Jump to content

Ron70

Member
  • Posts

    179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ron70

  1. EDmummy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The American van and the hog roast were there when > I went past plus the cake and vege food stall > (they were really struggling with wind). I think > most traders took the right decision. I'm sure > they're sorry not to have risked their livelihood > so Ron70 et al could have their fresh > pasta/cheese/salami/olives/pies/trinkets for one > w/e What are you talking about? At what point did I say that I wanted traders to risk their lives because I was missing out on food and trinkets? What a ridiculous thing to say. Congratulations, you have just wound me up more in one post than anyone else has managed since I first looked at this forum. What I actually said was - "Just been down North Cross Road, where did the Sat market go? :-("
  2. Yeah maybe it's the wind but it does seem to have a died a death over the last few weeks / months...
  3. Just been down North Cross Road, where did the Sat market go? :-(
  4. DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ron70 Wrote: > > > So just to be clear, the more posts you've > made > > on this forum, the more relevant your posts > are? > > Ron70 thinks this doesn't make sense! > > > > Ron70 (not very many posts, therefore, clearly > > irrelevant) > > Nothing to do with relevance.. > Was explaining to XIX that threads do have a > tendency to drift off subject. > That was all. No need for another debate. > > DF This will be my only comeback, the reason I feel the need to respond is that you seem very keen to attack others: (And you are ??? 4 posts ??) but then take offence when anyone questions anything you say? Referring to yourself in the third party is also a little strange..
  5. DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > XIX Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dulwichfox and Ladydeliah, > > > > PLEASE do us all a favour and PM each other > from > > now on (or start another thread somewhere else) > if > > you would like to continue your mindless debate > > about each others posts or human rights etc > etc. > > It is not related to the subject of this > > discussion thread. > > And you are ??? 4 posts ?? > > When you have been here a little longer, you will > realise most Threads have a tendency to drift off > topic. > Just as in normal conversation where one topic of > conversation leads to another. > > Have a nice day. > > So just to be clear, the more posts you've made on this forum, the more relevant your posts are? Ron70 thinks this doesn't make sense! Ron70 (not very many posts, therefore, clearly irrelevant)
  6. LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He said he would like it to be a school. There is > a big difference... Hate to say I told you so but.....
  7. Urrmmm... Hate to repeat myself and I hope he's wrong, however, Cllr James Barber seems fairly confident that it's gonna be a school.. Just saying!
  8. I'm pretty sure there's a thread somewhere on this Forum where James Barber has stated that the site will be redeveloped as a school?
  9. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > keeping a dog in the city is generally > > antisocial > > > > > > That's a bit OTT. Many would argue the > opposite. > > OK. I casually overstated it. That said... my > guess would be that a large number of people will > have been kept awake by a barking dog at some > point, trodden in their sh*t, or been intimidated > by an aggressive canine whilst in a public place. > I would also bet that a significant number of > ?urban dogs? don?t get two walks a day, don?t have > enough company during working hours, or sufficient > space to run around in. Of course there are a > majority of responsible owners, but unfortunately > there is no restrictions on who can buy a dog. > > Is is generally undesirable to have (at least > large) dogs in a modern, densely populated city? > It is a strange quirk of history / culture that we > don?t think it weird. Should someone want to keep > a similar sized animal in a small flat, or > terraced house (such as a pig, or a sheep) we?d > probably question their good sense and it?s > potential to cause a nuisance, more freely. > > Dogs are bred to have characteristics we find > pleasing and that are tradable (even where it > leads to health problems for the animal). They're > bought for many reasons (fashion, or > companionship) but fundamentally for the owners' > pleasure, no one elses. We all do things for the > benefit of ourselves of course, sometimes causing > inconvenience to others ? but let?s not pretend > it?s anything else... It?s not socially beneficial > to keep animals as pets. > > That said, I wouldn?t want dogs banned, of course > not. It would be good if people were generally a > bit more conscious of how they affect others > though. Most of the time, when a dog has jumped up > at me whilst I?ve been out running or started > licking my face as I sit in their owners home - > I?ve been told things like ?he?s just saying > hello?, or ?ah, he?s giving you a kiss?. Well no, > no he is not giving me a kiss, he is being poorly > controlled by someone who irrationally personifies > their pet. This statement is up there amongst the most ridiculous things I've read for some time: - Do you have any evidence to back up your "assumptions" on dogs getting enough walks or having enough room? - How does our relationship with dogs have anything to do with "a strange quirk of history"? - I was going to address all of the unfounded and subjective comments that you've posted but I can't be bothered... Unbelievable!
  10. Ron70 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I heard a RUMOUR last night that it could be > > another hairdressers. That really would be a > crap > > addition to a road with a couple of > hairdressers > > already in it. > > > I heard Starbucks!! Before the whole forum goes into meltdown.... I'm joking :-)
  11. Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I heard a RUMOUR last night that it could be > another hairdressers. That really would be a crap > addition to a road with a couple of hairdressers > already in it. I heard Starbucks!!
  12. tallulah71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > edcam - whoever "manages" the market can be > contacted at Southwark. Do you really think that > you will meet with them at their offices and voice > your complaints about how "rubbish" the market is > (for you)? > > You have no clue...I too look forward to your > conversation with the market manager.....;) Talulah, You are rapidly becoming my favourite EDF poster :-)
  13. lane lover Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > llyamah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It would also be pretty poor form on the part > of > > the EA to refuse. A good EA will want to build > > relationships in the area in the hope of > getting > > future business. > > From my experience, real estate agents base their > business on a one-shot game, especially when it > comes to buying. > > They generally arent intelligent enough to realise > the same person may give them repeat business in > the future. > > Thats why they are real estate agents. - That just made me laugh out loud... 😄
  14. edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ron70 Wrote: > Would you be > > willing to discuss face to face your opinions > with > > one of the market stall holders which(in your > > words)are "pretty rubbish"? If so, I'll bow > out... > > > I don't think that would achieve much but a > conversation with whoever "manages" the market > would be constructive. I look forward to seeing the results of your efforts, post conversation.
  15. edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ron70 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > I'm not sure it's an agenda to keep house > pricing > > down (if it is, it won't work) it's just > slightly > > depressing that some people who (presumably) > live > > in ED have nothing positive to say on this > forum. > > If one of the stall holders has in some way > > "wronged" you then fair enough, however, if > thats > > not the case, writing negative comments about > the > > market in general, can have an adverse effect > on > > people who are just trying to earn a living. If > > you don't like the market (I do) you don't have > to > > go... > > > A curious assessment. What's wrong with > expressing an opinion on the forum? Not too many > people with any sense would take too much of it > seriously. However, just because something's > there doesn't mean everyone has to think it's > amazing. NC Market has huge potential but the mix > of stalls could be examined more closely and the > market would improve vastly as a result. Some of > the food stalls are good and there is room for > good specialist food there once a week but the > non-food stalls are largely pretty rubbish. > Personally I'd like to see all the tat stalls gone > and have it all as specialist food, kind of a mini > Borough Market. I think that could do really well > and make it more of a landmark/destination market. I don't really want to get into an argument about this, however, I'm pretty sure I never said that there was anything wrong with posting a comment on this forum! Lots of people post on here knowing full well that they will never be held to account for the fall out from their posts. Would you be willing to discuss face to face your opinions with one of the market stall holders which(in your words)are "pretty rubbish"? If so, I'll bow out...
  16. lane lover Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ron70 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yet again, another thread which has turned into > a > > slating of all things East Dulwich. I can not > > understand why people who seem to have nothing > but > > contempt for this area live here? > > > > Ron70 > > Agree. It seems there is an agenda to keep house > prices down. I'm not sure it's an agenda to keep house pricing down (if it is, it won't work) it's just slightly depressing that some people who (presumably) live in ED have nothing positive to say on this forum. If one of the stall holders has in some way "wronged" you then fair enough, however, if thats not the case, writing negative comments about the market in general, can have an adverse effect on people who are just trying to earn a living. If you don't like the market (I do) you don't have to go...
  17. Yet again, another thread which has turned into a slating of all things East Dulwich. I can not understand why people who seem to have nothing but contempt for this area live here? Ron70
  18. first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > uncleglen, > > wouldn't it just be easier to ask them to pick > up? > > Don't know if you were in Peckham Rye yesterday > morning but someone had dumped and strewn toilet > paper and tissues all around and inside the > Japanese summerhouse as well as into the stream. A > fair bit was scrunched up so had possibly been > used. I have a solution for this, ban people! (As ridiculous an idea as banning dogs)
  19. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > keeping a dog in the city is generally antisocial - Care to elaborate?
  20. thejournalist Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This happened to me yet again a couple of nights > ago on Landells road. About 4th or 5th time since > December. Called police out last time, but they > were useless. Just kept banging on about how great > CCTV is. I did say that wouldn't have stopped it, > to which they said it would act as a deterrent and > make them 'move on to the next street'. Great > policing yeah. So why is giving you advice on how to prevent your property being targeted not good policing? If the criminals move on to the next street whose occupants do the same as you the problem eventually leaves the area... How else do you realistically expect to reduce crime?
  21. EPB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wouldn't it be lovely if we could have music every > Saturday? You're right, the music made it, that's what's missing from the normal Saturday market. They have music (in various forms) every week at the Herne Hill market which is amazing... Come on East Dulwich!! 🎵
  22. uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In January East Dulwich was 9th in this list > http://news.sky.com/story/1042613/revealed-the-top > -20-burglary-black-spots. > Brighton had a 45% increase in burglaries in one > year. > It's about time the govt introduced some real > deterrent sentencing. I think if you were to look in to the rates of recidivism for those convicted of burglary you would probably think again on "real deterrent sentencing" being the best option. Primary crime prevention is the solution, if you make your property and subsequently your area unattractive to the potential burglar, they will go elsewhere... Admittedly this will only lead to the displacement of the problem to another area, however, if everyone were to take this fairly straightforward approach, crime rates would drop... Fact
  23. DrinkingBuddy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A cinema in that space seems entirely out of > proportion to the space and without suitable > public transport links, such that parking for > local residents is likely to become even harder. > > The Ritzy is right by the tube, train and multiple > bus lines, whilst this location has just three bus > routes all going to the same stop. > > What measures are going to be taken to ensure that > the surrounding streets are not clogged up? We > already have extremely heavy non resident usage > due to the proximity to North Cross and the shops > on Lordship Lane as well as the thoughtlessness of > some of the local businesses parking excessive > amounts of vehicles and using public streets as > some sort of extension to their storage and > manufacturing requirements. Yes we should prevent any progress whatsoever in East Dulwich so as to maintain convenient parking for local residents. If you're a local who doesn't own a car and uses public transport... Tough!
  24. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's a real shame regarding the Lambeth hangers > - I believe the lack of secure, on-street parking > for bikes really reduces take up. Most people > either don't have the room to store their bike > inside, don't have a garden / shed, or else can't > be bothered carrying a bike through the house > twice a day. It's interesting that cars aren't > considered 'street clutter' despite the fact that > one car takes up enough space for half a dozen > bikes. These "Lambeth Hangers" look like a great idea. Difficult to see why Southwark council would discount them as an option while spending ?285,000 on improving the cyclists lot? Ron70
  25. Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please make this thread stop oh higher power! I > feel as though I'm trapped in a never ending 7 > year night terror. > > Louisa. If people stopped posting here this thread would stop... Fact! Ron70
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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