Damian H

To be honest, the race card that has been leaked into this thread (completely unecessarily) now makes me completely confused as to who is saying what about the issue :-)

I have a Northern Irish accent. If I was acting strangely in the local neighbourhood (e.g. calling house-to-house on some dubious pretext) and someone posted that there was someone with an Ulster accent making suspicious house calls, I would not assume that this was anti-Irish prejudice. I would merely assume that someone wished to give as accurate a description as possible to differentiate me from other people and that my national origin as revealed by my accent was a highly relevant way to do this.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here you are then I object to her being > identified as a woman. Feel Better now? Oh yeah I > think its implicitly racist. What exactly is "implicitly racist"? Giving an accurate description of a potentially anti-social or criminal person in the area? What is "implicitly racist" about that? In order to avoid being "implicitly racist" should a poster warn others that there is someone in the area acting rather strangely that they should perhaps be alert for, yet choose to exclude from their description important identifying elements just in case it ruffles someone's PC feathers? I am sure that there are some people who might harbour the attitude that it is inevitable that criminal elements will be from certain ethnic groups, yet there will be others who mention the race of the person behaving strangely simply to give a complete description. There are a number of posters on here who seem to take the default position that anyone who mentions the race of a person acting suspicously inevtably falls into the former group. Perhaps they might benefit fro entertaining the possibility that there are many whose motivations are inspired by the second category.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > northlondoner Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What race was she? Seems important to mention > race > > on here when the miscreant is black . Just > asking, > > like. > > Give it a rest mate, people aren't interested in > the chip on your shoulder. I think that these threads give so much insight into the attitudes in ED. Am amazed that no-one has objected to her gender being identified - after all isn't that sexist according to the 'logic' of some of the posters here??? OF COURSE it is relevant to identify someone's ethnic origin and gender when you wish to describe them amidst a potentially huge group of people. They are the quickest and least changeable identifiable characteristics and the swiftest initial way to narrow down a group of people to hone in on one individual - which is the whole purpose of describing someone in a thread like this. No-one is suggesting (not that I have seen anyway) that a person is dodgy BECAUSE they are black or female - it is other behaviour by the person that has aroused suspicion. However, an immediate and effective way to hone down a description if you want to let others be alert to a particular person is to start with gender and race, then move on to other less distinctive and potentially changeable characteristics such as hairstyle, clothing etc. To claim that such descriptions are implicitly racist is absurd.

Gidget Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Gidget Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > It's for people who don't cook and have > > > lots of disposable income. > > > > Yeah, but so what? Some people aren't > interesting > > in cooking, some people don't have the time to > > cook every night. It's not a crime. I'd rather > > spend ?4 on something OK-ish from M&S than > ?1.50 > > on something utterly revolting from Iceland. > > M&S seems to be at every mainline station going > into East Dulwich. You can buy your stuff there. What if you don't travel out of and back to ED every day?

aicardo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RESULT! > > Parking aside this is a massive asset to Lordship > Lane and works well with existing retailers. M&S > majors on convienience food, so will only really > affect Co-Op and nearby Sainsbury's Local and > Tesco Metro, not affecting Moxons and the like. > > Not only that but it will potentially boost > footfall. This is very good news. > > BTW, assuming this is a Simply Food, the average > basket size will be no more than a Co-Op shop so I > wonder how much more parking will be required. > Deliveries will be no more disruptive than the > Co-Op,who often do there's late at night to avoid > traffic and congestion. Well said. There are those who focus on how M&S will cannibalise local business but I agree it could be a magnet to bring more customers to the area hence benefitting local retailers.

Problems too top of Barry Road - sometimes no signal at all.

Nick1962 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think you are absolutely right! Why do we have > to endure endless wailing from wannabee X Factor > hopefuls on every street corner. My trip to work > from Waterloo to ED this morning consisted of the > following: > > 2 x beggars, both with very healthy pit bull style > dogs, a juggler/fire eater with serious burns and > scarring around his mouth and no teeth thanks to > all the meths he holds in his mouth, 3 x Big Issue > sales man, a pretend cryer from Turkey, who turns > up with a smile on her face and starts crying to > order for the duration of her shift.. a total con > man, who I actually gave money to because he > looked respectable and said he'd lost his wallet > (only to see him pulling the same scam 30 minutes > later in Peckham). > The sound of a poor singer wailing at me would > have been the final straw! So THAT'S what they mean by Meth Mouth!

TonyQuinn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do the relative merits of the interview techniques > of Jezza and Brian really merit a top billing on > the front page of the East Dulwich Forum? Walden > was a right-wing nut as far as I remember, even > though he'd been a Labour MP early in his career. > His interviews were biased and kept the pressure > off the then Thatcher government. Don't know where you get that from TQ. I believe Walden's interviews of Thatcher herself when she was under pressure to quit were regarded as being utterly relentless and merciless.

He has become a parody of himself though. He attacks and talks over people when it is completely unecessary as they are actually trying to answer him. Brian Walden was an infinitely more effective political interviewer.

He has become a parody of himself though. He attacks and talks over people when it is completely unecessary as they are actually trying to answer him. Brian Waldn was an infinitely more effective political interviewer.

Just to dampen your ardour - Jeremy is made to look like a prat.

fuzzyboots Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian H I agree. I was dancing in my seat to > entertain a toddler behind us in McDonald's in the > old > Kent road on Sunday and somebody else seemed it > worthy of filming without asking me. > > I am secretly hoping it might go viral ;) If it does, we will know you by your fuzzy boots :-)

Lishyloo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Aliborg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You Sir, have no taste! > > > I guess it's time for you to move from ed, you > clearly have issues with the area and also > yourself. Your the type of person we don't living > here. Go and be miserable somewhere else and take > your head out of your arse. I'm also guessing your > single. Who is "we"?

Look, can we have just a smidgen of common sense here please? People have been taking photographs of other people in public places since cameras were invented. With the limited exceptions of certain potential terrorist targets or photographing someone to the extent of it being persistent harrassment over time, or intruding on someone's privacy by photographing them in a palce where they are entitled to expect privacy (such as their own home or secluded garden) the notion that taking a picture of someone is illegal is just absurd. If it was illegal you would have hundreds of celebs queuing outside police stations to make complaints that would have paparazzi slammed up in their droves. That is not to say, of course, that people won't object to it personally and some might get a bit belligerent,but the notion that it is illegal is simply untenable.

jelly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Saffron > > Steady on there, 007. The risks outweight the > positives, and if you "think" that snapping > ordinary members of the public, however 'shifty' > they might look, should be done from a distance, > then you should've said so in the beginning seeing > as you're the one who suggested such a bizarre > measure against people who still remain innocent > of anything except rousing your own suspicions. > What you're encouraging is a more intrusive > measure than CCTV, without official sanction. It > would be against the law and could potentially > leave you vulnerable to litigation served by an > aggrieved party who objects to being photographed > in public by an anxious and/or paranoid > pedestrian. How would you react if you saw someone > secretly or "serreptitiously" taking pictures of > another member of the public who you didn't feel > threatened by? One can only assume that you'd > think the worst. Sorry, but the risks do outweigh > the positives. By quite a lot, in fact. Out of curiosity - what law would this break? If taking photographs of people in public breaks the law we must assume that probably millions of unlawful acts are committed on a daily basis in this fashion.

mfcjoe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So Damien, where does it say that he done anything > other than look at the OP, oh yeah ,she bumped > into him a few days later, she may well have > freaked him out. I think you will see if you re-read the OP that he also seems to have followed her down the road when she next encountered him and when he was noticed by the OP's father he ran off down an alley. Not really what I would say was consistent with normal behaviour.

mfcjoe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So someone looked at you a few times and you felt > threatened, what is wrong with the residents of > Dulwich, the old bill must love you lot talk about > waste of police time. Did this man even say > anything to you? I think the OP has reported a lot more than someone just looking at her. If this is an attempt at a troll it is on a rather tasteless subject.

Red is the answer. After all, since no-one wears red at any other time it will stand out for sure. Could I suggest that to make the protest even more compeling and distinctive that as many people as possible should wear spectacles and shoes? If you are a real radical perhaps you could wear red, spectacles and shoes and take a journey on a bus? That will be an unmistakeable gesture.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My only regret is that Blair had gone and was able > to enjoy a big dose of schadenfreude as he watch > Brown appreciate the full horror of how poisoned > the chalice he'd been yearning for for so long, > really was!!!! > > What El Pibe said, x 100!!! > > I do have some symp[athy with Brown, I think he > took A LOT of nasty shit from a lot of corners, > some of which was just disgusting. And I think > Blair played a blinder, getting out and leeting > Brown take most of the blame for the mess that > he'd been every bit as responsible for. > > I voted for Brown, I never voted for Blair. > > I'd be very interested to see where we'd be today > had Cameron & Osborne been in charge for the > noughties though! Of course, we'll never know, but > I think we'd be in at least as bad a mess. I reckon that is EXACTLY why Blair prevaricated as long as he did before stepping aside for Brown. He knew the chickens were coming home to roost and he wanted Brown to be in Number 10 to get it in the neck when they did.

UDT - you have to be joking!!!!!! Gordon Brown a great Chancellor??????? He was a TERRIBLE Chancellor - his economic miracles were all smoke and mirrors and many smart cookies saw what was happening at the time and sounded alarm bells. You can't even see that AFTER the event! The only comparison that could make him look like a great Chancellor is to contrast his tenure at Number 11 with his period as Prime Minister. He was a TERRIBLE Chancellor but an absolutely DREADFUL Prime Minister. Edited in light of the Chair's warning not to abuse others - even those who deserve it.

UDT just won't miss an opportunity to show how utterly ignorant he is about just about everything (except perhaps PowerPoint and HTML). Far-sighted people (including many I know) with a capitalist orientation had seen years ago how Brown was setting things up for a catastophe. A close friend of mine told me this repeatedly a number of years ago - he despsed Brown for his deception, arrogance and incompetence. He stated very simply that the UK economy developed under Brown was a house of cards. He didn't know what it would be that would collapse it but any minor financial crisis would be amplified to a critical point by Brown's folly. Turned out he was absolutely right. The crisis that tipped things over was the sub-prime market mess (caused significantly, as pointed out elsewhere, by UDT's Ordinary Joe friends lying, cheating and defrauding to get products they couldn't pay) and that brought the whole house down. Of course UDT can't view the world ecept in black and white, 'four legs good, two legs bad' terms, so he can't see that responsibility can be placed anywhere else than at the feet of 'evil bankers' and directors - the very people who have probably created the jobs, wealth, opportunities etc that allow him to make a living (whatever that may be). His is a form of madness.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damian H Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Annette Curtain Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I reckon UTD has gone. > > > > > > Never to be seen again. > > > > > > Honest I do. > > > > > > Either that or he's rewiring the Hadron > > Collider > > > whilst wearing a blindfold. > > > > > > > > > NETTE:-S > > > > > > and juggling! > > > http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/200 > 9/04/weekend_diversion_do_tinfoil_h/tinfoil-hat.jp > g "You'll be sorry you said that..." As long as there is a blend of cotton wool and chopped raw liver inside that tin-foil hat all is well - no evil Thought Insertion can take place!!!

Annette Curtain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I reckon UTD has gone. > > Never to be seen again. > > Honest I do. > > Either that or he's rewiring the Hadron Collider > whilst wearing a blindfold. > > > NETTE:-S and juggling!

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think that was outrageous Damian H, you clearly > persecute me you twit, and the girls were all > lesbians; it's obvious they all fancied me. > > Please note quality use of semicolon. Because even UDT can 'convert' a lesbian, as you would know if you could do research. See below the link to the Daily Star...