Jump to content

Whistleblowing


Huguenot

Recommended Posts

> RosieH Wrote:

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

> ...including on another forum and naming people by

> their initial, which if not to cause illwill

> towards that person is for what exactly? People in

> glass houses...


Keef Wrote:

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

WORD!



I had actually let RosieH's comment pass (see earlier). However, given your latest post Keef, regrettably I now feel compelled to respond.


*long weary sigh, coupled with a hint of sadness"


Presumably you are both referring to this? from the Nunhead Forum?


mikecg wrote:

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

> That poster had it in for me the

> minute I arrived on the site...


Me (under a different username):

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

mikecg, sorry I have just walked into this...I am concerned as what you have said here has rung some very loud bells. Was the...shall we say...ringleader...who was responsible for the behaviour described by you a female member of the EDF with a poster name beginning with "a". I apologise in advance if I am wrong, but I too have suffered my share of...I'm not too sure what to call it...but it was far from pleasant. I was merely wondering if we were talking about the same person. Forgive me if I am speaking out of turn.



So, to answer your question - no, my post was not intended "to cause illwill towards that person". I was concerned that the humiliation to which I had been subjected might also have been inflicted upon another user, and I wished to establish (from that other user) whether "we were talking about the same person". My apologies if my post was unclear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ludymuck one does presume there is life outside of the forum?


If you dont get on with someone on here and in person (met from here) surely we're all grown up enough to let it be?


It's disheartening to think it all comes to be about one person.


Sorry it is the way I'm reading it. I do apologise if I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ladymuck Wrote:

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

> > RosieH Wrote:

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

> > ...including on another forum and naming people

> by

> > their initial, which if not to cause illwill

> > towards that person is for what exactly? People

> in

> > glass houses...

>

> Keef Wrote:

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

> WORD!

>

>

> I had actually let RosieH's comment pass (see

> earlier). However, given your latest post Keef,

> regrettably I now feel compelled to respond.

>

> *long weary sigh, coupled with a hint of sadness"

>

> Presumably you are both referring to this? from

> the Nunhead Forum?

>

> mikecg wrote:

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

> > That poster had it in for me the

> > minute I arrived on the site...

>

> Me (under a different username):

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

> mikecg, sorry I have just walked into this...I am

> concerned as what you have said here has rung some

> very loud bells. Was the...shall we

> say...ringleader...who was responsible for the

> behaviour described by you a female member of the

> EDF with a poster name beginning with "a". I

> apologise in advance if I am wrong, but I too have

> suffered my share of...I'm not too sure what to

> call it...but it was far from pleasant. I was

> merely wondering if we were talking about the same

> person. Forgive me if I am speaking out of turn.

>

>

> So, to answer your question - no, my post was not

> intended "to cause illwill towards that person".

> I was concerned that the humiliation to which I

> had been subjected might also have been inflicted

> upon another user, and I wished to establish (from

> that other user) whether "we were talking about

> the same person". My apologies if my post was

> unclear.



The humiliation? No, I can't have this. You have banged on and on and on about this for 6 months, *giggling* about it on various threads - giggling about your own humiliation? Man, you must have been really upset I guess. And now conjuring up some new imaginary slight at the Clockhouse. I was there and I know there was none.


I was also there 6 months ago when all this first started and you were really fucking rude to me, but I'm not on here bitching and whining about it 6 months later. So for the love of all that is holy, will you PLEASE just get a grip and let this one go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RosieH Wrote:

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

> And now conjuring up

> some new imaginary slight at the Clockhouse. I

> was there and I know there was none.


I beg to differ.


> I was also there 6 months ago when all this first

> started and you were really @#$%& rude to me.


Again, untrue - we never spoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RosieH you are as responsible as anyone for raking up all this unpleasantness so it's a bit rich telling LM to 'let it go'! The best way to let go is to simply stop posting on this thread, and I think that goes for everyone. Please let this thread die.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to not let it die, but that is unfair, it was LM who brought up something from ages ago, just because BN5 came on here and posted.


I am not making this personal, I don't know LM, and I haven't seen the other lady in question for the best part of a year, I'm certainly not part of some gang who is bullying. I just thought that LM was wrong dragging up the whole sorry affair. Who gives a flying f**k if you've not made up (what is this, the playground), it's a big world, and the other poster hardly ever posts anymore (which is a damned shame), so just live your life and forget it. When I read that on the Nunhead forum, I thought it was a bit out of order to be honest.


I am sur the other poster wishes she'd never ever posted anything about being "snubbed", but she did, because she felt she had been. I don't think you helped yourself in the whole sorry affair to be honest, you could have acted with a lot more dignity, and you could have refrained from bringing it up again and again ever since. If anything, it reduces any sympathy I felt for your position in the whole mess.


Anyway, this thread has rather gone off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Keef and although I disagree with your take on it, I do think it was a sorry affair and is now clearly off topic. What was the topic, by the way? It's not about rounding on Hal is it? If it was then my original call to let this thread die still stands. Though if it was about trying to persuade Hugenot to stay, then hurrah! May it continue till he changes his mind!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the prosecco come with one last forlorn look at Jenny Agutter's norks - before floating up towards certain death as the climax to the danse macabre - in a futuristic world where everyone must die when they reach thirty?


If not - you can count myself and Mockney out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

legalbeagle Wrote:

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

> So no one wants my free prosecco then?


I have tried on a few occasions to 'make up' - alas to no avail. I wouldn't hesitate to grasp the hand of friendship if it were offered - I don't have any issues with him.


I don't understand what his issues are with me - the ravings in his post above sound like paranoid delusions: I can't make sense of them.


For the record, his allegations about me are either factually inaccurate or just plain wrong - I refute them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> Does the prosecco come with one last forlorn look

> at Jenny Agutter's norks


Sorry *Bob* did I not mention? Free Prosecco this month at G&B comes with whatever pair of celebrity norks one cares to choose. If Jenny Agutter's norks you would like, then Jenny Agutter's norks you shall have.


Shall I deliver to your home or would you like to get your bubbly and jubblies from the shop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a very good vintage, so I'm not sure we have it on the shelves but I'll take a look. I'm reasonably confident we've kept her in the cellar for a special occasion. If I find her I'll pop her behind the counter with the bubbly. Don't forget at that age she'll deteriorate in day light and heat very quickly once opened, so when you get her home, do get on with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> Much appreciated.

>

> Actually, you'd better split the norks and send

> Mockney one.. it's only fair. (If one is slightly

> larger than the other, make sure I get the bigger

> one though, please).


Are you sure? A last glance at a Jenny's nork (singular) just doesn't seem right to me?


I guess the customer is always right tho. I'll post the left one to Mockney then. It's a bit smaller, but on the plus side, the reduction in weight makes it slightly perkier.


Swings and roundabouts, as it were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • FredMarsh, I sympathise with you. I suspect the coral fencing at the entrance is to prevent people legging it out of store with unpaid for goods in hand. It does feel a bit like herding cattle as you describe it. Perhaps the reduction in customers is a response to this and the lack of previously available services.  I find self check out is quicker if I do it myself and since the new self service points have been installed the screens work much better as they are as of today still newish. The old ones were "knackered" and continued to regularly fail.  I had to buy some whisky as a present for someone yesterday, the Sainsbury staff took it away, removed the security tags and returned it, so that all went simply.  Unfortunately the days of what was the original Sainsburys in Peckham and Forest Hill are long gone, as are many of the old shops I remember from the mid 70's, i.e. Kennedy's. The world continually changes and as we get older we have to keep up.  I saw something really sad in Peckham yesterday, a very, very old woman walking down Hanover Park by Primark on the corner with Rye Lane, bent almost half over, pushing her own four wheel trolley along, taking her time.  Made me  realise how lucky I am.   Yes, checking the receipt to make sure Nectar has been applied is always worth doing. Ditto Tesco Old Kent Road this week were what the label of the stack of fruit said one price and even with the Tesco card, the price at checkout was different, that resulted in photo's and it still being checked by Customer Service...... As for "Sainsburys always being horrible", I have to disagree with you on that. 
    • One Dulwich   Campaign Update | 3 May Parliament debates LTNs – please fill in the questionnaire by 6 May Parliament will debate two petitions – “Carry out an independent review into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” and “Exempt Blue Badge drivers from Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” – at 4.30 pm on Monday 20 May in the Grand Committee Room above Westminster Hall. Please fill in this short questionnaire about your experience of the Dulwich LTNs, as your comments will help to inform the debate. The deadline for this is very soon – 10am on Monday 6 May. We have written to our MP Helen Hayes, pointing out that her constituents represent the second highest number of those who requested both petitions, and asking her to take part in the debate in order to represent the two-thirds majority of people living and working in Dulwich who asked for the Dulwich LTNs to be reconsidered. Because these petitions are directed at Parliament, not Southwark Council, we hope that Helen Hayes will speak up for her constituents on this occasion. You might want to encourage her to take part by emailing her at [email protected]. We have also reminded her that a group of Blue Badge holders have petitioned the Leader of Southwark Council to be allowed through the Dulwich Village junction because of the daily difficulties, distress and – in some cases – severe pain suffered by disabled and other vulnerable car-dependent constituents who are now forced to take long and circuitous detours in stop-start traffic along boundary roads. You can watch the debate – and, we hope, our MP representing our interests – on Parliament tv, or you can attend in person. Thank you for your support. The One Dulwich Team  SUPPORT ONE DULWICH 
    • Yeah, that’s not my point. I explained that the locale is in unpleasant and uncared for, not the businesses (which I called “valiant” so you could deduce I was not against them at all but maybe you didn’t see that.  I think they need support from the council in the shape of a sprucing up). 
    • Week 34 fixtures...   Friday 3rd May Luton Town v Everton   Saturday 4th May Arsenal v AFC Bournemouth Brentford v Fulham Burnley v Newcastle United Sheffield United v Nottingham Forest Manchester City v Wolverhampton Wanderers Brighton & Hove Albion v Aston Villa Chelsea v West Ham United Liverpool v Tottenham Hotspur   Monday 5th May Crystal Palace v Manchester United
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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