Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> the-e-dealer Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Well then it WAS partly their fault they should

> > have kicked someone incompetent out NOT

> encouraged

> > you to keep them on.

>

> Yes, but would it have made good television?


xxxxxxx


Actually they didn't cover the problems with DJKQ at all because it wasn't that kind of programme.


She appeared extremely briefly in one part of it (IIRC) demonstrating how to put paint on a wall :))


I thought that was quite funny because her painting technique was idiosyncratic to say the least, she didn't seem to have heard of cutting in.

>

> .

> .

> .

>

> Sent by Osmosis.

ratty Wrote:

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

> Does this thread make anyone else slightly

> uncomfortable?



Mmm..... I am a little surprised the site allows such an undefended diatribe against a trader - but then again I guess nobody has named the individual/company.

ratty Wrote:

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

> Does this thread make anyone else slightly

> uncomfortable?


I think probably (despite having, umm, egged it on a leetle - not that Sue needed much encouragement) my opinion is now that it (the thread) ought to go - at least until the other party makes an appearance.


As another sagely poster (not connected with DJKQ) has pointed out.. there may be other, well, issues which I don't think most amused bystanders (including myself) on here would want to exacerbate, were they to be the case.


That might be a load of old guff, of course, but maybe better safe than sorry on this one?

*Bob* Wrote:

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


> my opinion is now that it (the thread) ought to go

> - at least until the other party makes an

> appearance.


xxxxxxxxx


Well the other party is conspicuous by their absence, despite having posted on their football thread relatively recently.


Perhaps in due course the OP may expand further on their experience of the trader in question.


All I would say is, there are always two sides to every issue. Which is why I said that I would abide by the decision of an independent objective mediator. DJKQ refused mediation. Why?

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

    • I just wanted to post for all my neighbours a recommendation of Niko, the wonderful plumber who works locally. Niko has done work for me over the years, including large and small jobs. He recently replaced four radiators in my house which have helped us really be warm for the first time! I recommend Niko so whole heartedly because (1) he is completely straight forward and will advise you not to do something / a cheaper solution, if that is what is best for you; and (2) he is one of the kindest and most honest people I have ever known. He goes the extra mile to sort out problems, particularly urgent ones.   
    • Scaremongering - there is very little vacant land in East Dulwich available as sites for building 9 storey buildings so this is rather hypothetical. It could even be said the occasional taller, modern building breaks up the monotony of Victorian terraced housing.
    • This is simply untrue. The area is not 2/3 storeys maximum. Hambledon Court is on the other side of tracks from the Jewson site on Burrow Rd, is 8 storeys, and is barely known (let alone bothersome) to most people in East Dulwich. Felbridge House, Petworth House etc on the opposite side of the station from the new development are all 5 storeys tall. East Dulwich Charter (which neighbours the new development) is itself 4-5 storeys (depending on which block you're talking about). What's more, Hambledon Court was finished in about 1978 iirc and no-one has built anything similar around here since then - so the "slippery slope" "genie in the bottle" argument doesn't work either. You can't simultaneously argue that Southwark is too slow in approving new construction but also suggest this will lead to a flood of new high-rise housing! At current rates of approval, we can expect our next 8 storey building to arrive in...2072!
    • I checked - the Hanway Street place was Mandeer - it moved to New Oxford Street I think and was replaced by Hakkasan - very different prices. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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