.

>>""gay" to mean "sh*t" is akin to using a word like "black" or "Pakistani" to mean "sh*t". " Black Wednesday, black mood, Pakistani democracy. This doesn't work Mockney because all these expressions rely on context. Whereas the word "gay" is routinely used out of context to describe anything that's rubbish. Moreover, the derivation of "black" as in "black Wednesday" or "black mood" is clearly not a racial one. "Pakistani democracy" is a hsitorical, not a racial comment. But the word "gay" when used as an insult or slur carries overtones of "effeminate, ineffectual" etc. which obviously derive from its meaning as a descriptor of sexuality. And Sean, the problem is if you tell me I can't reply it's basically a bit like censorship! I'm sorry, I will not accept the way that certain people on this forum think it's okay to discriminate against gays because we are an easier target. If they bring up the subject I will give as good as I get... the only difference is that I don't have mindless cronies to back me up.

Apologies Moos - it was Lozzy I meant