Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Rahrahrah wrote: 'So they?re looking for property in ED. What?s the betting that Kirsty and Phil have them looking at properties in Nunhead, Sydenham and Norwood, before finally finding out that they ended up in Beckenham one year later.'


...or Penge.

I'm watching. Jesus Christ. Anyone got a towel to wipe the damp patches away from behind those foolish young ears? How can anyone seriously look at a below average property you have to pay a ridiculous price for in an average area. Oh well, takes all sorts of people to keep the world spinning.


Louisa.

Where exactly do you suggest they live for one of these above average London properties for "reasonable prices" in an average area? They are hardly naive just because London is expensive...



Louisa Wrote:

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

> I'm watching. Jesus Christ. Anyone got a towel to

> wipe the damp patches away from behind those

> foolish young ears? How can anyone seriously look

> at a below average property you have to pay a

> ridiculous price for in an average area. Oh well,

> takes all sorts of people to keep the world

> spinning.

>

> Louisa.

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Where exactly do you suggest they live for one of

> these above average London properties for

> "reasonable prices" in an average area? They are

> hardly naive just because London is expensive...

>

>


I suggest they stay in the suburbs and commute in, which is what they're doing anyway. Rather than jumping the Home Counties trendy bandwagon into zone 2/3 and super inflating inner London prices and forcing existing locals with family roots to be priced out of buying where they grew up! Just saying.


Louisa.

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> That makes no sense, but you already know that.

> You say they are naive to buy where they want to

> live because other people want to live there too

> (who you deem more deserving)?


What I'm saying is you don't have to live somewhere just because you like it, especially if it means paying through the nose for it and forcing existing locals out of the market. Example - I love Mayfair, it is amazing. Brilliant place to visit and maybe even work in (just a guess no experience). I know I can't afford to live there, unless I want to invest in a dustbin minus the lid, which I'm not keen on doing. Therefore, I visit the area, but know it would be ridiculous to consider buying there on my budget. The same applies to the Home Counties trendies, they love the edgy vibe of inner London and possibly want to work and socialise there. Well, why not stay in the Home Counties, do all that stuff you love to do in London, and buy a cheaper property which is larger in the area you grew up. It stops this hyper inflation property bubble in London and means that people who grew up around here have half a chance at being able to buy in the area where they have their roots.


Louisa.

The Mayfair example doesn't match up because these buyers can afford to move some place they like better than where they are now. People using their money to live where they like isn't surprising or unreasonable (or even a new phenomena as its been happening for centuries). What you suggest is being tied to the area you were born in like in feudal times.

That's subjective LondonMix. I personally wouldn't describe the particular locations as any better than where they came from. The reasons for these people moving are of course varied, but overwhelmingly they want to live near where they work or WANT to work. And they want to live near a trendy inner city vibe. You can't force people not to buy somewhere else, but people moving en mass into areas has caused and continues to cause friction. Whole villages in Cornwall are left abandoned out of the year by second home invaders who destroy local communities. The post war migration (much of it forced) OUT of bombed slums of inner-London to new towns in Essex, Hertfordshire et al caused friction and cultural disenfranchisement with the newly inhabited communities. Much the same is now happening in zone 2/3 London. Local people are simply unable to buy because prices are rising ridiculously above the national average and cash rich buyers are swomping the market from outside. You only need to look at 'Prime London' where whole blocks of flats and houses are bought by foreign investors and left empty for years.


Louisa.

I didn't say better, I said a place they "like better" which is self-evident and could be for any reason.


Its sad, for whatever reason, when people can't live where they would like to (because its been destroyed by bombs or because its become too expensive). Its also sad when a once thriving area dies because its population abandons it for better opportunities. Its also unfortunate when people are hostile to "new people" moving into an area.


Movement and change are part of life and there is good and bad that goes along with that. Saying these kids should stay where they come from or saying they are naive is just silly though.

Whether or not you think prices in East Dulwich/Forest Hill are too high, if you watched the programme, they wanted to move as they were spending 4 hours/day commuting and had no time for socialising with their friends or spending any time together as a couple. Staying where they were didn't seem to be an option.

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

    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
    • Another recommendation for Silvano. I echo everything the above post states. I passed first time this week with 3 minors despite not starting to learn until my mid-30s. Given the costs for lessons I have heard, he's also excellent value.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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