Loz

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Saw Dust is formed into pulp 'Celulose' and used extensively in MANY everyday products..

... and then processed further in to cellulose gum. But it's not saw dust then, is it? And possibly never was (wood pieces or chips, perhaps, but not dust).

Anyway, that's like shouting that Sainsburys use wood bark in their hot cross buns. Most of us call it 'cinnamon'. Or a restaurant puts tree sap on their pancakes (Maple syrup). Or tree leaves in their stews and casseroles (bay leaves).

You also find fish bladder or egg in your wine, boiled beetle shells in your soft drinks, cows stomachs in your cheese and horse's hooves in you fruit tart.

And most of those have been in our food for hundreds of years. Hardly the creation of the modern food industry!

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Jeremy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Anything in there which particularly bothers you

> > Fox, or just the sheer number of ingredients?

> >

>

> Canola Oil is pretty nasty..

No it's not - it's actually pretty healthy (as far as oils go). It's huge in Australia - one of the main cooking oils there. It's low in saturated fat and contains both omega-6 and omega-3. What's not to like?

It does seem to be the subject of one of those fake email scares, though. http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/canola.asp

McDonalds chips > Burger King chips. Chips and brekkie - the only products where McD is better than BK.

What IS the crap BK spray on their chips? They used to have the best, now they are far and away the worst.

I was willing to give sam1977 the benefit of the doubt for his first post or two, but coming back for a cut-and-paste repeat after three days and I reckon this is a bit of astroturfing advertising by the company in question.

I wouldn't touch this company with a bargepole.

I was willing to give sam1977 the benefit of the doubt for his first post or two, but coming back for a cut-and-paste repeat after three days and I reckon this is a bit of astroturfing advertising by the company in question.

I wouldn't touch this company with a bargepole.

Sue Wrote:

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

> I'm almost at the point where I'm going to have to phone Plusnet. I'm out of contract since December

> and wonder whether they may be persuaded to send me a new router anyway .....

Being out of contract gives to better a negotiating position. If they refuse, threaten to change to another provider - I bet they'll send you round their first-born child with a new router gaffer taped to it. Especially as BT, Sky and V-media are campaigning hard for new business.

V-media sent us a notice just before Christmas saying they were raising our broadband price (which gives you the right to exit your contract). We rang them, said we were looking to take a certain deal with BT and they reduced our price there and then to less than we'd been originally paying with no new contract (though we still have 9 months on our old one).

(Seems using V-media's proper name is a no-no in the Lounge!)

Stupid things companies and government departments say. I printed off some train times from the National Rail Enquiries site. Part of the fare conditions carefully pointed out...

Travel is allowed on any permitted route.

Well... durrr.

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> I was under the impression you had to have your

> wheels on the lines to get a ticket.

>

> ...SO could you park your car with its wheels

> either side of the lines. ???

I always thought it was based on the wheels, too, but just checking on t'net I see that it is indeed any part of your car overhanging the prohibited area. If it's just a little bit over, you can usually often appeal on the principle of de minimus (the law does not deal in trifling matters), but since you'd be straddling the entire length of this particular line you'd probably fail.

Mind you, you might be able to appeal on the basis that the line is pretty damn de minimus in itself...

GSJ57 Wrote:

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

> Emotional Support Dogs

I'm really not sure this can be beaten.

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> Free movement of people & immigration/emigration.

Wouldn't that put you out of a job?

ernesto Wrote:

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

> - Clear labelling of flowers, plants and household products that are toxic to cats

Don't we then need to teach cats to read, as well?

JohnL Wrote:

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

> Don't forget today we had a 44 year old teacher found guilty of raping a 16 year old (she was his

> student and thus couldn't consent even though she was 16). The judge said she groomed him, I don't know his

> mental state, but it sounds strange - and I hear there cannot be/won't be an appeal (to the lenient sentence).

The law is there to protect people at an impressionable age from those should be shaping that very impression. Teachers, etc are deemed to be in a "responsible position" and so they should be responsible people. As DaveR said, this was not a case of rape (and never was), but of an adult abusing their position of responsibility.

The judge was wrong to say the girl 'groomed' him, though. 'Groomed' has a specific meaning and it is silly to use it in this context. If you look further into her comments, she also said the girl 'actively pursued' the teacher. I can see that is entirely possible - 16 year olds can be and are capable sexually. But it was up to the responsible person to react in the right way. I understand schools have mechanisms for him to have reported her advances. He didn't do that.

It is an interesting law, though. Had the girl had an affair with the teacher's (fictional) twin brother who worked as (say) an accountant, the law would have not been interested, so looking at difference in ages in a simple sense is somewhat irrelevant. It is more about a law about abuse of power and responsibility.

Sentencing is a mystery to me at the best of times but all I'd say is that the judge has all the information and a shed load of sentencing guidelines which she had to comply with. Suffice to say his career is ended and he's on the sex offenders register. He'll never be a teacher again. I suppose he can always take up professional football.

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> West where ?

It's always amused me that, at least as stations go, East Dulwich is north of Dulwich village, West Dulwich is south of Dulwich village and North Dulwich is sort of west-ish.

Sounding like Roy from the IT Crowd - have you tried turning it off and back on again? In this case you homehub router? Power it off for 30 secs and then turn it back on.

It should at least cause them all to reconnect to it.