Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I must say that the spectacle of a whole group of people, who claim to hate threads going off topic and to be upholders of the civilised tone of the forum, ganging up simultaneously to take the thread off topic, signal their own virtue and try to bully Sue is somewhat enervating.


ETA I don't include Buddug in said group, who had a right to respond as she felt, rightly or wrongly, she was being attacked and had a right to reply.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> I must say that the spectacle of a whole group of

> people, who claim to hate threads going off topic

> and to be upholders of the civilised tone of the

> forum, ganging up simultaneously to take the

> thread off topic, signal their own virtue and try

> to bully Sue is somewhat enervating.

>

> ETA I don't include Buddug in said group, who had

> a right to respond as she felt, rightly or

> wrongly, she was being attacked and had a right to

> reply.



For the love of God, Stop.

Borky Wrote:

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

> rendelharris Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I must say that the spectacle of a whole group

> of

> > people, who claim to hate threads going off

> topic

> > and to be upholders of the civilised tone of

> the

> > forum, ganging up simultaneously to take the

> > thread off topic, signal their own virtue and

> try

> > to bully Sue is somewhat enervating.

> >

> > ETA I don't include Buddug in said group, who

> had

> > a right to respond as she felt, rightly or

> > wrongly, she was being attacked and had a right

> to

> > reply.

>

>

> For the love of God, Stop.


Case in point.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> I must say that the spectacle of a whole group of

> people, who claim to hate threads going off topic

> and to be upholders of the civilised tone of the

> forum, ganging up simultaneously to take the

> thread off topic, signal their own virtue and try

> to bully Sue is somewhat enervating.

>

> ETA I don't include Buddug in said group, who had

> a right to respond as she felt, rightly or

> wrongly, she was being attacked and had a right to

> reply.


* sighs.....yep yep yep yep yep.....*sighs


Only one condescending supercilious PITA on this thread, Buddug, so don't take any further notice of it.


Well done for your TRUE neighbourly spirit.

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Had a PSO call just now offering "smart water". I

> had seen her knocking on neighbours' doors

> earlier. If she or another drops by with the offer

> I'd advise taking it up. (You dab your most

> valuable items with the water, which contains

> microscopic digits linked to your personal details

> - which are not divulged to anyone, she said - and

> which will appear if the police retrieve your

> items. She said all retrieved items are scanned

> for smart water, so it looks like a system is in

> place.)



This is a great way to show some police presence in the area, we had the same dropped off my police.

Re Smartwater - isn't there an annual subscription fee you have to sign up to in order for them to maintain the record of which "watermark" is yours? I looked into it (several years ago, so may have changed) and after 12 months they charge you a subscription fee. If you don't pay, they delete your record from their database. Would be interested to know if this has changed in which case I will look at it again.

I learn something new every day even at my great age, Lynne. However, I am always eager to increase my vocabulary.


Are I right in saying that it is no longer politically correct to refer to somebody as an "ugly fat bastard", as you could in the good old days before all them hipsters first moved into ED and you could smoke all day to your hearts content in one of the old fashioned boozers that ain't there no more?

'Lookist' is the word I know, as opposed to 'uglicist'. And I think Lynne was being very 'tongue in cheek', parodying previous posters. But you are in no way horizontally challenged, Mr Tring. Though you may have over-indulged in the mince pies this year. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, another neighbour is also being brought in to view the identity parade. Looks like this pair of burglars have been hard at it far and wide for quite some time. Often, just two burglars can be behind 95% of burglaries in an area, and putting them away for a while can bring great peace of mind to a neighbourhood. I shall keep you all updated. It's not often these bastards are caught.

To divert again, (sorry Buddug) Anglo -Saxon law allowed common abuse, as long as it wasn't provably untrue,and this, roughly speaking, has continued. Thus you could call someone ugly, and this is mere abuse, but not a bastard, if they were born in wedlock.


Good luck, Buddug.

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

    • For a while there was an unexpected glitch in planning laws that meant phone box operators (which is obviously mostly BT, but there were others) didn't need council permission to replace call boxes with small electronic billboards, so long as you could make calls from the billboard. I *think* the one on the corner of Croxted Rd and Park Hall Rd is an example of that. So the operators weren't always in a rush to remove the call boxes even when they didn't make any money on calls. I don't know if it still works like this. https://www.local.gov.uk/about/news/lga-call-crackdown-trojan-telephone-boxes-amid-900-cent-rise-some-areas
    • It is just a witch hunt. The estate agent has taken responsibility. FFS leave the poor woman alone. ETA: And please  stop calling her Rachel. You don't call Starmer Keir.
    • As said, why are you not eating humble pie for a non-story? I expect that scores of landlords are unaware or made mistakes in this territory.  And this is not just the Chancellor but a married couple.  It feels like you and others are taking joy in demonising her. The only question would be is the house suitable for renting out?  I expect it is, and if not that is up to Southwark to take action rather than keyboard warriors.  The only surprises are the expense of licensing - surely time for a thread on "is licensing a money maker for local authorities?".  I'm being facetious.  And that the cost of rental, which feels fairly reasonable based on this area. By all means go after rogue landlords.  Be my guest.  I was horrified to see some of the properties rented in London and beyond by family members.  Not all bad. Oh and another question.  Haven't I got better things to do than comment on this 'no story here' thread?  😁
    • Week 10 fixtures...   Saturday 1st November Brighton & Hove Albion v Leeds United Burnley v Arsenal Crystal Palace v Brentford  Fulham v Wolverhampton Wanderers Nottingham Forest v Manchester United Tottenham Hotspur v Chelsea Liverpool v Aston Villa   Sunday 2nd November West Ham United v Newcastle United Manchester City v AFC Bournemouth   Monday 3rd November Sunderland v Everton
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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