Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I really do think he meant rough [around the edges].

It was a bit, a few more empty units, a few more windows covered in whitewash like the old mirror shop, the tyre shop and so on.

It has been a bit more spruced up since.


I'm consistently amazed at how quick people are to take offence, you'd think people enjoy it or something.

Frankly I would rather move to a 'rough round the edges' area and watch it gentrify than move into an already gentrified overpriced area.

As an example until two years ago I had lived my entire life in Notting Hill and North Kensington. In the late 70's and through the 80's It was considered a very sketchy area (I'm not talking about Holland park, that was always 'posh" But around Posrtobello Road, All Saints Road) and many people really weren't happy to come and visit me cos of all the drug dealers and muggings. By the mid 90's the area had begun its transformation and those people who were anti the area were now desperate to move there.

The area I lived in is now unrecognisable and also incredibly bland. I don't care if people say the area was rough in the 80's so what.. I don't take it as an assumption that I am tarred with the same brush as the drug dealers crack heads or muggers just because I lived there then.

I feel people are being incredibly precious and as I stated before who cares about others perceptions all that matters is that you like where you live...that is unless of course you are the kind of person who buys in an area cos its perceived as fashionable or upmarket, not because you actually LIKE it.

Its like people who buy Designer handbags for the name only not because they actually like or suit them.

I'd say the exact opposite. I've lived here for almost 15 years and find the description of ED as 'rough' 8 years ago laughable. It was less chichi than now - no pop up shops for example - but it was a lovely place to live with decent shops and a neighbourhood feel. It makes me wonder what sort of people would have considered it rough. It was already unrecognisable from the Easy Dulwich I first moved to.

It is highly likely that this article was conceived by a local journo, or someone with mates here, who is keen to big up the area. It probably had its origins in more of a "oh look I live in a 'posh' place with an organic butchers" than a full blown serious assessment of the economic development of the area.


And if the butcher wants to talk 'rough spots', then their original spot in Vauxhall was about 1000x grimmer than ED but since they moved has also undergone coffee shop gentrification alongside long-term surviving businesses.

El Pibe Wrote:

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

> If he was born and bread here he probably said it

> was dough in the old days (he said, desperately

> trying to get a tedious circular thread lounged).



Probably baked using the Chorleywood method: "he said it was never rough ...just a bit dull but pleasant."


The middle class sourdough eaters clearly prefer a rougher texture.

Lived here all my life and it was never rough , well apart from

What was Yilmaz and Casablanca but other than that , it was never a no go area .

William Rose came to Dulwich because they knew the people in the area would flock to their shop, and spend their cash on free range and 'organic ' meat .

Maybe he should have used a better description to describe Dulwich as what he meant ( up and coming maybe ?) is not correctly portrayed with the word 'Rough'.

He might have said "rough around the edges", but a sub decided, rather than madly narrowing the kerning on a line, to knock a couple of words off thinking it would retain its meaning, to make the article fit.


I've seen it done *coughs into hand*

I moved to ED from the Walworth Road 20 years ago, so it seemed most definitely un-rough to me, so it's all relative! It's certainly become more posh since then. My 86 year old mother visits frequently and always insists on saying "ooh, it's very up and coming round here" but the truth is that it upped and came quite some time ago.

I spoke to the man in question today at William Rose and he said he was misquoted and never used the word 'rough'.

I told him to pop on here to explain the article . Not sure if he will but he was lovely about it and not happy with how he was misquoted in the Guardian.

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...