TheAllSeeingEye

How ridiculous that the show is Location, Location, Location, and they say they want East Dulwich, so he takes them to see a flat in Streatham. Nice work Phil you fool. Ps, I heard a rumour his property company went into administration in 2008 so Id take any advice he offers with a large pinch of salt.

Causes more problems than it solves ... I also noticed the temporary sign they attached to the lamppost warning of traffic cameras so they can claim its in the name of safety rather than fund-raising. Quick question .. if its for safety/traffic flow why park there where you are causing an obstruction ?? and if its for fund raising, how many people are you likely to catch speeding on the busiest junction in town by a roundabout ?? none. Madness.

I saw the usual red Smart car with periscope parked this morning outside the Black Cherry waiting to catch minor offences, and then saw a huge delivery van park perfectly legally right next to it perfectly blocking the periscopes view of all the traffic and making them redundant for at least half an hour. Haha. Result for all SE22 residents !!

Meld Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > *Bob* Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Did what? > > > > I don't understand. Unless you're somehow > saying > > the house wasn't sold recently? > > > > Please explain?! > > I meant quoting speculation as fact. > > Do we know for sure that the house was in fact > sold recently and for ?700k etc etc or is it one > person speculating who claims to have inside > knowledge about it? Much like on a recent > dangerous dogs thread on here where a full > description of the dangerous dog's owner was > posted by someone who was sure that they knew who > it was - before it transpired that they had the > wrong guy! As a local estate agent, and someone that viewed it, its not speculation. Its also recorded on Allsops Auction website as sold at that figure.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it's slightly odd comparing a means of > transport with basic shelter requirements, but: > > There's a burnt-out car outside, with no wheels, > which hasn't been removed for ten years. > > If you can get it back on the road, make it less > of an eyesore - and make use of it until someone > can be bothered to show and ask for it back - why > not. If you spent ?715,000 on something and someone else got inside against your will wouldnt you too be annoyed ?? and all this eye-sore stuff puzzles me, is the building in someway more visually appealing now they are there ?? no ... its in the same state it was on the day they moved in. Its no more, or less, of an eyesore.

Why is it deemed acceptable to squat anyway ?? There is a car outside I like the look of, if I just got into it and started driving it around without the owners consent would that be ok ?? no. Why is it any different for a property ?? (general question, I dont want all the personal stuff). Really does seem strange. There are places for people deemed homeless, or those that cannot support themselves, without it needing to resort to this ...

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheAllSeeingEye Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > you have been asked to move on > > have they? (other than by people on here, who it > really ahsn't got anything to do with?) Yes, they have, as they admitted somewhere above on the previous pages Im sure. It terms of "it really hasnt got anything to do with ...", it shouldnt have anything to do with the squatters, they shouldnt be there, none of us should have anything to do with it, this situation should not exist.

goosegreenteam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Would you like to point out these holes you seem > so convinced are there? > > Pick your words carefully. > > The Goose Green Squatters. x I see the main hole being its not your property. Someone spent ?715,000 on that property only 9 weeks ago and Im pretty sure they dont have a bottomless pit of money remaining to fight a glorified bunch of scroungers. I have no doubt at all that you are all civilised and intelligent as you mentioned in a previous post, that is by the by. It is not your property and you have been asked to move on, you should do so, otherwise you run the risk of losing the very little sympathy you have.

Dear Squatters, get out. Its not your house. 99% of civilised folk pay their way in life, I fail to see what terrible hardship prevents you doing the same. When I was young, keen to study but poor, I did what most people do, went out, got a job, and worked bloody hard. I suggest you do the same and spend less time on here defending your morally questionable rights and more time earning your keep so you are not a drain on society any longer than you need to be.

If its not illegal it should be, a legal loophole in my opinion. It isnt your property so you should have no rights to be there unless paying an amount set by the owner/landlord.

Milo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheAllSeeingEye Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Is it their house ?? No. I sense someone above > is > > almost approving of the squatting process. > > > I approve of it, houses left unlived in for a long > period should definitely be squatted. Isnt it trespass and therefore illegal ?? yes, it is.

Is it their house ?? No. I sense someone above is almost approving of the squatting process.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Co-op is great. > > Ethical, good value, care about their customers. > > Decent products. > > Were into Fair Trade for all the right reasons, > long before the other supermarkets jumped on the > bandwagon because they thought they would lose > customers if they didn't. > > I think this is a really good thing for East > Dulwich. > > We can't all afford M&S and Waitrose, and I'm > pretty sure the Co-Op will be a lot better than > Somerfield was. Though Somerfield had already > begun to improve considerably of late, with Co-op > brands appearing on the shelves. It'll be the same people working there so cant see it making much difference from that side, but the products and where they source them might alter.

Cant say Im a big fan .. when Im struggling to find a parking space locally and someone who pays no road tax potentially has a space reserved :-(

There's one on Crawthew Grove as well ...

Yawn ... give your money to her then, but to save time you could just give her a tank of petrol.

... and thats the way it should be.

Well, I dont know enough about it, but they have mobile phones and a car, so I would suggest there's something fishy going on. Either way, my money is being stock piled for more needy causes ... and me :-)

I dont question what they spend their money on (although others have), Im just saying, I dont approve of being made to feel guilty when I dont hand over money too them, they are clearly not as poor as they would like us to believe ... and most importantly, they are not homeless yet sell the Big Issue ??

It was probably my initial comment on another thread that prompted this one. Yes, I feel for the homeless. There was a guy that used to sell the Big Issue on Lordship Lane just on a Saturday and he was a lovely guy and always in a positive mood, no matter what the weather, but he appears to have disappeared since Christmas. I would frequently buy from him, and even bought him a cup of tea too as he was by the cafe. Sadly, the BI seelers outside Somerfield cannot possibly be genuine in my opinion. Their total lack of effort at trying to persuade me to part with my hard earned cash, combined with them owning a car, having new-ish clothes on, and the various other bits and pieces mentioned above, make me look at them with disgust rather than sympathy. I just cant imagine they are homeless. Sorry. Harsh perhaps, but they are doing little more than taking the p*ss in my view.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > hpsaucey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Do you mean the ladies outside Somerfield - > are > > they the ones that get into a car at the end of > > the day??? Guess no law against having a car but > I > > don't think I could afford to run one at the > > minute. > > > > xxxxxxx > > People who sell the Big Issue are supposed to be > homeless. > > If they can afford to buy and run a car, then > surely they can't be homeless, can they? > > All-Seeing, are you absolutely sure this is their > car? How do you know? Because I watched them climb into it, then get out again fiddle around in the boot, then climb in it and drive off, ... twice in a week.

I said I want them to focus on safety and not money making, is that a silly statement ??

Im serious, I work on Lordship Lane and everyday I look at them with disgust ... they have also been seen betting in BetFred.

Car with camera watching people - good idea. People it currently targets - bad idea. Focus on safety and not money making. I guarantee the money brought in by the council barely covers the cost of the car, petrol, insurance and salary of the two numpties with their new toy currently prying on the 99% of honest, innocent ED residents.

Nonsense. I stand by my comment, any estate agent in a job now with more than two years experience has been there, survived the redundancies, closures, bad press, hard times, lack of income, 7 day weeks for sod all money, etc and is still going, because they are more than likely to therefore be good at their job, and enjoying their job. Most of the sharks and chancers are long gone ... in ED at least.