Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've recently been involved in a discussion on this Forum about a certain cafe on LL. There was an exchange of views, in which some forumites reported their personal experience of eating there or working there.


I now find that the relevant thread has been deleted, never to be seen again.


But at the same time, I see very critical posts about other ED businesses, many of which I would recommend on this forum. These posts are also based on reported personal experience. But they are allowed to remain.


Could anyone, possibly even an Administrator, explain - preferably in words of three syllables or less - what we can and what we can't discuss on this forum?

Just a comment from a user.


In my experience with some forums where threads are often deleted (not this one) is if legal action gets mentioned a thread goes, sometimes followed by bans of varying periods.


civilservant Wrote:

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

> I've recently been involved in a discussion on

> this Forum about a certain cafe on LL. There was

> an exchange of views, in which some forumites

> reported their personal experience of eating there

> or working there.

>

> I now find that the relevant thread has been

> deleted, never to be seen again.

>

> But at the same time, I see very critical posts

> about other ED businesses, many of which I would

> recommend on this forum. These posts are also

> based on reported personal experience. But they

> are allowed to remain.

>

> Could anyone, possibly even an Administrator,

> explain - preferably in words of three syllables

> or less - what we can and what we can't discuss on

> this forum?

having rammed white hat on head and waded into the fray all guns blazing, now see that fellow Forumites have been quietly toiling all night long to support the Forum's right to free speech and to diss those who would not be dissed


http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,915483,page=1

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...