Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I take offence to that comment. This is why I choose not to frequent certain shops around here I consider pretentious. If you're going to an established community and wishing to open up a business, how about involving everyone and being inclusive rather than offending a substantial portion of the local population who've lived there since day one with throwaway comments like that.


Louisa.

I don't think anyone should take offence; I don't think they were making a comment about the people. I look back a few years (and a lot of years) to an East Dulwich that was a 'bit rough', as in 'rough and ready' or 'rough round the edges' ie untidy, unloved. That's how it always seemed to me; too many empty or run down shops, a few too many semi-derelict houses. Now it looks like someone cares about the place.

AbDabs Wrote:

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

> I don't think anyone should take offence; I don't

> think they were making a comment about the people.

> I look back a few years (and a lot of years) to an

> East Dulwich that was a 'bit rough', as in 'rough

> and ready' or 'rough round the edges' ie untidy,

> unloved. That's how it always seemed to me; too

> many empty or run down shops, a few too many

> semi-derelict houses. Now it looks like someone

> cares about the place.


I take your point, and I'm sure the comment was not intended to offend any specific group. However, the fact the area was down at the heel, overwhelmingly working class, with relatively high unemployment were all a reflection on why the area looked as it did, that's not to say the area didn't contain good independent shops back then. I look to farmers, who have been trading on Lordship Lane for decades, and rather successfully too. How come the Guardian doesn't mention them? Instead it chooses a classic couple of examples of gentrification to satisfy the middle classes. Patronising, lazy journalism from them along with unfortunate phraseology from the gentleman quoted, which could be interpreted in any number of ways.


Louisa.

Louisa: I think criticising the Guardian for being patronising and lazy over this piece is ludicrous. The butcher is responsible for falsely claiming East Dulwich was rough eight years ago - God knows why - and the Guardian could not seriously be expected to launch a full-scale investigation to determine exactly how rough the locale was.


And maybe the Guardian didn't mention 'the farmers' (who I've never actually come across myself in hundreds of walks down Lordship Lane) because no-one mentioned them to their reporter.


The truth is though that East Dulwich is a classic case of gentrification - no-one needs to twist anything to produce a piece saying that.

Nicholas Spears Wrote:

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

> Louisa: I think criticising the Guardian for being

> patronising and lazy over this piece is ludicrous.

> The butcher is responsible for falsely claiming

> East Dulwich was rough eight years ago - God knows

> why - and the Guardian could not seriously be

> expected to launch a full-scale investigation to

> determine exactly how rough the locale was.

>

> And maybe the Guardian didn't mention 'the

> farmers' (who I've never actually come across

> myself in hundreds of walks down Lordship Lane)

> because no-one mentioned them to their reporter.

>

> The truth is though that East Dulwich is a classic

> case of gentrification - no-one needs to twist

> anything to produce a piece saying that.


I thought the article was about supporting local independent shops? If that's the case, then why would they only pick two businesses in the area which have been trading for about a decade, purely post gentrification, rather than other businesses which have been successfully contributing to the local economy for a lot longer? Just a thought. The Guardian does not have to look very far to see how East Dulwich is a classic case of gentrification, and I'm pretty sure most journalists writing about the area would be fully aware of that.


Farmers is the shop sandwiched between GBK and the old locksmiths. It always has a whole host of mops buckets and various other items outside the shop so pretty difficult to miss. Check it out next time you walk down the lane. Very handy for cleaning products, light bulbs, bits and bobs. I'd also fit Dulwich DIY further along the lane into the category of successful independent business, and the Kebab & Wine.



Louisa.

Louisa: Ah - Farmers. yes, have used it many times. But I still don't understand your criticisms of the Guardian. A little piece in the paper a reporter had spent half a day on is not going to be an all encompassing source of all things to all people. And since independent butchers have been closing in droves for decades, rather than opening, it's a good example. And a couple of examples is better than just listing loads.

It's just a mystery why the William Rose bloke pretended East Dulwich was rough eight years ago.

It was Franklins not all middle class quote that made me chuckle, the manager saying she gets 'all sorts' in her shop. Meaning what? The great unwashed? Agree with others who say they shouldve talked to the traders who've been round for longer than the past few years.

The butcher quoted from William rose is from here and he is totally sound bloke (and the opposite do middle class poncey. And I mean that in best possible way)


It would help if people read the article as well as speaking with the people in question. But that might knock some people out of their nit picking comfort zones

Louisa Wrote:

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



> How come the Guardian doesn't mention them? Instead it

> chooses a classic couple of examples of

> gentrification to satisfy the middle classes.

> Patronising, lazy journalism from them along with

> unfortunate phraseology from the gentleman quoted,

> which could be interpreted in any number of ways.


The Guardian? Being terribly middle class? And patronising?


Well, that's never happened before...

bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

> "To be honest when we moved

> here it was a bit rough"


I'd heard it was rough 20 years ago. Irish builders etc in the pubs. Shocking.


It couldn't have been rough 8 years ago, as I was here.

Whether he thought it was a bit rough 8 years ago is only an opinion that really means nothing now. What does mean something now is that there's a thriving shop, employing people, providing a good service at reasonable prices. And we have a high street that's mostly a pleasure to shop in.

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't understand why everyone is so het up about a comment someone made regarding the area being a bit rough EIGHT years ago.

So what? I hate to spoil everyones delusions but my impressions of the area around that time was that it was a bit sketchy in parts-I was living in West London then and had friends in ED...Funnily enough they sold up about two years ago and moved to Dalston...now that IS sketchy.

Surely what matters is the here and now and wether you actually like the area and enjoy living here.

NOT others perceptions.

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "To be honest when we moved

> > here it was a bit rough"

>

> I'd heard it was rough 20 years ago. Irish

> builders etc in the pubs. Shocking.

>

> It couldn't have been rough 8 years ago, as I was

> here.

LOL Mick mac Yeah I can see your point, Irish builders can lower the tone of the place :)

Last Saturday was small business Saturday. Southwark Council hosted Christmas Cracker to celebrate the shop local initiative, and Christmas.

I think its great the guardian highlighted a couple of shops in East Dulwich, I dare say they had lots of different communities to choose from, and they chose ours.

:)

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

    • The current wave of xenophobia is due to powerful/influential people stirring up hatred.  It;'s what happened in the past, think 1930s Germany.  It seems to be even easier now as so many get their information from social media, whether it is right or wrong.  The media seeking so called balance will bring some nutter on, they don't then bring a nutter on to counteract that. They now seem to turn to Reform at the first opportunity. So your life is 'shite', let;s blame someone else.  Whilst sounding a bit like a Tory, taking some ownership/personal responsibility would be a start.  There are some situations where that may be more challenging, in deindustrialised 'left behind' wasteland we can't all get on our bikes and find work.  But I loathe how it is now popular to blame those of us from relatively modest backgrounds, like me, who did see education and knowledge as a way to self improve. Now we are seen by some as smug liberals......  
    • Kwik Fit buggered up an A/C leak diagnosis for me (saying there wasn't one, when there was) and sold a regas. The vehicle had to be taken to an A/C specialist for condensor replacement and a further regas. Not impressed.
    • Yes, these are all good points. I agree with you, that division has led us down dangerous paths in the past. And I deplore any kind of racism (as I think you probably know).  But I feel that a lot of the current wave of xenophobia we're witnessing is actually more about a general malaise and discontent. I know non-white people around here who are surprisingly vocal about immigrants - legal or otherwise. I think this feeling transcends skin colour for a lot of people and isn't as simple as, say, the Jew hatred of the 1930s or the Irish and Black racism that we saw laterally. I think people feel ignored and looked down upon.  What you don't realise, Sephiroth, is that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think that looking down on people because of their voting history and opinions is self-defeating. And that's where Labour's getting it wrong and Reform is reaping the rewards.   
    • @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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