Jump to content

Democratic debate about admin on forum (moving non-ED specific posts out of the ED Issues section)


Recommended Posts

(Ok, so I started a thread about southwark council as a freeholder in this section (general ED) because so many people in East Dulwich and borders are southwark council leaseholders. However, it was lounged - and as you know, most forumites don't even visit the lounge. I messaged admin and the reply I got said southwark council was as relevant to people in East Dulwich as fuel prices or climate change. Discuss....

I think admin is completely in the right here. Southwark isn't ED specifically, it covers many areas therefore would go in lounge. And loads of people visit the lounge just as much as this section.


In fact even this post shouldn't be in this section.


Pick your battles buddug!

I don't visit the lounge, so like to see occasional topics other than burglary, cycling & navigation crop up on the main board. Nice to see that the moderators have left this thread unmoderated, despite the criticism.

This thread should be in 'About this forum'.


This section is for ED issues.


If you'd like to see threads about things other than ED issues then visit the other sections.


You show staggering arrogance that you think the forum should be reorganised to fit around the fact that you can't be bothered to go to the lounge.


I'll be reporting the thread and I hope Admin does the sensible thing.

Threads get lounged because they're irrelevant to the section they were posted in, are you saying Admin should put them elsewhere, or not move them, because you don't like some people in the Lounge Fuschia?
  • Administrator

Kid: "Teacher, the playground's a jungle out there, go deal with it"

Teacher: "uh?"


or


Kid: "Teacher, Francesca's hitting everyone who's new in the playground and making it a horrible place, please help"

Teacher: "No problem, I'll have a word"


or


Kid: "Teacher, there's a group of boys and girls in the playground I find intimidating, I don't want to go there"

Teacher: "Oh that'll be the Dungeons and Dragons group, they're fine if you actually talk to them, here let me introduce you."


Please provide me with names and events that you would like me to keep an eye on as the forum's too big to monitor the Lounge for playground behaviour.

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

    • 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. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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