Local shops in the Saturday Guardian

[klove]

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/dec/07/support-local-shops-small-business-saturday

William Rose (plus photo) and Franklins farm shop mentioned in an article about the small business Saturday.

[bawdy-nan]

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha "To be honest when we moved here it was a bit rough" describes the William Rose butcher of East Dulwich 8 years ago. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

I was quite bemused at that comment too !

[KidKruger]

What a load of tripe.

I remember how bad it was 10 3/4 years ago - made Angola seem calm..

[Laur]

Having lived here all my life I don't ever recall East Dulwich being "a bit rough".

[Louisa]

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.

[AbDabs]

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.

[davidh]

these things never mention the real lonmg-established giants of lordship lane, the ones nearer goose green

[Louisa]

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.

[Nicholas Spears]

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.

[Louisa]

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.

[Voyageur]

Count yourself lucky you weren't shopping in Crystal Palace on Saturday - Ed Milliband and entourage were out in force.

[Nicholas Spears]

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.

[EDmummy]

Truly offended by Rose's comment. I worked near them when they were in Vauxhsll, now that was rough! Goes to confirm my opinion of them - arrogant!

[Jessie]

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.

[StraferJack]

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

[StraferJack]

And all sorts means just that Jessie

All sorts. You want extra chips with that shoulder?

Between this and the north cross road thread it's a wonder anything good ever comes of anything. Some people moan moan moan

[Jessie]

Ha ha ha the irony of that statement (meaning you don't exactly strike me as mr equanimity, mr jack)

[StraferJack]

Maybe other people get your meaning Jess, but I don't

Care to expand?

[Loz]

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...

[Mick Mac]

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.

[jimbo1964]

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.

[simonethebeaver]

When they came here eight years ago it was very obviously to clean up on the aspirational types knocking around. ED wasn't remotely rough then and they knew it.

[NewWave]

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.

[monica]

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.

:)