Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator

Yes you could say that Nunhead is on the periphery of East Dulwich however there is a Nunhead forum which covers that area.


Sharon, if you live in East Dulwich and want to promote your husband's business please do, just follow the rules but mention you are East Dulwich residents.

My Dearest Admin - I'm not having a go at you - just saying: since the ED and Nunhead Fora are both owned by the same party, it could be argued that the owner has a vested interest in re-directing users to the sparsely used Nunhead Forum in order to increase its advertising revenue - therefore is it not possible that a potential conflict of interests may be perceived when confronted with a case such as that of the OP?

For goodness sake Hal - these sites are run on a voluntary basis. Even with the new advertising, I doubt very much Admin will be able to draw a salary and retire from his daily job.


I think this is a superb local resource (speaking as a fuzzy-fringe member). If there were a viable Peckham alternative, no doubt I would be on there, but as it is, I am using and enjoying this forum.


Since there is a dedicated Nunhead Forum, it's not unreasonable for Admin to direct Nunhead users/suppliers to that one. If anything, that would dilute the number of users on this site and decrease the potential for revenue from advertisers. Nunhead Forum doesn't carry any banner advertising so there is nothing to be gained.

I'm merely trying to bring a little depth to this discussion - on a hypothetical basis, of course.


It cannot have escaped the attention of business-minded observers that media moguls have often acquired popular networking sites with a well-defined geographic and demographic profile for astronomical sums.


The EDF and its sister sites could be worth millions to the right buyer - the owner(s) must surely be aware of that?


Therefore, I make the point that the rigorous pursuit of 'focus' could be seen as self-interested protection and/or enhancement of potentially valuable assets rather than merely a compulsive desire to keep the place tidy?

In that case would it not also be of an interest for admin to allow advertising from across the world, from all "kinds" of businesses on this site? Just think of all that potential revenue that could be made! There wouldn't have to be anything specific in nature to a local forum at all! Yes I can picture the ? signs flashing up in those concerned eyes.


HAL don't be so silly.

IIRC, the Nunhead forum only exists because Nunhead residents kept pestering Admin to set one up - so despite the overhead he did that for them - not his fault if nobody uses it


So that leaves this particular thread - which is no way constitues a reasonable discussion about where that border should and shouldn't lay - it's mostly the deranged outpourings of a lonely individual


And hadenuff


Most people, when they suspect they are borderline EDF either contact Admin directly or respond to any actions with grace. But even the title of this thread says plenty about the OP - why anyone feels the need to give Admin a hard time about it is beyond me

It never ceases to amaze me that peeps nowadays just refuse to take 'no' for an answer, we are all aware of the rules when we join this forum. Admin set the rules and imo they work. The OP asked Admin a question, Admin answered him and then he got personal and went on and on and on?why do people always have to question Admin?s rules, as if they haven?t got enough to do already without having to defend themselves.

Fecking Admin in thrall to the Mighty Murdoch - he's had us all for mugs he has, sucking us in with drinks and badminton and hemp sacking, then selling us down the river for piles of filthy lucre. What a cunt!


Cate, you should definitely sign up for hall monitor. This place would be much better off if people were informed in a polite and timely manner when they were taking the piss.


As for hadenuff - grade A mental. Comedy gold.

Hi, I thought I'd say something as the 'owner' of the site.


The forum's always been East Dulwich centric which has been hard to keep on track, and that's peeved a few people off on the way, but it seems to work, having said that we do always listen to people's suggestions and take them on board. Take the Family Room section for example, a few people requested that and we were hesitant to set that up, mainly because I thought it would dilute the forum and spread the users too thinly, but it worked and has created it's own very popular little monster.


I can see what you're saying HAL, but the forum's not been run as a business but I do like your idea that the site(s) could be worth millions. As I have always said on the About the Forum/Terms of use page "This forum is intended to be for use by people who live in, drive through, have an interest in or just want more information about London's East Dulwich". It's where I live and it's where most of you live and keeping it focused on the local area helps keep it friendly and neighbourly. If the area it covers gets bigger and bigger then I think it may loose that intimate, some say cliquey, feel, I don't want that and I don't think the majority do either.


And I know Admin sometimes get things wrong, they're human and they put their hands up to their mistakes. Anyway it's usually an edge case like this one that causes the most kerfuffle, but it brings issues to light, which although frustrating does help us keep us on our toes.

Oh, and just to add that Admin disabled hadenuff's account, not because he was critical of Admin (s/he's used to that), it was because he was posting ranting messages across the forum and the West Dulwich Forum despite being asked not to, and because he created multiple accounts to deceive people. The final straw was him trying to locate me personally, as 'the owner' of the forum, in the real world, at that point it's beyond discussion.

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

    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
    • Very sorry to hear this, but surely the landlord is responsible for fixing the electrics?  Surely they must be insured for things like this? I hope you get it all sorted out quickly.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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