Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Diversity is of benefit to ecosystems - but when one species begins to dominate, the whole system may become unstable.

The Pallid Parentum Importantisme (Triwheelus Thrustus), regularly seen on a Saturday morning fouling the pavements of Lordship Lane or being chased out of shops by broom wielding assistants in Northcross Road, is a species in point. Possibly damaged during the reproduction process, this mutation typically displays a lack of awareness of its surroundings and its young offspring are largely abandoned in the wild, relying on other breeds to rejoin them with the parent.

The species is attracted by glistening objects ? particularly small rectangular shiny pieces of plastic which they cleverly use as tools to introduce redundant goods and services and inflate prices in their environment. As their numbers increase and their shrill cries dominate the landscape, other animals become reluctant to leave their immediate habitats at the weekend.


There may be several solutions to this imbalance.

The species? natural predator is the Hooded Yobbus (Watchewlookinat). Flocks of these could be caged in the old Walsh Glazing building and let out at times of infestation. However, they otherwise do not seem to thrive naturally in ED conditions.

Alternatively, culling or relocation may be considered. Herds of the species could be lured into Caf? Nerd just before it is boarded up by Southwark Planning. Any survivors could be relocated around the northern end of Rye Lane, an ecosystem that has great need of them.


Any other solutions?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/672-wildlife-on-lordship-lane/
Share on other sites

bromide in the water system.


if it had been done 5 years ago i might be enjoying things such as sleep, house space, disposable income and the ability to live somewhere other than within 4.2 metres of a good school - whatever that is.


oh, and i would have been able to shop in ED deli, which i'm prohibited from doing at present.

Spotted loitering at the corner of Matham Grove Lordship Lane Sunday around noon - the v.rare Polici Officus (m). Perhaps a few more of them might be able to chase Hooded Yobbus (Watchewlookinat) away. Perhaps they could engage sevices of Commumiticous Supporti Officus (beautiful bright red plummage) to help them.


citizen

ok, very witty and all that, but really! This, like so many threads (am thinking 'things I dislike about ED' for example)is just an excuse for coded attacks on mothers and the working class (the latter a rare species soon to be priced out of the area). Yes, women have children, yes these children while young need to be transported in a buggy (less bulky than old prams). It is never fathers that are sniped at for having children, anyone want to have a go at explaining why not?! Without people having children, society wouldn't continue (do I really have to say this?), those writing these sorts of misanthropic threads may not have children now, but who knows, may throw caution to the wind and have some one day....

As for the coded jibes about 'chavs', and 'white vans', why not say what you really mean, we all know what you're thinking.

Nothing coded about it 'galvin': albicans means white.


By having that chunky car park, the Plough is encouraging drink driving, and plenty there seem to indulge.


When I saw the state of the entire frontage on Saturday, I was very glad I wasn't out and about the previous night.

Galvin


I'm sure as this thread devlops there will be many a latin label for the rest of the demographic (Duranis Duranis - a now thirty/fortysomething white middle-class person who still thinks they are 21 as an-off-the-top-of-my-head-bad-example)


Personally I don't think many people have problems with mothers (or fathers) or the "working class" - but I think that if any parent decideds that JUST because they have a child they think it's clever and big to spend an average weeks working salary on a buggy wider than the average ED pavement just to display their parenthood then they do become the target of a little ridicule - I wouldn't worry about it, it doesn't seem to discourage anyone having babies


As for references to "chavs" et al - there are some people in this world who do equate any working class person as such and that is poor form. There are many middle-class people on this forum but also plenty working-class and definitely lot's of brought-up-workingclass (and the odd poshie too!) - it's a big tent (for ?80) and one of the reasons I like coming here. But to paraphrase Chris Rock, if I get mugged on the way home it's not going to be by a member of the WI - it will be someone with the uniform we know and love and that's why people who wear the usual caps/trackies etc run the risk of being labelled. I don't think they are labelled just because they are working class (plenty of working class people choose to not wear those clothes. And yes I know that wearing them doesn't automatically make you anything)

galvin Wrote:

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

Yes, women have children, yes these

> children while young need to be transported in a

> buggy (less bulky than old prams). It is never

> fathers that are sniped at for having children,

> anyone want to have a go at explaining why not?!

>


Just to point out, nowhere in his initial post does jackangel specify women, just a particular breed of parent.

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

    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
    • The minimum wage hikes on top of the NICs increases have also caused vast swathes of unemployment.
    • Exactly - a snap election will make things even worse. Jazzer - say you get a 'new' administration tomorrow, you're still left with the same treasury, the same civil servants, the same OBR, the same think-tanks and advisors (many labour advisors are cross-party, Gauke for eg). The options are the same, no matter who's in power. Labour hasn't even changed the Tories' fiscal rules - the parties are virtually economically aligned these days.  But Reeves made a mistake in trying too hard, too early to make some seismic changes in her first budget as a big 'we're here and we're going to fix this mess, Labour to the rescue' kind of thing . They shone such a big light on the black hole that their only option was to try to fix it overnight. It was a comms clusterfuck.  They'd perhaps have done better sticking to Sunak's quiet, cautious approach, but they knew the gullible public was expecting an 24-hour turnaround miracle.  The NIC hikes are a disaster, I think they'll be reversed soon and enough and they'll keep trying till they find something that sticks.   
    • Totally agree with you.  🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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