Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Same reason middle aged men go uuuUUUUUUHHHHHHMMMM in the middle of their sentences - to prevent other people butting in when they need time to think. It's a filler word.


Used to be 'innit', d'innit?


In Singers they go 'laaaa'.


The kids won't even notice they are saying it in the same way that nobody realises they say 'uuumm' every seven or eight words until you record them and play it back.


If you're really interested, it was traced back to California's 'Valley Girl' speak - as brought to the world in the 1995 film 'Clueless'. It's white, middle class, ditzy and materialistic.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25916-like/#findComment-580909
Share on other sites

???? Wrote:

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

> Why does every and I mean EVERY middle class white

> kid in their 20s on the bus use 'like' every third

> or fourth word it's like they are all like Vicky

> pollard like" SHUT UP, LIKE, SPEAK PROPA!


Spoken like a true middle class dad.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/25916-like/#findComment-580990
Share on other sites

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

    • Enforcement costs money which I doubt the fines actually pay for. Presumably it hasn't been a priority. 
    • Details here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/2025/dulwich-library-closing-refurbishment
    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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