Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

...Unless you can suggest a name.

The following thread built up beneath a post advertising a room for rent.

To allow the poster to continue his mission, and in accordance with our user terms, I'm moving the unrelated discussion to this new thread.

I know from some messages I've had that it made some people's blood boil, but it seemed too interesting to lose altogether.

 


 

Reply by Phil K yesterday

No Irish, no straights, no dogs. ;-)

 

Reply by Michael Anderson yesterday

oh grow up

 

Reply by John McMullan yesterday

It's a bit sad that you want him single and after the amazing description I think you only specified "gay man" to prevent women being interested.

 

Reply by Phil K yesterday

Actually John, news that you are looking to relocate has put the fear of God into a lot of people looking for tenants.

Sorry, Jonathan. I should have replaced 'No Irish' with 'No timewasters'

 

Reply by Jonathan Walsh yesterday

Please - this is not a discussion thread.  If you're interested in the room, please reply.  If not please do not.

Thank you.

 

Reply by james walsh yesterday

I hope you get the perfect housemate and you are all happy together. Perhaps though you could be more inclusive in your specifications ? 

 

Reply by vaneska yesterday

If you didn't want a discussion of the wording of your ad then placing it in the gay press would have been the obvious solution.  As it stands - tough titties! 

v

 

Reply by Michael Anderson 22 hours ago

What!!!!

 

Reply by Lauren yesterday

Surely he can specify whatever he likes, it's his house!

 

Reply by John D 5 hours ago

As long as he doesn't try to run it as a B&B.

 

Reply by Jonathan Walsh yesterday

Dear Phil K, Johhn McMullan, James Walsh and Vaneska,

Why haven't you expressed your views to the ad posted yesterday (I have pasted in below at the bottom).  In this ad the person is seeking a "FEMALE LODGER".  Where are your comments about non-inclusivity on this ad?  I see there have been no replies to this person's ad.  Why have you not complained? I don't understand your logic.  I do hope it's because you're not all being selective against me? I expect to see you all personally reply to this lady's ad in the same tone that you've replied to me.  If you don't, then everyone online will see that you are hypocritcal at best, and at worst homophobic.  As I've said, if you're not interested in renting the room, please don't reply.  If you want to start your own threads on whether the person has a right to advertise for what sort of person they prefer to have living in their home then go ahead.  The lady advertising for a female lodger has a right to seek the sort of person she would like, and so do I.

The main reason for me advertising for a gay male, is actually to offer a gay male  he opportunity to take up an offer of good accommodation, without fear of rejection or bias - not that I have to justify anything to you.  Oh and Vaneska - I have advertised it in the gay press.  I've advertised it there, and also here because I have a right to do so, so don't tell me where I can and where I cannot advertise - OK?

Here's the ad below:

Seeking lodger for Lovely Large double size Room (live-in landlord)

Female Live-in Landlord seeking a FEMALE LODGER for an exceptional and beautiful large double room in a house. House is on a quiet road with a garden and has excellent amenities and transport links. 1 months rent in advance and Finders Fee of £49 (this includes for background checks and a lodgers agreement to ensure harmonious living for both parties)

Landlady is keen for lodger to move-in ASAP with viewings this week/weekend

I'm looking forward to all your bad mouthed comments on this lady's ad.  We wouldn't want you to be hypocritical or homophobic now would we?

 

Reply by Kirsty Marks yesterday

Bravo!

 

Reply by Jonny 23 hours ago

People like winding each other up on this forum. Storm in a teacup. 

P.s. many a restaurant in green lanes advertises for "waitresses" or "female staff".  That's a problem.

 

Reply by Sharon 23 hours ago

It's fair enough to advertise in this way, plenty of people live in gay male households, lesbian households,women only households, veggie households,non smoking households, no sense of humour households...;-)

 

Reply by John McMullan 7 hours ago

I haven't expressed my views to the lady who posted looking for a female lodger because I think it's perfectly justified given the record of violence that men have against women. I also don't think her post was as articulate and up for lampooning as yours.

 

Reply by Hugh 6 hours ago

I don't get it, John. What is there to lampoon?

And, can I just check: your last comment implies to me that you think Jonathan is unjustified in making his specific request about a room mate. Have I misunderstood?

 

Reply by Sharon 6 hours ago

I just think it's gentle ribbing, nothing more. The ad was amusingly elaborate.

 

Reply by John McMullan 5 hours ago

Absolutely Sharon and yes it was. It made me think of sitting on the bed playing with the cats. 

Jonathan is not unjustified at all although as I pointed out, a little sad to ask for someone single for such a big room and perhaps only necessary to be so specific to avoid crazy cat ladies after that description.

 

Reply by Sharon 5 hours ago

I can only hope that one day, one day, those silk lined curtains turn up on here in the give away section.

 

Reply by Jonathan Walsh 4 hours ago

Of course gay men are not subject to daily violence are they?  Have you been to Russia recently? Or perhaps a trip to lovely places like Uganda, where they've just stopped short of the death penalty whilst threatening straight people for not reporting a gay person within one day or risk 3 years' imprisonment, or Iran where they hang gay people and chop off their hands.  I have been physically attacked in the street and verbally abused here in London, so don't lecture me or anyone else about your perceived knowledge of the exact figures of violence against women and then chose to ignore voilence against gay men.  Perhaps you'd like to see a picture of the scar I have on my forehead because someone threw a brick in my face several years ago? Is that violent enough for you?

You might be interested in the statistics of domestic violence against men from the NHS Choices Website:

"Men were victims of just over a quarter of incidents of domestic violence in 2010, according to the British Crime Survey. Find out about the signs of domestic violence, and where to get support if it’s happening to you."

And specifically homophobic attacks from statistics compiled by Stonewall:

"This report reveals that one in six lesbian, gay and bisexual people – 630,000 - have been the victim of a homophobic hate crime or incident over the last three years."

Now you've brought up the subject of violence as your reason for not commenting on the lady's ad and as a reason for having a good laugh 'lampooning' mine, I cannot see that you still do not have a valid reason for attacking her ad as well - so please go ahead, as all our online readers would not want to think that you harbour any homophobic feelings by singling my ad out, especially now that I've shown supported evidence that gay people suffer from voilence in equal and unjust amounts just as much as you imagine the lady in the other ad does.

So go on, comment on her ad in the same tone that you've commented on mine - we're all watching....

 

Reply by Sharon 4 hours ago

Very fair comment Jonathon.

 

Reply by John McMullan 4 hours ago

I used to get beaten up and called gay in New Zealand so I do know that goes on. Thanks but I think I'll leave my lampooning to your post, it deserved it.

 

Reply by John McMullan 5 hours ago

Here is why "this lady" is VERY justified in asking for a female lodger. Although I never said that you were unjustified in asking for a single gay man either.

 

Reply by Hugh 4 hours ago

No, John, you haven't said it explicitly, but what you wrote certainly implies to me that you made a value-based judgement. When I read it, I thought that you believe that the female poster's request for a specific house-mate type was justified because of what you see as a valid reason. At the same time, my understanding was that you've made a judgement that Jonathan doesn't have a justifiable reason for specifying a type of house-mate.

You clearly seem to think the female poster was more justified, and given the nature of your comments that Jonathan wasn't justified enough.

Now, all that strikes me as odd since I don't believe that you don't understand what might underpin Jonathan's needs. Was it just a moment of thoughtlessness?

 

Reply by John McMullan 4 hours ago

I explicitly said it was sad he was looking for someone single for such a big room. Especially given the abundance of hot water and number of cats.

 

Reply by Hugh 3 hours ago

That doesn't explain why you feel one poster is justified to specify and another is not.

 

Reply by John McMullan 3 hours ago

He didn't need to give that description AND specify that he wanted a single gay man. I think he added that bit in to avoid a single woman applying. His arguments about being subject to violence, whilst pertinent, don't explain why he would exclude a single woman. Gay friends of mine have been beaten up by their boyfriends too. He's said he's wanting to give a single gay guy a chance to have the room as single men can have issues getting accommodation which is fair enough.

 

Reply by Hugh 3 hours ago

I'm staggered that you feel the need to foist your convoluted judgements on a guy who's just looking for a house-mate.

 

Reply by John McMullan 3 hours ago

Let me rewrite the ad and perhaps you'll see why I thought it was funny.

Wanted: single gay man to share house with X others and 4 cats in a large spacious room in Harringay. A short walk to local shops and transport.

 

Reply by Hugh 3 hours ago

It's not your ad and not your life, John.

 

Reply by Lauren 2 hours ago

John, with respect, you need to back off from this one. He can advertise for whoever he wants to live in his house. He is not accountable to you nor anyone else over this matter. He advertised for a gay man because he wants to live with a gay man. He does not have to explain why. Stop hounding him.

 

Reply by Jonathan Walsh 2 hours ago

I will give exactly the description I want - it's absolutely none of your business what description I give or don't.  I am not an employer bound by EU rules, this is my home and I will state my preference for the most suitable person. I'm not avoiding a single woman applying - did I say that? You just assume, assume, assume, assume even to the arrogant point of rewriting my ad?  Who do you think you are?

I had a female lodger in the past, so that isn't the issue.  A single gay male, single because there isn't room for a fourth person in the house with the ameneties, not that I have to justify that to you John as it still is none of your business whatsoever.  You're 'sad' that it's for a single person, you mean you actually sat there, looked at my ad, was 'sad' that I only want a single person? You actually spend your day going through ads offering accommodation and actually feel 'sad' every time someone requests a single person in a double sized room? Are you actually mad?

There is no actual material difference to what the lady in the other ad has requested, and what I've requested.  I have proven that with actual statistics to blow your weak argument about voilence into the water as both women and gay men suffer from this. Fact, not supposition, that only women suffer as in your email when you first mention this.  Yet you single me out and have a go, but not her, because you patronisingly suppose on her behalf she is about to be beaten up by any random male lodger who comes along (another strange assumption).

So, getting back to you wanting everything to be exactly equal and all that, WHEN are you going to subject the lady's ad to the same treatment as mine eh?  If you want to foist your opnion online without it being asked for, you can't get away without following through on your argument, and nail your colours to the mast in what you have been arguing about from the beginning and treat the other lady's ad to the same treatment as you have done mine.

We're all waiting....be a man and follow your conviction and comment on her ad 'excluding men'...go on....you've dug yourself into a corner, now dig yourself out.

 

Reply by John McMullan 2 hours ago

I've learned in life that when I give "too much information" people laugh at me. You obviously haven't.

Stop goading me to be mean to a woman. She didn't give TMI and I won't. Sexist aren't I?

 

Reply by Lauren 2 hours ago

Stop this PLEASE. It's upsetting to read.

 

Reply by Jonathan Walsh 2 hours ago

The issue is not about too much information, the issue is that you have singled me out compared to the ad created right beside mine asking for a female only lodger.  Stick to the issue, stop sidestepping and deal with your selective whingeing.

Treat her exactly the same as me, otherwise people will see you as homophobic as well as being sexist as you admit.

 

Reply by Sharon 2 hours ago

oh dear! this thread is like a horrible car crash but you cant help but look! too funny!

 

Reply by Brando 2 hours ago

I think vaneska's post justify's why, when renting to a stranger, he would choose not to advertise to a woman- not that his choice in his home needs to be justified

 

Reply by StephenBln 12 minutes ago

Well said Jonathon..

 

Reply by Philip Foxe 22 hours ago

Hope you get a good person. Sounds like a nice place.cant believe the lack of understanding on this page! Imagine if it was an ad for an elderly widow to share with similar? Would we have seen pitchforks and torches outside her house?

 

Reply by snoot 21 hours ago

You must not come out of your room unless it's to stroke the cats :)

 

Reply by Hugh 14 hours ago

Jonathan, I'm sorry you couldn't just peacefully advertise for a house mate. I have no idea what to make of the catty comments you've gathered in response.

 

Reply by Hugh D 10 hours ago

I'd suggest making a wall of ignorance and barely repressed homophobia myself.

 

Reply by John D 9 hours ago

It's quite funny seeing ( presumably ) heterosexuals complaining of discrimination on the basis of sexuality.

 

Reply by Sharon 8 hours ago

Reverse homophobia?

 

Reply by John D 6 hours ago

Nobody's asked what the rental is. I think that would be much more interesting.

 

Reply by Sharon 5 hours ago

With velvet carpet, lined silk curtains, king sized bed (for single occupancy...aye aye!) and wifi in a 'superior' double room I'm guessing at 1000 pcm.

 

Reply by Jonathan Walsh 3 hours ago

Rent is £650 per month.  - also what do you mean when you write single occupancy....aye aye? What are you implying?

 

Reply by Sharon 3 hours ago

I'm just teasing, no harm meant ;-) P.S can I have those curtains when you've done with them?

 

Reply by Jonathan Walsh 2 hours ago

Of course you can Sharon, they would also make a fabulous dress if you're handy with a sewing machine lol!

 

Reply by Sharon 2 hours ago

(Hands outstretched smiley)

 

Reply by Jonny 1 hour ago

Is there a kiwi in this household?

 

Reply by Michael Anderson 3 hours ago

I'm staggered by the arrogance of some of the posts here.  How dare you presume to tell someone else how to live their lives.

Jonathan can decide who he wants to let this room to, how many people he wants living in his house, if they are ok with cats being in the house.  If any of you were letting a room I am sure you would have an idea the sort of person who would best fit in your household.

 

Reply by Bethany Burrow Atherton 1 hour ago

This "debate" brought to mind this article from the BBC that came out a while back about the legal grey area that flat/houseshare ads can fall into where they specify certain characteristics: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18588612

 

Reply by John McMullan 1 hour ago

And Jonathan said he was actually specifying a person who is often discriminated against in terms of accommodation so we have to admire him for that.

 

Reply by Cecilia 1 hour ago

Jonathan, I am shocked and upset by some of the replies you got. Some people should have just backed off and said "sorry" on this one , clearly they missed out on a good opportunity to keep their mouth shut for once.

Anyway, going back to the main subject, does the rent include bills? I have a single, gay man friend who might be interested. You can contact me privately if you prefer.

 

Reply by Paul Harding 30 minutes ago

Shouldn't there be a forum rule in regards to trash talking peoples threads? Especially the For Sale/Property section. The trading sections of all the forums I go to are moderated in this manner.

It's lovely you have an opinion, but really unless you want to buy the thing advertised or are interested in the property being offered it doesn't benefit anyone by airing it.

 

Reply by John D 22 minutes ago
I think this covers it -

g We will close or edit any discussions which, in our opinion, cross the line between healthy debate and bickering.

h. Whilst we recognise that the nature of forum conversations is for discussions on a single thread to move freely between topics, we will move or delete comments where we feel a conversation warrants being brought back on topic or the comments are repetitive ones made in the way of promoting and individual's or group's case or standpoint.

i.

 

Reply by Hugh 3 seconds ago

Funny you should bring that up - just working on it!

 

 

Views: 1857

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

With respect Hugh and Alistair, shouldn't these comments be over on the 'real thread' and not on the naughty step?
Oh...;-)

No.

Why not? It's relevant to the 'real thread'

Presumably for the purposes of not hijacking further?

Of course I wanted to dive headlong into this pool of wit, humour and laughter on the part of the more gifted, intelligent and politically incorrect of of our community. Then the notice welcoming Irish, straights and dogs warned me off on all three counts.

Now I really can't wait to read that ad. "In silken drapes she came . . ."  - OMiGod, I'm turned on already, sight useen.

Sorry Phil, I'm in full agreement with you. Just attempting to reach the next level - ironising the irony - but it didn't quite come off. Sharing a house full of Irish, straights, dogs and - my Christ - short-haired cats is my definition of Hell. But it's that precious eye-level oven that doubled me up in the silken drapes. If the denizens of this hyper-local hyper-parochial little parish cannot see that that ad was the greatest super-spoof of the past six years, and that Jonathan is  the joker of the millennium and that we've all been framed, then maybe this is the best excuse I've found yet to retire from Harringayonline. Adieu.  

Psst!  Surely Hugh means "The Thread that Fears to Speak its Name"  - to wit, a thread of wit, humour, badinage and Political Incorrectness?

Don't go, OAE! I'm in total agreement too, the comments were waaay too post modern for the indignant masses. Thanks for the reminder of the eye level oven! I'm miffed as to why that particular thread was policed like no other. To suggest that there was homophobia is an insult, as Philip said,to the post modern intelligent of all genders, sexes and ethnicity. They should all go away and watch some Frankie Boyle.
Well. I must say that I - and these things are of course highly subjective - do find the ad somewhat offensive. Why? Because you appear, Jonathan, to be saying "straight men are most certainly not welcome".
You state your intention is to give an opportunity for gay men to find a safe and none prejudiced environment in which to live. For what it's worth I think that is great. But you could surely have achieved the same by saying "gay or straight" or something similar. Then gay people could have applied safe in the knowledge that they would not be harassed or made to feel unwanted.
As for John McMullan's points - heaven knows I rarely agree with the fellow but he makes a good point about some women not wanting to share with strange men and it is a point you have not really addressed - surely you understand why women might feel intimidated by a male lodger? You might have said gay men also feel intimidated by male lodgers, but you haven't. I would have hoped Hugh would have at least asked you to clarify your argument before attacking John but, then, it is not my website.
To end: I don't understand why you framed the advert this way and the wording really does trouble me. Having said that, I genuinely wish you luck in your quest for a pleasant and decent person to share your home.
In peace,
Paulie

Hi Paulie,

Thanks for your comments above which are interesting to read.  I would like to just counter  your arguments: I am not appearing to say 'straight men are most certainly not welcome'. In fact, a straight Swedish guy who is a colleague of a friend of mine was offered the room just two weeks ago, and he turned it down because it was a little too expensive for him at the moment.  It was a shame because he was a cat lover so he would have been perfect.

In the headline, I am stating my preference is for a gay man.  It's not up for debate for anyone to tell me who I prefer to have in my house.  It might be shocking for you that I prefer to have another gay male. If you were advertising yourself, I wouldn't dream of dictating to you what I approve or don't approve of, because it's actually none of my business what you do in your own home, who you invite there, who you chose to live there, who you have round to dinner or whatever.

If you want to go down this route, how about the all dating websites there are advertised all over the place. By your reasoning, anyone who is seeking a potential partner should not be allowed to say whether they prefer a relationship with a man or a woman.  That would be interesting to witness on a blind date wouldn't it? A couple of straight blokes whose only interest in football turning up for a romantic meal somewhere, because someone was 'troubled' like yourself at the wording in their ads stating that they actually prefer to meet a woman rather than a man. 

Going to John - like yourself, you are making broad assumptions.  Do you actually know why the lady is advertising for a 'FEMALE LODGER'? (she put it in caps - which implies shouting by the way)  Have you asked her the reason for this? Has she confirmed that she is intimidated by men? You're just assuming this as a reason to justify not challenging her like I am being challenged.  Like me, you have absolutely no idea whatsoever why she has stated this, which of course, as I'm sure you will agree, is none of your business why she has, and it certianly is none of mine why she wants a female lodger, and frankly I couldn't care less what her reasons are.  That is what she prefers and frankly that's what she should get; however, you, John and several others consider it is your business to dictate what I prefer as a lodger; but not this lady.

Also read back when I was telling John to stick to his beliefs and to be consistent with his reasoning and go ahead and also challenge the lady, seeing he had no compunction in challenging me.  He said, he wasn't going to be goaded into being 'mean' to a woman.  So, he actually admits therefore he knows full well that he is being mean to me, and doen't want to be mean to her.  This is discrimination, and homophobic.  Gay man = be mean, Woman = don't be mean.  I'm interested that you agree and side with someone who by their own admission is being wilfully 'mean' as he puts it to me, all unsolicited by my part.

The thought clearly hasn't even entered your head, that in my past I have been intimidated by men as well? Particularly the one that threw a brick in my fact was pretty intimidating, along with many others, for instance those who attacked me as I walked out of a gay pub some years back.  Women get intimidated, and so do gay men, so we are all on an even keel, which is a fact shown by my own experience and by the statistics from Stonewall and the NHS I quoted in an earlier message.

If you want to go down the poor lady who might feel intimidated by a male lodger route, ask yourself why she just stated 'FEMALE LODGER' and not 'GAY MALE LODGER' as well.  She wouldn't be, or feel intimidated by a gay man would she - I take it the reason why you think she would feel intimidated is because of sexual advances maybe? Sorry I may be assuming incorrectly -  but it seems that's what you're implying.  So why aren't you having a go at her for excluding gay men?  You cannot have it both ways. You can't say to me that I 'appear' to say 'straight men are most certainly not welcome', and not challenge the lady's ad. 

If you put an argument forward like you have, then you have to be totally consistent.   If you do believe it to be consistent, then you will also agree that you think her ad 'appears' to say 'gay men are most certainly not welcome'.  So again why haven't you challenged her on this.  You think nothing of challenging me on my pregnant omission of 'welcoming straight men', why have you not had challenged her on her omission of 'welcoming gay men'.

It's interesting that you'll stand up tooth and nail for straight men's rights to come and live in my house (actually none of your business), but you don't do the same for gay men and stand up similarly for their right to live in her house (again none of your business).  Why not? Why have you stood up for straight men and not for gay men?

By not carrying through your logic and your conviction which you think you have, you are discriminating between me and her.  You're having a go at me, and not at her.  Why?

I just want to point out as well, that all of this is totally ridiculous, as I fully support the lady stating her preference for a female lodger, and if anyone did have a go at her for her preference, I would defend her tooth and nail for her right to decide what she prefers - totally with conviction and with consistent reasoning, unlike you and John and all the others writing your bias opnions, when they aren't asked for.

As for attacking poor defenceless John, he started the whole thing off with a snitty comment, attacking me.  All I've done throughout here is defend myself, I have not gone on the attack.  I have backed up all my arguments with clear balanced reasoning, and researched actual statistics and facts, not assumptions, or preconceptions.

The only answers I should be getting to my ad are from anyone who wants to rent the room.  End of.

You as a woman, who I hope believes in equal rights for women as for men, which I absolutely do, cannot now decide to play the poor terrified woman card at any potential male lodger as being intimidating.  How sexist is such a comment against men?  We are not all desperate to go on the attack against women and intimidate them, both straight and gay.  You imply that she perceives all men as intimidating (particularly the lodger type), which you have absoutely no idea is the case or not.  in any case, gay men as I'm sure you know, are completely not intimidating against women, but she has not put in the ad that gay men are welcome.  If you insist that I should put straight men are welcome, then she should put that gay men are welcome.  But she hasn't; therefore, as I have been saying all along, you along with John McMullan are singling me out for my preference, whilst not challenging the other lady for her preference.

My whole point over this ridiculous farce of everyone putting their oar in, was in my very first comment, which said that this was a classified ad and was not a discussion string.  This is why Hugh has removed this string and put it here, so that a potential lodger (of yes my preference not yours or anybody else's) might apply, without reading all the self-righteous, assumptive, selective and patronising comments I have received.  All I wanted to get was 'yes I'm interested in seeing the room' or 'no thank you I'm not'

You gave a pretty robust defence so I didn't feel sorry for you. I think you might have mixed me up with someone else too (it's happened before). I initially said it was sad you wanted a single person because I couldn't bring myself to say "hey! this isn't a dating site!". I also took the mickey out of your description which you presumably copied and pasted from the other site you posted it on. I still find it hilarious and if you can't laugh at it too then I'm sorry.

I think calling me a homophobe was really out of order and it's this that actually upset me.

Yes the other poster used all caps which as you pointed out is technically shouting on the Internets but actually it made me think that they were perhaps an amateur, your writing on the other hand seems quite shouty. Again, it's that you wanted someone SINGLE and your description that I thought was funny/cheeky.

I can't believe I have to say this but I'm about as gay friendly as they get without actually being gay.

Now, get back to work, you're expending far too much effort on these posts ;)

"anyone who is seeking a potential partner should not be allowed to say whether they prefer a relationship with a man or a woman.  That would be interesting to witness on a blind date wouldn't it? A couple of straight blokes whose only interest in football turning up for a romantic meal somewhere, because someone was 'troubled' like yourself at the wording in their ads stating that they actually prefer to meet a woman rather than a man."

 

This was great. Does it not assume though that all straight blokes like football?... ;)

RSS

Advertising

© 2024   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service