honk

TillieTrotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My original comment was taking the piss guys in > reference to honk getting all PC on the "Ladies be > careful" thread! I personally couldnt give a > doodah about the title.;-) It was more devil's advocate than anything PC

In those days it was a white working > class suburb I seem ot remember. As was Chorlton in Manchester. The two suburbs share very similar trajectories in terms of development / demographic shift over the years.

Pickle Wrote: a well meant warning to > anyone walking alone after dark. This illustrates how utterly pointless this entire thread has been - if you need to visit an internet forum to find out such revelations as taking care when walking alone at night, then you deserve all you get.

> Question: A Rape has been committed and a Guy is > running off and crosses the road. > > All a bystander can see about the obvious > assailant is his skin colour. > Given that he was too far away, in my hypothetical > example, would someone really say that as the only > feature available is his skin colour then that > should NOT be mentioned? In that case it would be relevant, as rape was a crime last time I checked. A police enquiry presumably conducted to a protocol would be launched, involving witness reports, CCTV footage etc. In this case someone is warning people on an internet forum to be wary of black men. To conclude I would say yes, there is a difference.

Strawbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I absolutely disagree that it is an irrelevant > detail. It is helpful in the description as it > then excludes potential suspects of different > races hence their search for the offender is > narrowed.. > This doesn't get past the fact that the post basically warns forumites to 'be wary of black men', given lack of any other detail. If you have a bogeyman story to share, perhaps give better detail in future, that way I'll know who to go chasing after with my pitchfork.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apparently you're not allowed to mention race > these days when describing someone. In fact, I'm > surprised the OP got away with saying that it was > a man. Looking at the original post (I'll get one of my identikit guys on this asap) I've got 'black man' and 'wheely suitcase' to go on. Presuming he might sometimes leave the house without his luggage, that just leaves 'black man' to go on. Which is ridiculous. It was an irrelevant detail to accompany a vague description forming part of an even vaguer post alerting us to the existence of someone who hadn't actually committed an offence, who may or may not live in the area. Keep your eyes peeled.

Maybe we could set up a photobucket account. Post covert photos of anyone you've seen in the Greater London area who behaved strangely, or 'looks a bit odd' up there. That way everyone will know who to avoid. These people need to be NAMED and SHAMED

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Possibly a bit sexist, but to be fair, if you > counted the customers of these shops over an > average week, I'm pretty sure women would be a > huge majority, so maybe it's just a cheeky way of > making a valid point. > I mean the proprietors, not the customers. My dad opened a bridal shop for his wife on a whim once, mainly as otherwise she would seemingly have sat at home bored. Other popular types of 'my wife's bored' shops are 'The shop that sells some oddments of cookware, novelty ice cube trays and ironic birthday cards' and 'The Upmarket Pet Shop / Dog Groomer' East Dulwich has a surfeit of such types of shop* *this is not based on any kind of extensive research

My favourite at the moment is the sweet shop on Barry Road, followed closely by that one across the road that sells mirrors, a few pencils, and wrapping paper with cats on it.

Strawbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I dont mean to come across cranky or abrupt as I > am sure it could be read as I just think this > thread needs a little reality check.. Indeed - you live in a big, bad city. Things far worse than this are happening right now. Perhaps on your very street. Indiscriminate eccentric chaps with wheely suitcases are the least of your worries. My point being that there's not much a concerned party can do after reading this thread is there? Its basic premise is person a:'I saw someone who was a bit odd the other day, just thought I'd let you know' person b:'oh, I'll be careful then' person b:'hang on, don't we live in London, where over half the population are a 'bit odd'? person a:'good point. the only solution is to be afraid, all of the time'.

georgia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It isn't pointless at all. The man chased after > her - she didn't know what he was going to do. I > would have found it found it a bit scary too. It > has NOTHING to do with him being black. So why were we told this fact, out of interest? How am I supposed to do anything about this? Be wary of everyone who 'doesn't look right' from now on? Forgive me if I'm wrong but I can't see any actual offence being committed here.

what a pointless thread. Are you trying to encourage the women of East Dulwich to be wary of all black people? Or just those with suitcases? Was there any offence actually committed here? How can I steel myself against this menace exactly? Perhaps we should build a wall around our sacred borough to keep these types out.

Working with the general public is enough to turn even the most kind-hearted saint into a sneering misanthrope. I don't expect a bus driver to doff his cap to me as I alight, I expect him to concentrate on driving a bus.

Let's hope so. There is nothing more crushingly dull or terminally English then he who refers to their house price as some kind of index of their own personal wealth.

eccentric Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So Honk, good party? It was great. Marred somewhat by a bloke staring at us over the wall and trying to attract our attention by waving his arms angrily and shouting something. I had to go inside and turn the music up a bit so he didn't ruin the tune, and by that time realised there were about 4 boxes of fireworks to get through.

Dodo1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The prat who celebrated his/her birthdsay tonight > in Underhill Rd with loud music and fireworks. Yeah. Fancy someone enjoying themselves. On a Friday too. Imagine how this could affect the house prices around here. why don't you move to Hampshire if you'd rather have the soft coo of a woodpigeon and the occasional rustle of leaves? Oh, sorry, I'd forgotten your sort, you move into an area for the amenities and vibrancy and then immediately start complaining about them.

ED --> Soho - 30 mins by bike. Burgess Park - - up through the Heygate Estate -- up through the bus lane to Waterloo bridge - - up through Covent Garden. Hardly see any traffic. Beats the 12, that takes over an hour some mornings..

It needs more veg stalls / fish stalls / meat stalls. These are surely the 'bread and butter' of a successful market and encourage repeat custom and make it a 'destination'. Stalls selling Paul Frank babygrows are null - there's already about 50 'My Wife's Bored' -type shops on Northwold Road catering for that kind of thing. I'm all for closing the road - Portobello manages it, I'm sure East Dulwich can. Driving to a local market defeats the object anyway.

38. When I am out pedalling through other London boroughs on my new folding Brompton velocipede, I am disgusted at the number of common oiks and non-independent grocery outlets I do chance upon. Would it REALLY be too much to ask for there to be constructed some kind of underground covered roadway between E.D. and my Farringdon workplace, accessible only to those with an SE22 postcode, so I do not have to see any of these horrors? I sometimes wonder where my taxes are actually going!! I think I speak for the silent majority here!

Go to southwark Town Hall and pick up the range of London Cycle Maps. Or order them online - they detail several routes. Because London isn't grid-based like NYC, for example, and is actually highly inefficient roadwise you find that 90% of roads rarely have much traffic on them and the other 10% are gridlocked. The trick is finding the quiet roads and building a route out of them. ps I've cycled through Burgess Park at night regularly for the past 5 years and never had a problem. You're as likely to be attacked anywhere - just be more wary at night. The mood on this forum seems to be that of ED as this enclave of safe superiority, and the surrounding boroughs as a badlands full of knife-wielding oiks. I used to live in Manchester where the Chorlton and Didsburyites were the same. Then someone was stabbed on Beech Road (Manchester's Lordship lane) and there was talk of them having 'invaded'. Look like you have a purpose and you'll be fine, unless you're really unlucky. Statistically you're more likely to be seriously injured by an improperly-hung Julian Opie print falling on your head as you recline in your replica Barcelona chair.