Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My wish would be to include the wider area - most of the pubs I go to seem to be outside SE22 for example - and I have posted a possible wider border. And I hate postcode lottery/snobbery/arbitrariness as well!


But, the line has to be drawn somewhere - and if anyone of us does it it's open to all sorts of disagreements. Whereas if you limit it to a postcode the only possible disagreement is "is that right or wrong?"


So, reluctantly, I'm going along with the SE22 definition. And I think Keef's point clinched it "I doubt organisers of a Peckham awards, of Forest Hill awards would allow someone to noninante the Bishop."

LOL *bob*


Still, I quite like James' idea, would be a good competition if you just had one "best neighbouring business" award!


THE DOG, Hoopers, Ganapati, The Hob, The Duke, The Nun's Head (well I did get one non pub in there), the chocolate shop, and so on.

Mark Wrote:

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

As I said before: "The border will be SE22/East

Dulwich only, we have to draw a line somewhere and

the SE22 border seems like the most obvious way to

do it, but we would consider moving it based on

nominations received."


To expand further, say Hoopers gets nominated for

something then we'll include because it's close by

the SE22 border, however if The White Hart in Bath

was nominated then we won't include it because

it's not close by the SE22 border. This seems like

an obvious way to do it to us but please let us

know if you have a better suggestion.


Categories are being decided tomorrow, any more

good suggestions?



Did you all miss this post? :-S It's sorted! :))

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

    • That the leaders of our country are wealthy people comes as a shock to you? How ridiculous.  Why shouldn’t they be living in those houses?  
    • No such thing as a “witch hunt” against a taxpayer funded public figure. Especially someone in charge of finances.    It is the responsibility of a landlord to ensure the agent acting on their behalf has done everything required to validate a tenancy. And to double check that too. Stop justifying it as some sort of ‘oversight’ purely down to the agent.    Also, I’d question the socialist credentials of a Labour chancellor owning a beautiful detached house on a private estate close to the edge of Dulwich Village. Great Brownings, according to some media outlets. What a s**tshow.    Louisa.    https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/dulwich/southwark-faces-calls-to-take-action-against-chancellor-rachel-reeves-who-is-accused-of-breaking-housing-rules-when-renting-out-dulwich-home/
    • Was the property in one the wards Southwark added last November? It would be a bit harsh if it was and Southwark didn’t notify residents and landlords. 
    • Yes it's a witch hunt, but that's what the press does. Optics are almost more important than policy these days. If the public has even a whiff that a government isn't trustworthy, or is chaotic, that feeling lingers like a rotten smell.  It's another comms catastrophe for Labour - every time there's a story they rush out a knee-jerk denial, without verifying the facts. They did it with Raynor and it was a shit-show. That's what Labour keeps getting wrong. Reeves should have been gagged and told by someone with an ounce of sense to first check her emails. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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