Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Administrator Wrote:

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

> Odds-on that it will get Lounged soon


Personally, I'd rather you keep it there and use a heavy hand to remove any posts that don't meet the criteria. Things like that (from whatever political party/candidate) are just what the forum should encourage, IMHO.

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Loz, stop it.


You first. You were asked (nicely) by the admin to stick to local questions and you ignored them. If I was admin I'd have zapped your posts in a millisecond. And banned you from the thread.


And I hope he/she does. It is the least you deserve.

Yes but you are not admin are you, so why are you behaving as though you are?


In what way were my questions not relevant? They relate to a very serious issue for those people in ED and West Norwood currently affected by those policies and trust me those people DO exist. It's not a world you have to deal with perhaps, but don't tell me I can't raise those questions, when the current sitting MP is dealing with such cases every week.


ED is not a nice little cosy enclave, spared of such misfortune. And it's exactly the attitude of people like you trying to sweep these people under the carpet that stifles any kind of honest discussion. Is this Conservative candidate going to speak for them, as the current MP does? I think they'd like to know, don't you?

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> Who were you before you were Blah Blahon the

> forum? You sound familiar.


My thoughts exactly AM as I said on another thread.


http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1425644


People becoming different people becoming different people is getting SO TEDIOUS.


If it's because you've been banned, keep up the good work & I'm sure history will repeat itself.

Because they say you remind them of someone? Well I thought the same thing yesterday.


Not saying you are the person you reminded me of, but a couple of your posts rang familiar to me. Not entirely sure how that would make me seem like a 5 year old.

Actually fuck it. How do I delete my account? I can't seem to do it.


My friends did warn me about this forum - it has a shit reputation for smug cliquey bullying by the way. Don't kid yourselves that decent people don't see it for what it is. Two days have been long enough to find out what a bunch of smug tossers some of you are. I've far better things to do with my time than waste it trying to reason with paranoid anonymous bullies.


Have a nice little life Aquarius Moon.

Otta Wrote:

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

> I actually thought Aquarius Moon's post above was

> a pretty out of order,


I disagree. I welcome new posters & have nothing against anyone changing usernames for genuine reasons.


However I have no time for people who pretend to be new when by their manner of posting it is obvious that they've been here before.

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Actually @#$%& it. How do I delete my account? I

> can't seem to do it.

>

> My friends did warn me about this forum - it has a

> shit reputation for smug cliquey bullying by the

> way. Don't kid yourselves that decent people don't

> see it for what it is. Two days have been long

> enough to find out what a bunch of smug tossers

> some of you are.


This doesn't ring true. You were forwarned about the forum but you couldn't see what it is until you joined and in two days the place is full of smug tossers. Sounds like you joined up just to say that really.

For what it's worth I have some sympathy with Blah Blah's comments. I've met people locally who told me they won't go into the Lounge because of it, so I think he (I'm assuming it's a he) has a point, whether or not he's a new user, a reincarnation, someone who's created a profile just to say this - or just another wind-up.

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

    • I was also woken by this. It happened in two bursts, which felt even more anti social.
    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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