Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Pickle Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I hate myself for having taken the bait. Last

> post

> > on this thread.

>

> Ha, me too, but I was bored.


East Dulwich is a very easy place to get bored in / with..


It's exactly what I said.


'The only community would seem to be The EDF.

For some this virtual world is their life line. '


Foxy

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> DulwichFox Wrote:

>

>

> > 'The only community would seem to be The EDF.

> > For some this virtual world is their life

> line.

> > '

> >

> > Foxy

>

>

> My God, you're a gloomy bastard. A positively

> dystopian Orwellian view you seem to have.


Thank you for the compliment. It's the prerogative of the genius in me that surfaces from time to time. :)

I'm usually quiet modest, shy and retiring.



Foxy

Otta Wrote:

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

> Well for what it's worth I think Louisa is spot

> on. This isn't her talking about East Dulwich,

> this is London and if you show her thread to any

> long standing Soho resident I think they'd say

> it's bang on.



Yes but they would also have said it when the PR types in waxed Doc Martins and black 501s moved in to Soho 30 years ago.


It was said in Borough (re-branded as Bankside) before the emergence of Borough 'Farmer's' Market some 20 years back,


Said when they redeveloped the old dock warehouses into yuppie lego-apartments 30 years ago,


Going further back - it was said when the old slums were knocked down and people were moved to New Towns in the 1960s-70s.

I'd like to think if I ever found myself with so little good to say about the area I lived.. SE22, London, wherever - I'd have the cojones to stop carping on about it and find somewhere else to live that suited me better. The world is quite a large place, with experiences to suit all, if you can be arsed.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> steveo Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It's not just London

> >

> >

> http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator-life/spectato

>

> >

> r-life-life/9477362/how-the-big-apple-lost-its-bit

>

> > e/

>

> I can't help wondering if this isn't just old

> people saying 'it's not as good as it was in my

> day'. Scenes move on, fashions and areas change.

> I'm sure if you're a young thing living in New

> York, it's just as full of danger, wonder and

> excitement as that journo remembers it being 'back

> in the day', although the 'hip' places won't be

> the same ones he visited, nor the neighbourhoods.



When it comes to nightlife with loud music (live or not), this really is happening in cities across the world. It's not just about where people can afford to live, it's also about developers building their souless blocks everywhere, and clubs and venues being closed down.

maxxi Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Well for what it's worth I think Louisa is spot

> > on. This isn't her talking about East Dulwich,

> > this is London and if you show her thread to

> any

> > long standing Soho resident I think they'd say

> > it's bang on.

>

>

> Yes but they would also have said it when the PR

> types in waxed Doc Martins and black 501s moved in

> to Soho 30 years ago.

>

> It was said in Borough (re-branded as Bankside)

> before the emergence of Borough 'Farmer's' Market

> some 20 years back,

>

> Said when they redeveloped the old dock warehouses

> into yuppie lego-apartments 30 years ago,

>

> Going further back - it was said when the old

> slums were knocked down and people were moved to

> New Towns in the 1960s-70s.



Yeah you're totally right, I've never argued that places don't change constantly. A lot of my yoof was around New Cross / Deptford, and those places have changed a lot since then.


But, when long standing places disappear and are replaced by dull corporate nightmares, it does get a bit miserable.

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> I'd like to think if I ever found myself with so

> little good to say about the area I lived.. SE22,

> London, wherever - I'd have the cojones to stop

> carping on about it and find somewhere else to

> live that suited me better. The world is quite a

> large place, with experiences to suit all, if you

> can be arsed.


I've worked hard for 40 odd years to buy my home.. Do you really think I'm going to walk

away from where I have lived for my whole life to satisfy the likes of yourself.


No way.. Star - Bob - Star. I'm going nowhere.


DF

'I've worked hard for forty years to buy my home in a place I don't really want to live any more. And I intend to stay here and be a total misery about it until the day I die'


It's not 'to satisfy the likes of myself', you plum! YOU'RE the one who's dissatisfied!



Jesus wept.

I just googled "live music suffers at the hands of gentrification" and there are articles about Sydney, SanFrancisco, New Yprk, Austin and many more.


Young people will (probably) always find a place for music and fun and art. I just think that these places are going to be looking outwards rather than in to the centres of cities.

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> 'I've worked hard for forty years to buy my home

in a place I don't really want to live any more.

> And I intend to stay here and be a total misery

> about it until the day I die'

>

> It's not 'to satisfy the likes of myself', you

> plum! YOU'RE the one who's dissatisfied!

>

>

> Jesus wept.


When have I ever said I don't want to live here anymore.. I've never said that.

I could easily buy a place outright elsewhere and rent out my current gaff for ?2,000 + per month.


I could travel the world. .. or live abroad. but I CHOOSE to live where I live.


Hope that clears things up.


DF

GREAT - so now you've made your bed and 'chosen' the place where you live (having weighed up the options you have, of which you have many) - and decided that this, here, is the place where you want to live, perhaps you could try not to be such a bloody misery about it.

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

    • If you want to look for blame, look at McKinsey's. It was their model of separating cost and profit centres which started the restructuring of the Post Office - once BT was fully separated off - into Lines of Business - Parcels; Mail Delivery and Retail outlets (set aside the whole Giro Bank nonsense). Once you separate out these lines of business and make them 'stand-alone' you immediately make them vulnerable to sell off and additionally, by separating the 'businesses' make each stand or fall on their own, without cross subsidy. The Post Office took on banking and some government outsourced activity - selling licences and passports etc. as  additional revenue streams to cross subsidize the postal services, and to offer an incentive to outsourced sub post offices. As a single 'comms' delivery business the Post Office (which included the telcom business) made financial sense. Start separating elements off and it doesn't. Getting rid of 'non profitable' activity makes sense in a purely commercial environment, but not in one which is also about overall national benefit - where having an affordable and effective communications (in its largest sense) business is to the national benefit. Of course, the fact the the Government treated the highly profitable telecoms business as a cash cow (BT had a negative PSBR - public sector borrowing requirement - which meant far from the public purse funding investment in infrastructure BT had to lend the government money every year from it's operating surplus) meant that services were terrible and the improvement following privatisation was simply the effect of BT now being able to invest in infrastructure - which is why (partly) its service quality soared in the years following privatisation. I was working for BT through this period and saw what was happening there.
    • But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?
    • I am not disputing that the Post Office remains publicly owned. But the Lib Dems’ decision to separate and privatise Royal Mail has fatally undermined the PO.  It is within the power of the Labour government to save what is left of the PO and the service it provides to the community, if they care enough; I suspect they do not.  However, the appalling postal service is a constant reminder of the Lib Dems’ duplicity on this matter. It is actions taken under the Lib Dem / Conservative coalition that have brought us to this point.
    • Hello We are looking for a stroller lightweight pushchair to use on holidays etc. Our son is 18 months. Anyone looking to sell one? Thanks! 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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