Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have put the same post up twice on this board today and twice it has been removed. The first one was moved to the Lounge (and is now marked as closed) and, thinking it was my error, I posted it again here couple hours ago - again it has gone. Have I inadvertantly caused offence or done something inappropriate? It was a question about the area around the Bredinghurst flats. Thanks.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/16353-where-is-my-post/
Share on other sites

This section is 'ED Issues', but it was referring to an area outside ED, so I imagine that was why it was moved to the Lounge.


When you posted it again it was still in the wrong section, and it was a repeat post which is widely considered to be spamming, so it may have been removed for that reason.


Don't worry about it, it's nothing personal, just the administrators keeping the place tidy.

Well I think you were referring to the 'area around Camberwell Old Cemetery' which may not be considered so much ED as perhaps Honor Oak or Forest Hill?


It will have been a close call. Even having said that it should probably have been in the property section.


But this thread is still in the wrong place - it should be in 'About this forum', so I wouldn't be surprised if it gets moved also. ;-)

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> It will have been a close call. Even having said

> that it should probably have been in the property

> section.


I think that section is more for rentals/sales, not really general discussion.


Camberwell Old Cemetery is literally on the SE22 border, so it seems harsh to move it.

Well I probably wouldn't have moved it, but rules often get interpreted arbitrarily. Thems the breaks.


Once it had been moved the repeat posting was definitely breaking the rules, as well as being a tiny bit rude. It would have been a little bit wiser to enquire after the original move rather than jam it in again.

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

    • It's called The Restorative Place. Also, the Fired Earth storefront is under offer too, apparently. How exciting...!
    • Perhaps the view is that there are fewer people needing social housing in London, going forward, or to cap it as it is rather than increasing it. We already see the demographic changing.
    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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