Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Jaw-dropping Brixton description in blog

Stereotypes are the tools of the dangerous but are only believed by the foolish.
Sadly there are a lot of foolish people around and journalists know this.
To be honest, I don't think Sophie Armour has that level of perception. She's deeply shallow. There's a really good Italian word that describes her archetype but sadly I've forgotten it.
 
It's driving me mad that I can't remember it. It has no direct translation. It means someone who is so self-obsessed and lacking in empathy they are unaware of anything beyond the tip of their nose.
 
Since so many people are upset by what I wrote on my blog back in January and February, I think I'd best explain myself.

The Rest Is History article was anti-Waitrose, saying that it would be a terrible shame to replace a great pub with a posh supermarket.

I can understand why the line, "an area largely resided in by council tenants and people poor enough to think Iceland is fantastic" might offend, and looking back on it I realise it ought to have been made more clear in the article that I am actually referring to people like myself. I live on a council estate in Brixton, and I am poor enough to think Iceland is fantastic.

I was trying to say that, for people like myself, a Waitrose would be useless. As I say at the end of the article, "What is being lost is a music venue, a non-chicken-shop eatery, an art gallery, and a decent place for drinking, dancing and conversation that scarcely ever caused any trouble. A pretentious supermarket hardly seems like a fair trade."

As for the Prince Albert, that was a positive review. The only negative comment I made was that "this was the sort of place you’d go to when you can’t afford anywhere better". On reflection this seems unjustifiably harsh, but it was only meant to mean that it's a good place for a cheap night out. I thought the pub was great.

Some of you have taken the comment, "The clientele was incredibly varied," out of context and been insulted by it. I'd like to point out that this was one of the positives of the place, as the rest of the sentence explains: "The clientele was incredibly varied, which made a nice change from the Rest Is Noise’s art student-dominated crowd".

As for my background, I went to an ordinary state comprehensive school.

I have deleted the articles because they have caused so much offence, and that was never my intention.
 
Offence, not offense and it was your sneering about people who shop in Iceland. And going to a state comprehensive doesn't preclude you from being a crashing snob. Plus we're not stupid, it wasn't anti-Waitrose, it was anti-poor.
 
Oh for goodness sake, she wrote a few 'reviews' on the internet... at best badly worded and ill-conceived, at worst somewhat naive and conceited. She didn't tap the phone of murdered children or put hundreds of people out of a job. Calm down everyone.
 
I've lived here for a very long time and I love Brixton and most of the people who live here. I'm normally a pretty sweet kindly granny who doesn't get into rows, but when I do, I'm fearsome. Really fearsome. I don't take kindly to people who indulge in lazy stereotyping of the place and people I love, and you have really riled me. You need to learn that people who live in social housing on low incomes aren't stupid or inarticulate.
 
She's a student. By definition she's still learning that profession. And, at 20, she's still learning about life. I'd say this has been a good lesson, but it's surely enough already.
 
If she'd learned her lesson she wouldn't be wriggling and self-justifying herself the way she has. If she'd posted something truly contrite (preferably on her blog too) then I'd forgive and forget the sneering stuff she wrote.
 
Offence, not offense and it was your sneering about people who shop in Iceland. And going to a state comprehensive doesn't preclude you from being a crashing snob. Plus we're not stupid, it wasn't anti-Waitrose, it was anti-poor.

and ageist, implying that anyone over 32 is old (as in the HDIF review). She obviously doesn't realise you're in your 80s :mad:
 
Dear Sophie, you're wriggling - just as unseemly as your blog.

I disagree. I think it's a fair enough defence. The writing is kind of ambiguous, and I'm quite happy to put it all down to a lack of understanding of the context. The blog posts read a lot like the sort of crap we've seen in the past, but there's nothing in the content that is actually definitively offensive.
 
I was offended and I read the blog posts in their entirety before she deleted them, so not out of context. My lodger was offended by them too and he's so mild-mannered and laid-back he makes me look like Ghengis Khan.
 
Since so many people are upset by what I wrote on my blog back in January and February, I think I'd best explain myself.

The Rest Is History article was anti-Waitrose, saying that it would be a terrible shame to replace a great pub with a posh supermarket.

I can understand why the line, "an area largely resided in by council tenants and people poor enough to think Iceland is fantastic" might offend, and looking back on it I realise it ought to have been made more clear in the article that I am actually referring to people like myself. I live on a council estate in Brixton, and I am poor enough to think Iceland is fantastic.

I was trying to say that, for people like myself, a Waitrose would be useless. As I say at the end of the article, "What is being lost is a music venue, a non-chicken-shop eatery, an art gallery, and a decent place for drinking, dancing and conversation that scarcely ever caused any trouble. A pretentious supermarket hardly seems like a fair trade."

Hello Sophie, let's hope you survive your baptism of fire. Some locals can be outspoken, but you'll find they don't stint on praise when it's deserved.

I am that benefit-claiming council tenant who regularly does a 2-3 bus trek of nearly an hour (that's just in one direction!) to get to the nearest Waitrose. Why? Because IMHO it's worth it.

Not as a main shop, but because their labelling is very clear (important with allergies) and even their ready meals don't have a lot of ingredients which I wouldn't be happy to have in my own kitchen. I also approve of their attempts to make animal produce with higher welfare standards available. Not all the food is more expensive than other supermarkets, and I'd hesitate to call most of it pretentious (they have a cheap range for those who need it), but that's just me.

I love the way that they sell real apples - properly ripe and not all the same size & shape. I love their salads (well, the ones I can have) as a treat for hot days when cooking or even chopping is just too much like hard work. I love the way that the butcher doesn't mind being asked what's in the sausage meat, or being asked for a slightly unusual cut of meat. I love the choice of uncut bread which isn't mainly made using white flour.

IME the staff have never been anything but helpful and polite, even when I've gone in there in the scruffiest of (clean) workwear and on a bad hair day.

Iceland is IMHO okay (not fantastic). I like their large free range eggs, and clear labelling, but their shops are often hellishly busy, there isn't a lot of room to pack without getting in somebody's way, and nearly all the savoury readymade food in there (including the marinated meat & fish) is unusable for me.
 
and ageist, implying that anyone over 32 is old (as in the HDIF review). She obviously doesn't realise you're in your 80s :mad:

Anyone over 32 IS old. I know. I've been old for 22 years, but I still remember being 20 and thinking I'll be past it within a decade. Sometimes I think I was probably right.

There's some big assumptions on both sides. Old and poor are not insulting terms as such. I'm both and proud of it. I even shop at Iceland and think it's brilliant that I can get 2 litres of milk for a quid. I also think the Albert is a great place to spend the evening if you are fairly broke. Admittedly I'm not tremendously interested in great places to spend the evening if you are seriously flush, because I never am.
 
Well for all those defending her, I think this is a lesson to her that she needs to think a bit more before she writes as her tone reminded me of Liz Jones and we don't want another one of her
 
Oh for goodness sake, she wrote a few 'reviews' on the internet... at worst somewhat naive and conceited. She didn't tap the phone of murdered children or put hundreds of people out of a job. Calm down everyone.

This ^^^.

Can someone please explain to me what "Moderator" means?
 
Well for all those defending her, I think this is a lesson to her that she needs to think a bit more before she writes as her tone reminded me of Liz Jones and we don't want another one of her
I'm not defending Sophie. I'm appalled by some of the behaviour on this thread though.

Do you think the lesson should include threats of real-life public verbal humiliation?
 
Back
Top Bottom