Jump to content

Recommended Posts

When I moved to ED a year and a half ago and discovered the ED forum I thought what a fantastic idea it is, it is a such great way of creating a more neighbourly place to live. I love the ?General ED issues / gossip...? section to keep up to date on what is going on, but the section I use the most is the ?for sale?. I love the idea of one man?s junk is another man?s treasure. Recently I have noticed that not everyone using the buying and selling facilities are from East Dulwich, or even the surrounding areas. Which lead me to ask the question, should the ED forum be just for people who live in East Dulwich?


I appreciate that something like this is hard to control, but just wondered what the general consensus is?

If the whole forum was only for people with SE22 post codes, then most of the regular posters would have to leave.


I do agree though that the For Sale thing can be an issue. I agreed to buy something a while back, only to find I had to go to Clapham for it, which was a bit of a pain in the arse.

This can be annoying but when vendors reveal they live in darkest Sydenham all one has to do is not go there and live with the disappointment.


The flip side is that, in selling stuff via the forum, I have had people come from outside london and even sold something to a woman in Rochdale (all done via post and PayPal etc) so it's swings and rounmdabouts*




*Swings slightly used, chain rather rusty, ?10. Roundabout in need of repair and comes complete with dying palm tree ?150,000.

El Pibe Wrote:

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

> Victim of its own success, what can you do

> really?

>

> They should certainly consider an IP block for all

> asia addresses though, I couldn't believe I had to

> go all the way to Singapore just to pick up a free

> tea cosy!!


Everyone knows Huguenot's hand-knitted tea-time accessories come at a price Pibe.

Anyone should be able to use IMO.

Some 75 year old guy left a note on a thread a few days ago, he'd Googled and found the OP about solar eclipses, he left a charming note from memories several decades ago.

Buying / Selling - I've benefitTed both ways from non-SE22 dwellers.

No reason why they shouldn't participate - check who you're dealing with and where they live !

Difficult to police anyway, it's WWW !!!

Neighbourhoods don't exist in isolation. Many of the East Dulwich businesses, schools, leisure facilities etc. benefit from customers from the surrounding areas so why shouldn't they contribute to discussions here?

When it comes to buying/selling I understand it could be frustating if you find the vendor isn't local but you're not obliged to continue with the purchase if you think it's too far for you to travel. I've given away things on the forum to people who turned out to be from Nunhead and Brockley, neither of them SE22 postcodes.

Charlotte - doesn't it give you a wider choice though? East Dulwich isn't that big an area on it's own and it shouldn't be made an enclave.


To answer your question - I don't think the ED forum should be used just for people who live in ED - I'm in North Dulwich by the way, just around the corner.

Let me see. This person has lived in East Dulwich for only eighteen months and now expecting the EDF to be only for those who live in SE22.


I've known East Dulwich for a number of years and I've never heard so much snobbery until recent times. How did that happen?

woodrot Wrote:

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

> I have just baked a huge dont care gateaux - does

> anyone fancy a slice ?


Gluten/dairy/nut free obviously ?


When is the delivery Yak trotting up to darkest Syd'nam


(can meet at border)



Netts

Gosh, some people are so quick to judge. "this person" being me, simply made a statement that I had notice that not everyone was from ED and posed the question should the forum be just for people who live in ED. At no point did I say that I expect the EDF to be only for those who live in SE22.

If I recall correctly around 25,000 people view the forum regularly, and since the population of ED is only about 5,000 you've just insulted at least 80% of them (20,000 people) by saying 'get orf my laand'.


This is, of course, land that you have neither owned, worked or nutured yourself.


You haven't really contributed much either - only 14 out of the 500,000 posts currently on the forum.


You don't have to be quick to judge to point out that it takes a particular kind of person to suggest 'excluding' from the forum people whose popularity and success they have contributed so much to over the years.


How many other things do you do that you would like to exclude other people from because it just doesn't suit you? Perhaps we could exclude people from shops that get in your way? ;-)

Annette Curtain Wrote:

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

> Huguenot Wrote:

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

> -----

> >

> http://cache2.artprintimages.com/lrg/29/2913/ZERPD

>

> > 00Z.jpg

>

>

> Oooo creepy

>

> *points at NF holdall*

>

> I don't think I actually ordered an M16 agent H

>

> :-S



That's a Nepal-ing joke...

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

    • Girls In Your City - No Selfie - Anonymous Casual Dating https://SecreLocal.com [url=https://SecreLocal.com] Girls In Your City [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Selfie New Girls [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/molly-15.html]Molly[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/cheryl-blossom-48.html]Cheryl Blossom[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/carola-conymegan-116.html]Carola Conymegan[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/pupa-41.html]Pupa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/mia-candy-43.html]Mia Candy[/url]
    • This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez: The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution. This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".
    • @Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒
    • Revealing of what, exactly? I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events. The thread is about Mandelson. I knew he was a wrong ‘un all along, we all did; the Epstein shit just proves it. In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. As did a large proportion of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs who were personally vetted and approved by Mandelson.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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