Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If Louisa and DF had their way, every shop front down Lordship Lane would look like that.


I agree though, just one shop front like that doesn't bother me. Whoever lives there has to put up with the stench of dead animal from the one side and dry cleaning chemicals from the other, so I'd be inclined to cut them some slack!


But then again, who actually knows why the building is like that? - it could be the old lady, or some grasping relative, or something completely different.

Ms Blueberry Wrote:

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

> I've privately been made aware of the situation

> and it's not as innocent as a nice little old lady

> exercising her 'live and let live' rights.

>

> It's about another person trying to making as much

> money as possible at the expense of the community,

> your community.

>

> However, there's nothing to be done here. So

> enjoy 124 in its current state while it lasts.


Perhaps you could tell us more, Ms Blueberry?

robbin Wrote:

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

> If Louisa and DF had their way, every shop front

> down Lordship Lane would look like that.


Why did you find it necessary to include your little snide comment..?


It was totally unnecessary and uncalled for.


I respect the area I have lived in for the majority of my life..


Then you go on to add that the state of the place doesn't bother you..


DulwichFox

Ms Blueberry's original post was rather over-the-top, but nevertheless I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to prevent their properties falling into complete decay.


"not derelict"? Well it bloody looks it, and has done for at least 15 years. If I lived nearby it would bother me. And if I was the owner/tenant/landlord/greedyrelative/etc, I would be embarrassed.


If it really is a penniless little old lady living there, then why not ask for some volunteers to tidy it up?

Agree with Jeremy.


Also, I do love the way that people create a narrative to fit their position. One minute it's a poor defenseless old lady fighting against a tide of vicious gentrifiers, the next it's undisclosed dark forces of greed and corruption. Does anyone actually know the true situation?

Don't think I have used the term blow-in. Might of slipped the term in somewhere incidently.

Had never heard the term until seeing it on here.


So don't know if it's a blow-in but Lush Designs sells things that are nice and useful...

... and not taking over something that was already there. Its designs are unique.


Where else on L.L. could I buy a Foxy mug and Tea Towels. ?


Foxy

It would be wrong to assume anyone is penniless in this situation.


It may also be wrong to assume the owner is aware of the state of the shop. I am giving the owner the benefit of the doubt and will assume that if she saw the place now, she would be mortified.


Greed of others is behind the decay, and decay spreads easily. We are all responsible for the community we live in. Good community fights the rot.

I don't know what James Barber posted (as it appears to have been removed), but assuming it was the name of the registered owner of the land then I think you should lay off him, because that would not be confidential information - it is in the public domain, available to all on any search at the Land Registry. I could find out online in 30 seconds who the registered proprietor is, provided the land is registered.

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

    • In what way? Maybe it just felt more intelligent and considered coming directly after Question Time, which was a barely watchable bun fight.
    • Yes, all this. Totally Sephiroth. The electorate wants to see transformation overnight. That's not possible. But what is possible is leading with the right comms strategy, which isn't cutting through. As I've said before, messaging matters more now than policy, that's the only way to bring the electorate with you. And I worry that that's how Reform's going to get into power.  And the media LOVES Reform. 
    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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