Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> To be fair, I think everybody is struggling to

> understand your point! Different people like

> different things, isn't it as simple as that?


It's also about how you make a point. As has previously been said, doing it in a sneery, derisory manner about the place and people that gave you your 'fortune' is never going to win many plaudits...

Parkdrive Wrote:

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

> Seabag Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Parkdrive Wrote:


> > > No she thinks that having a home which looks

> > out

> > > on to rolling hill and countryside, with

> quiet

> > > clean streets, and friendly locals is better

> > than

> > > living in London, with a property overlooking

> > the

> > > property opposite, streets full of litter,

> > > overcrowding, overpricing, ............shall

> I

> > > continue?

> >

> > No please don't, i'm feeling uncomfortable for

> > her/you, and i'm also wondering how much of

> this

> > isn't about "her"

> >

> > I'm also getting the resentful-renter vibe here

> > too

>

> Resentful renter? Are you on glue?


On glue ?


What's that supposed to mean, really ?


The feeling i'm getting is someone who's disenchanted with where they live, which is fine. But if you've invested in an area both structurally and emotionally, then that's at odds with most others who've done the same. It's a good and ever changing area, overall


However, if you're in the position of seeing property values climb beyond your reach, as many people are in London, then that's a different perspective.

I'm also sure that if you took a straw pole of those people who have moved to, or continues to live here, then they'd have a more positive view of their choices, investment and area


And the friend from the rolling hills, she's happy with her lot now I see. Except it seems a bit disingenuous, to have made so much from an investment her family made, only to come back and bad mouth the very place of her good fortune


Are you sure it's not you, projecting your feelings through her ?


Maybe copy her in, then "she" could express her views in person

Leaving aside these conceptually challenging concepts such as 'capital city' and 'rural england' for a moment:


Assuming trading-in a house on Dunstans for a rustic idyll was at least as great a swap twenty years ago as it is now - doesn't that mean she herself was an idiot for many years - right up until the point she wised-up and left the shithole?


Or has she declared herself the last non-idiot to leave town?

So surely just as the city is not for everyone, neither are the rolling hills and agricultural odours of Herefordshire.


I would agree that some people appear to have an over-inflated opinion of ED. But that doesn't mean it's a bad place to live, or that anyone who hasn't cashed in and upped sticks is a mug. If you want to live in London and can't/won't spend over a million for a house... it's as good an option as any.

bob Wrote:

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

> I thought this was about the best boozer in East

> Dulwich ????? Bob S


Erm...it is


And without further ado ..


"The Best Boozer in East Dulwich" goes jointly to...


Jah & Louisa


Jah could I believe, take anyone on and knock 'em down & Louisa in her own words could "drink a pub dry"


Congrats

  • 2 weeks later...

While East Dulwich, West Dulwich and Dulwich Village are separate districts, surely they all fall within the area of Dulwich.


I don't think it's the same situation as somewhere like Hampstead, where "Hampstead" and "Hampstead Village" are synonymous, and South & West Hampstead are considered separate areas. See also Kensington.

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

    • Some suggestions for mandatory action might include:- 1. Permit retailers to display facial images on the premises  of previous offenders at their local store. 2. Sound an alert and display images on screens inside the store when the FR flags up a person entering who is on the national database of shoplifters. 3. Physically bar recognised shoplifters from the premises. Should they attempt to force entry then charges should be pressed under aggravated trespass, which  a criminal offence under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. 4. Change the law to allow retailers to have enhanced powers of citizens arrest. What would you suggest? The UK seems to have the most lenient policy towards shoplifting , probably because of other demands on the police force. On the plus side, they may have more time for it now that non-crime hate incidents will no longer be investigated. Other countries, such as the USA have much more sever punishment as does Singapore where repeat offenders or aggravated cases can be sentenced to up to 3 years in prison, a fine, or both.
    • No, we'd have to be in a police state.  You'd have to get this made law.  Unless it is in Reform's policies.  I'll check. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/live-facial-recognition-technology-to-catch-high-harm-offenders Not government policy
    • There is a sign outside what was Megan's saying that whatever is replacing it will have an "all day concept." What the (expletive deleted) is an "all day concept", and how does it differ from being open all day? For (expletive deleted)'s sake 🙄
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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