Moos

Snoozequeen, when the conviction of a criminal also means the conviction of their (estranged or committed) wives, families or friends then we will be living in a very unpleasant state indeed.

Can we just have one thread on this topic?

Happy birthday Bob!

Ah, you're channelling* Ben Stiller. Yes, that's an option, why not? *is that how you spell it?

I think jaybee is reliving that terrible 80s movie with Bruce Willis and Kim Basinger. Don't worry, JB, in the second reel you get to get shitfaced and ruin a works do for her!

Hope you had a very happy birthday yesterday, Jah. xx

*Throws a deadly-accurate fusillade of custard pies while looking slinky in sparkly tights* Consider that, boys.

Tain't me. I haven't a Scooby what's going on.

*sets ravening corgi on TedMax's sorry ass*

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Brendan - in a way i wish it was serious. Serious > can be interesting. And i love the silly stuff too > > > But it seems to be serious subjects dealt with > badly. . You are never more than 2 posts away from > someone bringing up something irrelevant to the > argument. . Usually class or nappies. If its in a > thread about those things then fine but sweet baby > moses its everywhere at the moment > > Also misogyny and race are bubbling under too many > things > > Its just not that pleasant I couldn't agree more. I'm going to resolve to be more Brendanesque and stop getting upset by it all. In fact, I'm going to go off in my headscarf and frown elsewhere. What's LBC?

LegalEagle-ish Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I disagree - why should the thread be locked? > > I think the subject should be changed to 'Evidence > needed to prosecute possible sex offender in ED' > though. LE, if there's a sex offender in ED, someone needs to go to the police with evidence. If people are in danger, then they need to be warned - and not just with mysterious dark hints that cast doubts on lots of innocent people - including all the men who have posted on this thread, and all the male shopkeepers of LL! Let's assume for an instant that this is all true. The people who know what's going on are not saying anything useful to the people who don't know. They are PMing, because they are concerned not to provide details. The people who don't know are just speculating. So what's the value of a public discussion when nothing real is being said?

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was surprised at that as earlier in this thread > quids said it was me! But Sean, ???? doesn't know anything about this so if he said it was you, that is clearly a joke. If the OP says that the 'Lothario' is posting on this thread and then suggests he is ????, I can understand that he should take offence. She has now made it clear that she was joking, but the whole thing continues to be very baffling to me. If the OP has now collected all the 'evidence' she needs from PMs and so on I suggest that this thread be locked and that those people who know what's going on continue a private conversation. To suggest that 'a shopkeeper of Lordship Lane' is a wrong'un casts doubt on all the shopkeepers of LL, and that makes me uncomfortable.

.

Brenda is right. That's what it's ALL about.

I'm with Asset. It's smug "hey, I ain't telling but I know somthing" nonsense.

I'm not only a mother', I'm a sexy mother'

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So far I've counted at least two totally different > axes to grind against two two totally different > blokes.. and we've been here before. Possibly > three. > > Sounds like a massive stinking load of > screeching-harpy-driven bullshit of the highest > order to me. Got to say I'm with *Bob* on this one. Seems to me it's an attention-seeking story started and perpetuated without bothering to provide any evidence or indeed explanation. And it has to be said - it was a good strategy. It worked.

Lounge indeed. Edited to say: sorry, Asset - not a poke at you.

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- That'll be the pram. *secures stab proof vest* Well, as long as it's not just because I ming! But I never got chatted up much even pre-Moosling, I'm too scary. Sigh...

Cassius Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Do women have sex with a man just because he smiles at her in a shop? *sighs - wasn't like that when I was a gel* I knew I was doing something wrong. FelicityNormal, what are you on about?

No-one ever chats me up in ED shops and caf?s. Now I'm all miffed.

This is a thoroughly random thread but has resulted in some corking posts: From ???? : So, in summary ...don't have sex with SOMEONE from round here because you might catch SOMETHING.... this is why I find the EDF so useful From honk : *cancels plans for later* From HonaloochieB : Christ, babies being changed on pub tables, shopkeepers spreading the pox, when did I move to Birmingham? I salute you, gentlemen.

I agree... in principle. It's not always that easy in practise. Babies are wriggly, and have a mind of their own. Mine really hated having a muslin cloth draped over his head and used to refuse to feed and cry instead when I used one. We came to a compromise eventually and I like to think I never gave anyone an eyeful during my time of breastfeeding (not that there was much to offer, sadly), but if you see someone showing more than you might like, bear in mind she might be far more embarrassed than you are.

hmm, we cross-posted.

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Basically isarens, some people think you're just a > "troll" starting this thread to get a rise. I'm > not sure if you are or not, but the simple fact > is, in East Dulwich, you're just NOT ALLOWED to > critisise people with kids. How come so many people do so often then? If someone generally slags off parents or just complains that there are too many buggies in ED, then I think it's fair enough to protest just as people protest when someone generally slags off Peckham, or gypsies - lumping everyone in together just isn't reasonable. But if someone has a specific complaint to make like 'don't change nappies on restaurant tables' or 'don't hit my ankle' then a lot of people will agree with them, and it's game on. What's the problem? Funnily enough, I was discussing this with another regular poster this morning. Her perception was that some parents are way too touchy and she would never dare make a comment. Mine is that mothers in particular seem to be fair game to be regularly slagged off, and are pretty unpopular on the Forum! I'm a mother, she isn't. So I guess it's all a question of where you come from...