Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's not just about manners, though I agree that's important, it's about teaching safety awareness so they know how to avoid hurting or intimidating other people. Intimidating sounds over the top, I know, but an elderly neighbour feels she can't go out alone because of the risk of being knocked down. American-style helicopter parenting means parents are usually on hand to pick up the pieces and apologise on their behalf if necessary, but still.

Brilliant thread.


Unfort the topic of kids, always causes amazing disagreement, as its hard to be objective when one hasn't witnessed the specific behavior themselves. But in general I do agree that parents who allow their kids to 'roam free' are often quick to blast anyone who suggests a little more control as 'unfriendly to kids'. There are shades of grey in this whole area, but it does amaze me what some parents will allow/justify because of kids.


For example, the way some parents just stop in the middle of the road or pull across oncoming traffic to park wherever they like while dropping kids off at school I think is horrendously inconsiderate to other road users, but im sure if I complained I would get the standard 'I've got to drop my kids off!'...like that excuses almost any transgression of road rules or politeness. And before people start having a go at me, yes I too have kids, and drop them off at Nursery/school, and manage to do it with a little consideration for others.

You do get some proper nutters on here, don't you?


[ although to be fair, I thought the OP's complaint about parents and kids walking three abreast seemed bizarrely intolerant... it can be a busy road, and wanting to hold your children's hands seems reasonable to me ]

Don't know if I'm one of the nutters Jeremy (I say no, Mrs.H says yes) but I took the OP to mean groups of parents walking three abreast. Of course I understand a parent with two small children wanting to hold their hands (though it's a good example of politeness for the kids to step to one side to let oncoming pedestrians through) - it's when one gets three parents all with buggies walking abreast and taking the width of the pavement, forcing one into the road, that it gets rather annoying.

Outstanding thread!


Spat my tea out at the point at which Artful got accused of...... I daren't even say it!!


Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding about what dogging means


Anyhow, people be courteous both on the pavements and on forums (and teach your children too) and then we can all be happy whether we are upper, middle or whatever class.


And OP, maybe leave for work 5mins earlier so you aren't late for the train and grumpy!


Pleeeeeease keep going with the ludicrous posts though (from all sides), it has really helped me out of a very dull day

Hilarious!


We have all been taken for a ride by Posh Lindylou - who actually posts on West Dulwich Forum as

boring east dulwich


Posted by: lindylou 29 December, 2007 23:13



Hi everyone in West Dulwich. I am new to this forum. I have been posting on EDF as a new member but find them v. strange. Don't get me wrong - I am a working class lass, actually working in a domestic environment in west dulwich for a very nice family. In my previous working life I was a legal secretary but actually became so stressed with the job I suffered a near heart-attack. Admittedly this was 30 or so years ago. I then decided to enter domestic work (which has been in our family for years) and find I enjoy this work so much. I love people and looking after people. However, I do love to keep up to date pseudo-intellectually,and I also love to mix well with people. I find the ED lot very brash, vulgar and up their own A***ses, which I find upper classes and lower classes at least have in common (we cannot abide the middle man). Well either you will accept my postings or not - I hope I can keep you all informed of the latest in ED. Feel free to read my posts on the ED forum. Much love.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> Hilarious!

>

> We have all been taken for a ride by Posh Lindylou

> - who actually posts on West Dulwich Forum as

> boring east dulwich

>

> Posted by: lindylou 29 December, 2007 23:13

>

>

> Hi everyone in West Dulwich. I am new to this

> forum. I have been posting on EDF as a new member

> but find them v. strange. Don't get me wrong - I

> am a working class lass, actually working in a

> domestic environment in west dulwich for a very

> nice family. In my previous working life I was a

> legal secretary but actually became so stressed

> with the job I suffered a near heart-attack.

> Admittedly this was 30 or so years ago. I then

> decided to enter domestic work (which has been in

> our family for years) and find I enjoy this work

> so much. I love people and looking after people.

> However, I do love to keep up to date

> pseudo-intellectually,and I also love to mix well

> with people. I find the ED lot very brash, vulgar

> and up their own A***ses, which I find upper

> classes and lower classes at least have in common

> (we cannot abide the middle man). Well either you

> will accept my postings or not - I hope I can keep

> you all informed of the latest in ED. Feel free to

> read my posts on the ED forum. Much love.


wow. not sure what to say to that, other than to warmly welcome back LindyLou....it should be entertaining if nothing else....

I agree with you. (Yes, you reading this now!)


So now that you know I'm on your side, another small request. If you have small children, could you possibly rouse yourself from the depths of despair when you're walking them past the College Road toll booth? I ask only because the section of pavement right next to the barrier has become prime real estate for the tying of tiny shoelaces, chats over huddled buggies, and toddling as close to the kerb as humanly possible. That's the same kerb that cyclists and motorcyclists have to ride along to use the two wheel lane next to the barrier. You or possibly little Tarquin are going to cause an accident.


If the cherubic fruit of your loins has left you too worn to care at this point, could you at least check your household contents insurance includes public liability cover for when you're out and about. The good policies do. That way, you won't mind when someone has to sue you. Thanks ever so! xx

lindylou Wrote:

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

> Artful dodger "dogger?" have just passed your

> details on to CEOP.child exploitation and online

> protection agency, also the police. Your sexual

> references to minors are abhorent. You do not know

> the age of these posters. I find it very discerni

> ng that you are keen to find.? IP addresses of

> minors. Whats more worrying iS that you delete

> prior posts.



Did I really just read this?? F**k me.

I reckon that Artful Dogger might be able to take legal action of some description against lindylou. I'm sure that m'learned friends would be happy to advise. At the very least her comments were well out of order, as Phil Mitchell might put it.

New girl, what a thoughtful and kind offer but I think I need to take zebedee's comment into consideration and decline before I get myself into even more terrible trouble on here ! (Ps Peckham rye car park after closing is a nice spot to visit in my ford Capri 😳)


Quids, I hope you are refering to ms. Loo (sorry Lou) in your reference and not little old innocent me (cough)


I am also fascinated about how she (ms. Loo) has gone totally quiet since last Saturday night...

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> you'd get labelled a stalker if you asked Admin to

> find out when she was online last ;-)


Oddly you don't have to, all our histories show the last time we looked even if we don't comment - oh God, maybe I'm a stalker!

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

    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
    • The minimum wage hikes on top of the NICs increases have also caused vast swathes of unemployment.
    • Exactly - a snap election will make things even worse. Jazzer - say you get a 'new' administration tomorrow, you're still left with the same treasury, the same civil servants, the same OBR, the same think-tanks and advisors (many labour advisors are cross-party, Gauke for eg). The options are the same, no matter who's in power. Labour hasn't even changed the Tories' fiscal rules - the parties are virtually economically aligned these days.  But Reeves made a mistake in trying too hard, too early to make some seismic changes in her first budget as a big 'we're here and we're going to fix this mess, Labour to the rescue' kind of thing . They shone such a big light on the black hole that their only option was to try to fix it overnight. It was a comms clusterfuck.  They'd perhaps have done better sticking to Sunak's quiet, cautious approach, but they knew the gullible public was expecting an 24-hour turnaround miracle.  The NIC hikes are a disaster, I think they'll be reversed soon and enough and they'll keep trying till they find something that sticks.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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