Jump to content

Flats For Sale - Opposite ED Train Station


Recommended Posts

More like market is becoming a bit choosy now that properties are on the market a bit longer. "Uninterrupted views of the station platform, very handy for seeing when your delayed train is approaching. Also, direct access to your own stretch of platform"

I think the website was http://www.gv15.co.uk/ but it's not working anymore. A google search of GV15 Dulwich brings up Hampton's site saying...


Flat for sale - Grove Vale, London, SE22 - Asking price of ?250,000


1 bedroom, 1 reception room, 1 bathroom


UNDER OFFER


A fabulous one bedroom apartment within this super new development in East Dulwich. GV15 is the epitome of the urban ideal, combining excellent finish with prime location.


god knows why they call it the "epitome of the urban ideal" unless the urban ideal is living in a small triangular box on a train track.

On a slight aside, as we're in the lounge, did you know that the russian for train "vokzal" apparently comes from the time Tsar Nicholas I came to visit Britain and went on a train (sorry nero, steam powered railway locomotive), and when they pulled up at a station asked what it was called.

He meant the station, but his host misunderstood and answered Vauxhall.


Could be myth, but it's a goodun nevertheless.

I've always said train and always will. Not that fussed about its origins. Language moves on.


It is the green-eyed monster, which doth mock The meat it feeds on. That cuckold lives in bliss Who, certain of his fate, loves not his wronger; But O, what damned minutes tells he o'er Who dotes, yet doubts--suspects, yet strongly loves!



Nero Wrote:

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

> BTW, it's 'railway station'. 'Train station' is an

> Americanism and it sounds awful. I even see it on

> BBC websites, but there you go. Nero

>>BTW, it's 'railway station'. 'Train station' is an Americanism and it sounds awful. I even see it on BBC websites, but there you go. Nero<<


I agree emphatically - but just the other week the Guardian confirmed "train station" was now in its style book: deplorable.


And "train station" would not have worked in the opening line of "Homeward Bound" either....:))

This does have a whiff l'acad?mie fran?aise about it.

I admit [skedule] tends to jar me a bit, and I loath few words more than diss (except the original call centre town of course).


But to echo downsouth, language does move on. For instance no one seems too bothered that we no longer use 'ye' as second person plural (ye irish types excepted of course) though I think it's a bit sad we lost it.

What about cupboard, what happened to good old-fashioned press? etc etc


Come on, railway's a bit archaic isn't it....and we have bus stations not turnpike stations.

>>But to echo downsouth, language does move on.> For instance no one seems too bothered that we no longer use 'ye' as second person plural (ye irish types excepted of course) though I think it's a bit sad we lost it.>Come on, railway's a bit archaic isn't it>....and we have bus stations not turnpike stations<<


Not the same thing at all, For one thing "railway station" has worked perfectly adequately for almost 200 years: the railway is always in the station, the trains are not. Bus (or Coach) stations needed to be termed thus because roads are used by other vehicles so the discrimination was necessary for clarity. "Train station" is just an ugly and redundant construction. All just IMHO of course B)

> This though is used far too often to cover up sloppy speech or grammatical ignorance


He he, couldn't agree more.


I was slightly playing devils advocate as quite a few americanisms I find almost upsetting, especially webby and businessy buzz terminology.


I can't get worked up about train station though, sorry.

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> This does have a whiff l'acad?mie fran?aise about

> it.

> I admit tends to jar me a bit, and I loath few

> words more than diss (except the original call

> centre town of course).

>

> But to echo downsouth, language does move on. For

> instance no one seems too bothered that we no

> longer use 'ye' as second person plural (ye irish

> types excepted of course) though I think it's a

> bit sad we lost it.

> What about cupboard, what happened to good

> old-fashioned press? etc etc

>

> Come on, railway's a bit archaic isn't it....and

> we have bus stations not turnpike stations.


Completely off the thread here but being an Irish type I'm curious to know why so many people here use 'we was' instead of 'we were'?

>Completely off the thread here but being an Irish type I'm curious to know why so many people here use 'we was' instead of 'we were'?


At first the missus' constant savaging of the grammar such as 'I would've went' and 'we was' I put down to her apparently being a bad pupil at school (so she tells me).

Then I went to Ireland and found much of it to be universal, so I got over it and decided it was a dialect instead.


Although I think 'illunimous' is just her family!!

'Illunimous' sounds like a great word but what does it mean? I don't know if we can be blamed for savaging grammer in Ireland as we learnt it from ye. We have enough problems trying to pronounce 'th' to be bothered with the rest. I think it's a tongue thing as my spanish missus says things I couldn't possibly repeat.

I read R.F. Fosters History of Ireland. Large tracts, like any history are pretty dull, but he does like to interject humour where possible. (as any good Irishman should)


He makes a point about the mischievous and unruly nature of the Irish being apparent from 2 things.


One was the church's constant exasperation about how the Irish refused to pay much more than lip service to catholic orthodoxy and continued to be pretty darned pagan right up until the nationalist struggles of the last century.

The other was the constant mangling of the English language much to the chagrin of the English.


I think his implication on both points was that the Irish love to flick the bird at authority, and anything that annoys it is generally held to be a good thing ;-)


Oh and it's interchangeable with luminous, fluorescent and generally bright as far as I can work out. Good word though.

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

    • In what way? Maybe it just felt more intelligent and considered coming directly after Question Time, which was a barely watchable bun fight.
    • Yes, all this. Totally Sephiroth. The electorate wants to see transformation overnight. That's not possible. But what is possible is leading with the right comms strategy, which isn't cutting through. As I've said before, messaging matters more now than policy, that's the only way to bring the electorate with you. And I worry that that's how Reform's going to get into power.  And the media LOVES Reform. 
    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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