Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Why do people sit in their bloody cars/vans for what seems like hours with their bloody radios blaring out full blast, and why is it always within earshot of the room I work in?


I'm at the point of going downstairs with a brick. A very very large brick.


ETA: Every cloud. I went down (without a brick) and it turned out to be someone in the same road I've never met even though he's lived here nearly as long as I have :)


And he was very apologetic, so all good :)

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/166215-car-radio-rant/
Share on other sites

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> Tolerance to noise plummets when I am busy /

> concentrating or tired.

>

> Well done Sue - stood your ground AND met a new

> friend :-)

>

> Some people would have just thrown the brick.



To balance that, a week or so back a similar thing happened, but in this case the person in the car was switching from station to station every thirty seconds or so and I could hear the noise from the other end of my house.


Funnily enough the car was parked over the road in about the same place as today (different car though).


I was really wound up and I went down and had a rant (no bricks thrown though).


The woman was speechless, but she did turn it off.


Unfortunately when I got back upstairs I looked out of the window to see if she was still in her car, and saw her going into a house opposite.


:( or :)) depending on how you look at it. I never recognise people, so that is potentially extremely embarrassing :))


Guess I won't be getting a Christmas card :))

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> I suppose that at a certain age our tolerance to

> NOISE decreases.


You're obviously not a woman: at a certain our our tolerance to EVERYTHING completely bloody disappears.

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

    • 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.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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