Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Otta Wrote:

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

> James didn't post anything particularly personal

> and certainly not offensive. People just quick to

> jump on anything.


It was personal information . James Barber did the right thing to delete it from his post .

robbin Wrote:

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

> Next to a butchers? I won't be going there!

> Imagine sitting outside on a nice warm day having

> a coffee with the stench of death wafting over

> you.


Oh come now, some of the people in the queue for Rose's are quite young.

edhistory Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > James didn't post anything particularly

> personal

>

> You would post something like this about one of

> your clients?

>

> John Kennedy



Unless I missed something, I never saw anything that I thought was out of order or told me anything about these people that would help me to identify them.

I think JB wasn't wildly out of order but given who owns it is a matter of public record, some of the medical type information that was disclosed was not appropriate for a public forum. I would share that information with an individual casually but I was surprised to see it posted on the internet about someone.


Just sayin'....


Anyway, he thought about it and removed it, which is fine. We all misjudge things at times (I know I do!)

Otta Wrote:

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

> Unless I missed something, I never saw anything

> that I thought was out of order or told me

> anything about these people that would help me to

> identify them.


I don't think the concern was about identifying someone per se. There was a disclosure relating to personal sensitive data as set out in the Data Protection Act 1998.

Maybe rather than focusing on the little old ladies house working out the when/how it will be made pretty we should be discussing the real eyesore of the old police station.


That ugly building has a far greater impact on Lordship Lane and I would say 124 even in its less than ideal state is more attractive :)

HI Robbin,

I didn't, I needed to tweak my post slightly and was short of time.


I've contacted, and they've agreed in principle, the person who owns this sites representative for volunteers to tidy up the front. But have yet to agree the details. One idea is to see it perhaps we could get the street artists project to help with this which could be amazing.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> One idea is to see it perhaps

> we could get the street artists project to help

> with this which could be amazing.


Nice idea, James. (inevitably some people would complain, but it has to be an improvement!)

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

    • Callout for help from any local experts here. Looking to find out more about the history of the property on the corner of Whateley Road and Ulverscroft road (with the green glazed bricks). Now a residential property, i'm told it was a bottle shop in days gone (the house was built around 1900) by and i'd like to learn more about the history of the business that was once here - name, photos, anything at all really! Seems to be very little from open source research so i'm hoping anyone with history in the area can provide any insight!  Starting here before i contact Southwark Archives or similar orgs to get any information and pictures (any advice here also would be welcome). Thank you
    • Portable ramps are available for businesses to use in this sort of situation, aren't they? I don't know whether one would be suitable for use here, or whether they have the space to store one. Lots of people have  permanent or temporary disabilities which mean they have to use crutches or a wheelchair.
    • I can’t remember where I read that figure but this article in the Grauniad from 2023 discusses Ocado results from 2022. The average shopping cart fell to £118 from £129 the previous year. But Ocado lost £500m that year on approximately 20 million orders (circa 400k orders per week). So, averaging out to £25 lost per order. Ocado pauses building new warehouses as annual losses balloon to £500m | Ocado | The Guardian  Obviously, the £500m loss includes various factors. But Ocado has existed for 25 years and only made a small profit in a couple of those years. The rest have been huge losses. Yet it continues to raise funds and speculation sends the share price up and down. In that respect,  it’s like the UK version of Tesla. Meanwhile, the main growth in the supermarket sector has been for Aldi and Lidl, who do not deliver.
    • download-file.mp4  Is this the sort of thing you are after?   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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