Jump to content

Recommended Posts

eric007 Wrote:

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

> their not trained sales men, they are collecting

> for the unemployed and for the homeless,


xxxxxxx


Eh? I think not! What makes you think this is where their proceeds are going, Eric?

eric007 Wrote:

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

> their collecting for the homeless have some

> empathy in your middle class world.


You're point almost won me over, Eric, until I spotted you're use of 'their' instead of 'They're'.

I'm common as muck, me, but even I wouldn't f*ck sh!t up along them lines.

instead of you're use of 'their' instead of 'They're'?


I actually believe that nobody has bothered to report this (god knows I'm the only one in the North Cross Road or top of Barry Road area who will complain about noise polution.) I want whatever the rest of the community has which keeps them so freakishly quiet & care-free.


Report these guys to the police at once.... They haven't come for me yet.

thexwinglessxbird Wrote:

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

> > I actually believe that nobody has bothered to

> report this (god knows I'm the only one in the

> North Cross Road or top of Barry Road area who

> will complain about noise polution.)


xxxxxxxxxx


No you're not - I'm in the North Cross Road area and I complain about noise if it happens frequently and loudly from the same place.


Wouldn't report the dishcloth people though unless I actually felt threatened by them or felt they were involved in some criminal activity rather than just selling overpriced tat.

''Wouldn't report the dishcloth people though unless I actually felt threatened by them or felt theywere involved in some criminal activity ratherthan just selling overpriced tat.''


Alot of people have felt threatened (& have actually been threatened). That's the only reason I've brought it up.

Narnia Wrote:

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

> >

> How does this explain anything? I don't

> understand.It's no different to you writing 'them

> lines' instead of 'those lines'. What is your

> point?


Those lines was belongful to me. personal.

So them was me own, so these lines was mine and I writ them so those went from someone else's those to my them.

Simplication itself as Plato once remarked. Or was it Sophocles?

Quod erat demonstrandum as Popeye once had it.


Edited because I disspelled 'demonstrandum', to leave it in statue would have demined my point and make me look knowledgephobic

I had one of these round when I lived on Landcroft Road last year. He was persistent, in the end I had to close the door in his face, and he kicked something outside and shouted "you queer, you f***ing poof!". So I opened it and challenged him, and got into a big argument which involved him telling me "it's not Adam and Steve, it's Adam and Eve", which is such a classic retro bit of homophobic abuse I almost invited him to an 80s theme party.


He also said "I don't like you bringing that s**t around me" to which I replied "yeah, but YOU were the one knocking on MY door", and he started getting aggressive and only backed down when my (somewhat larger) flatmate appeared at the door to see what all the shouting was about.


I called the police and they apparently informed the community wardens and asked neighbours, but nothing ever came of it.

strangemartin Wrote:

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

> I had one of these round when I lived on Landcroft

> Road last year. He was persistent, in the end I

> had to close the door in his face, and he kicked

> something outside and shouted "you queer, you

> f***ing poof!". So I opened it and challenged him,

> and got into a big argument which involved him

> telling me "it's not Adam and Steve, it's Adam and

> Eve", which is such a classic retro bit of

> homophobic abuse I almost invited him to an 80s

> theme party.

>

> He also said "I don't like you bringing that s**t

> around me" to which I replied "yeah, but YOU were

> the one knocking on MY door", and he started

> getting aggressive and only backed down when my

> (somewhat larger) flatmate appeared at the door to

> see what all the shouting was about.

>

> I called the police and they apparently informed

> the community wardens and asked neighbours, but

> nothing ever came of it.


Not sure about anyone else, but this to me seems the least truthful post since the one of those ones I put on the song game thread.

If it happened, it's been described in the schumckiest possible way.

If, as I believe it's an invention then it's as dopey and dreary an invention that ever there was.

No offence.

Actually, balls to that, every offence possible. Huh.

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

HonaloochieB Wrote:

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

> strangemartin Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I had one of these round when I lived on

> Landcroft

> > Road last year. He was persistent, in the end I

> > had to close the door in his face, and he

> kicked

> > something outside and shouted "you queer, you

> > f***ing poof!". So I opened it and challenged

> him,

> > and got into a big argument which involved him

> > telling me "it's not Adam and Steve, it's Adam

> and

> > Eve", which is such a classic retro bit of

> > homophobic abuse I almost invited him to an 80s

> > theme party.

> >

> > He also said "I don't like you bringing that

> s**t

> > around me" to which I replied "yeah, but YOU

> were

> > the one knocking on MY door", and he started

> > getting aggressive and only backed down when my

> > (somewhat larger) flatmate appeared at the door

> to

> > see what all the shouting was about.

> >

> > I called the police and they apparently

> informed

> > the community wardens and asked neighbours, but

> > nothing ever came of it.

>

> Not sure about anyone else, but this to me seems

> the least truthful post since the one of those

> ones I put on the song game thread.

> If it happened, it's been described in the

> schumckiest possible way.

> If, as I believe it's an invention then it's as

> dopey and dreary an invention that ever there

> was.

> No offence.

> Actually, balls to that, every offence possible.

> Huh.


Interesting, I thought I'd make a little contribution to this forum as a relevant incident had happened. A few weeks later, I come back to find this little bit of unpleasantness.


Well it happened. Not sure what was implausible, though I probably felt a lot more fearful and came across less confidently than the telling implies. As someone later said, I was just trying to describe the incident with a little levity. But again, I'd be interested to know which part of it you think didn't happen, or what leads you to believe the entire incident is fictional.


The incident was dealt with by Catherine Pearson, TDC 220426 at Walworth Police Station, who sent me a statement to fill out. There's probably a crime number but I don't have that to hand. But put it this way, if the incident didn't happen, then I told an awful lot of lies to at least 2 police officers and made a untruthful witness statement.


I might just gently make the final observation that people who post in such a confrontational way on internet forums often do so because of their inability to stand up to people in real life. The fact you've made 7,000 posts in this forum alone can only add to this impression. However, I could be wrong, and if you're man enough you can come round to my flat (pm me for my contact details), tell me again why you think I'm a liar, and then I'll show you the emails from the police (and if it didn't get lost/binned in my last flat move, any documentation I can find). Deal?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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