Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Louisa Wrote:

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

> I saw this too. Whoever makes these shows needs to

> do their geography homework. They're talking about

> east dulwich and showing clips of Sydenham,

> crystal palace and penge. Why?

>

> Louisa.



They showed lots of East Dulwich, mainly the bottom end of Lordship Lane, but they were talking about the whole general area as possible places to live.

The only off clip I noticed was a shot of Rocca in the village when they were talking about Lordship Lane. Given however the jumped between saying Dulwich and East Dulwich, that wasn't wholly unreasonable.


I also thought it was pretty ludicrous when they first said the sisters from South Norwood would be looking in Dulwich for a 3 bed property for around 300k. Of course, they didn't step foot in Dulwich, so that must simply have been really poor editing / scripting.


I read somewhere a house on Shawbury Road is going to be on the new series of Grand Design which kicks of soon. ED become a TV property stable :)

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> oh, I hadn't realised... I thought it was a 3rd

> update on Phil's hunt around ED.

>

> Don't watch enough daytime telly.



It was on last night wasn't it?


I recorded it but thought I watched it shortly after it had been on.

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

    • I edited my post because I couldn't be sure we were talking about politicians and I couldn't be bothered to read it all back. But it was off the back of a thread discussing labour councillors, so it went without saying really and I should have left it.  What I said was 'There's something very aggressive about language like that - it's not big and it's not clever. Some of the angry energy that comes from the far left is pretty self-defeating.' (In relation to a labour councillor rather immaturely, in my view, wearing a jumper that read 'fuck the Tories').  But I don't recall saying that "violent rhetoric" is exclusively the domain of the left wing. So I do think you're taking a bit of a bit of leap here. 
    • You literally just edited your earlier reply to remove the point you made about it being “politicians”.  Then you call me pathetic.    I’m  not trying to say you approve any of the ugly right wing nonsense.  But I AM Saying your earlier post suggesting  violent rhetoric being “left wing” was one-sided and incorrect 
    • I never said that. Saying I don’t like some of the rhetoric coming from the left doesn’t mean I approve of Farage et al saying that Afghans being brought here to protect their lives and thank them for their service means there is an incalculable threat to women.    Anything to score a cheap point. It’s pretty pathetic. 
    • To be fair we are as hosed as the majority of other countries post-Covid. The problem is Labour promised way too much and leant in on the we need change and we will deliver it and it was clear to anyone with a modicum of sense that no change was going to happen quickly and actually taking the reigns may have been a massive poison- chalice. As Labour are finding to their cost - there are no easy answers.  A wealth tax seems straightforward but look how Labour have U-turned on elements of non-dom - why? Because the super rich started leaving the country in their droves and whilst we all may want them to pay more tax they already pay a big chunk already and the government saw there was a problem.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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