Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I like that rope walk.


1. It will teach kids a bit of risk assessment, school of hard knocks, value of a good thrashing etc etc


2. It might engage the "sit on the bench with a coffee and let other carers/parents rescue my kids" to get off their arse and play with their kids/clients.


This post was brought to you by "is this your child with the bleeding nose?" holier-than-thou Ted Max poster.

  • 6 months later...
They are putting down the new soft matting stuff underneath I think. Spoke the one of the builders, but he was only there to flatten and level the area. Another company are coming in after to lay the matting......hope they hurry up, we go most days and my little lass is missing the swings!

The tunnels are a very dangerous installation indeed... anyone who's seen them will know that literally* dozens of slavering paedophiles, hairy-fisted bullies and indeed good old-fashioned monsters taking a holiday from under kids' beds could be lurking there.


*OK, not literally.


Also, have I spelt slavering correctly?

Personally I don't think drug takers will be (a) able (b) arsed to find the tunnels, crawl inside them, then shoot up. But then neither do I think there are 'dubious people' lying in wait for my children in the tunnels .....


Playgrounds in East Dulwich tend to be full of kids. And parents. And quite nice ones at that. Or am I being terribly blind / naive?

???? Wrote:

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

> I can think of no better place to shoot up with my

> mates than 3 ft long 3 ft high red tunnel in Goose

> Green park....

............................................................


Well someone coid have mentioned they were miniture.L.O.L.

But have they got a toilet, some miserable old bint was moaning about a tot piddling on the grass last year.

Thats a good point L.D.

I assumed it was in the planning stage,and no one mentioned it was three foot tot tunnel.already built.

I was remembering a young girl that got dragged into a tunnel in a playground up north and murdred.

I presumed to much. just pass me the Carpol, and I,ll go away.::o

  • 3 weeks later...

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

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

> I'm slightly concerned that any self-respecting

> child will try and shimmy up the tall wooden

> structure to get into the tree. Is that just me?



Ah, don't worry, no doubt Southwark Council will be sending someone in to massacre that poor tree soon too..... :'(

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

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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