Loz

Erm, yes binary_star - you have evidence that someone rear-ended you. Evidence which would hold up in pretty much any accident be it bike/motorbike/car/bus whatever. You've also posted a link to a completely different offence. How does this relate to the topic at hand?

I don;t like the NVQ bit of the new one. Sounds like you are just out of college. The fully insured bit is kind of scary as well.

1) What everyone said about the typos. Screams 'unprofessional'. 2) The top line should be in a bigger font size. It is the 1 second attention grabber. If that fails you are in the recycling bin. 3) Your USP is the 'at home' bit. I almost missed that fact. It blurs into the rest of the info. 4) As said - you need an offer. It's your second attention grabber. On the plus side it is simple and clean layout with good photos. Unlike Alec, I rather like the all upper-case, so it just shows that this all opinion. Apart from the typos...!

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > > As people have noted, a photo cannot be > evidence > > of an infraction. So the best you are going to > > achieve is worry the motorist.... > > If you think I'd be concerned about 'worrying a > motorist' who has broken the law, then perhaps you > don't live on the same planet I do. I see you clipped the second bit of my sentence. If taking photos of motorists and putting them on a petty little website floats your boat then fine. But you might actually find it will turn into a discovery tour of the many nutters out there on all forms of transport. You might also find that a bunch of white van men might just stick your camera in a place you will find it difficult to download the photos from... Go for it.

max wellhouse Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In a similar vein, I was recently approached by a > man wanting to know whether I would like regular > deliveries of some sort of white liquid in a > bottle, in exchange for cash. Apparently, he > could also get me 'eggs' and 'juice' if I wanted > them (obviously some code for drug-related > paraphernelia I shouldn't wonder!). I slammed the > door in his face and called the police, who were > less than helpful. Be on your guard if you see > this man. He drives a slow-moving electric > vehicle with crates stacked on the back, and he > seems to tour the area in the early mornings. In 2010? I don't believe you! (Mind you, I've never up early enough to have seen such a fellow, anyway.)

Flyers are a low hit rate type of advertising, but at least most people glance at them before they land in the recycling bin. So, you have about 1 second to grab their attention and, if they are your target audience, hold it. Make sure what you offer and, if you have one, your USP (unique selling point) is clear. Less is more. Also, make sure there is a good offer on there that you don;t offer anywhere else. Apart from helping grab people's attention, it will help you gauge the effectiveness of the campaign.

> Who were you fast-forwarding to? Alexandra Berk? Or Eoghan Quigg? The results, to see who gets to cry this week as their 'careers' return to manning the till at Burger King. Or in the case of 'Bellamy', wondering which one will lose all their clothes for Nuts/Zoo first. There should be an ad: 'Sky+ - turns the X-Factor results show into the five minutes of television it is supposed to be'.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Any vote for 'best XF guest performance', amongst > the dross? > > Beyonc?, doing 'If I Were A Boy'.. was a cracker. It might have been, but fortunately I have Sky+ and I could skip it. I *hate* that song sooo much. The lyrics redefine 'pointless whining'.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She fronted a major music show in Oz... Good lord - I hope you don't mean Young Talent Time?

I think that they can be effective, but the hit rate is low. I have used goods and services advertised through leaflets, but most get a cursory glance before landing in the recycling bin. There are worse ways to advertise a new business. A special offer on the leaflet wouldn't go astray! It might help you gauge the effectiveness of the campaign.

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's gonna take a lot to convince you of the > > ineffectiveness of CCTV, isn't it? > > Depends on your definition of effectiveness. Crime > prevention or criminal conviction? Even if it only > helps one, surely that is more effective than not > having CCTV at all? It really only helps with convictions - but prevention is where you get your return on investment from. Even then for supermarkets and shops it is rather ineffective as you have to leave the shop with the goods before it is shoplifting. CCTV has it's place - it's just wildly overused in the UK and, I think, completely mis-sold as a crime prevention tool. There is another thread on CCTV in the home - strangely enough it may seem, but I think that is a good idea. Again, only to try and catch the buggers. As I said earlier, CCTV won't prevent you being mugged, but you do get to see the highlights of it on TV later.

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I took mine with my camera phone and hope others > do to. Given the Met don't seem interested in > enforcement, this may be the only avenue for > getting something done. As people have noted, a photo cannot be evidence of an infraction. So the best you are going to achieve is worry the motorist that you will report them (as they don't know that), the worst is to seriously piss off some complete loony in charge of a tonne of moving metal. Seems unnecessarily - and rather pointlessly - dangerous.

cate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't see how you can compare Sainsburys to > Celestial......and no I haven't seen the CCTV > cameras in there. Haven't ever noticed them as I > never go in there with the intention of stealing. > I actually don't go there very often at all. Once > a month at the most. Celestial would be on a similar vein. One or two cameras, I'd guess - but who looks at the screens real time? Nobody would be my guess - who in a small business can afford to pay someone to look at screen all day? And no, I don't steal things from Sainsburys - but I am an observant chappie and the number of CCTV cameras in there is really quite staggering. Only beaten so far by the lift in the E&C tube station which has about 7 or 8 camera in an area about the size of my living room. > They also have security guards there don't they? Yes, but they tend to respond to the RFID gates more than anything. Which are also of questionable value. They are fine for those lock-caps for the bottle, but anyone who has bought clothing in Sainsburys would notice that the till staff make a rip in the label to disable the RFID tag...

native Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > djkilla what uni did you go to then ? im in ore of > you totally Totally in ore of DJKQ? You must have rocks in your head...

anapau Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh please, orange juice on your window sills? Our > front door got kicked down because we didn't > answer the bell. That's less 'trick or treating' and more 'breaking and entering'...

cate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you were going to shoplift, would you do it in > a shop with CCTV? Quite sure I wouldn't. I'm guessing Sainburys suffers from quite a bit of shoplifting - and have you seen how many CCTV cameras there are in there?? I lost count at about 40. Of course, common sense says there are not 40+ people looking at TV screens, so the chances of being seen - even if you are standing under a camera waving at it whilst shoving goods in your handbag - is probably quite low.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe the shoplifting rate would be even higher > without the CCTV ..... That paper I linked to in a previous post showed that not to be the case, Sue. (Well, there was an initial effect, but it wore off quickly.) It's gonna take a lot to convince you of the ineffectiveness of CCTV, isn't it?

native Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > id say the strike is going ahead on this historic > date the 5th of nov , because they want maximum > affect , let's see how asset get on ? maybe people > will respect and understand what the real brigade > do all year round , and as far as fire and me on > the 5th ... maybe il take extra insurance out ? It's classic union 'make the public suffer to make an impact' tactic, but I think it will backfire for the FFs badly. Two scenarios: 1) The worst does not happen, in which case management will take the credit and make it look like the FFs have overstated their case or 2) The worst does happen, in which case the public and the media will turn on the FFs for striking on the worst day of the year. If I were a FF I would be seriously unhappy at my union. Public support is needed to win any fight like this and the FF union is throwing a lot of goodwill away.

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However, entering the ASL from any connected cycle > lane is more often than not obliging the cyclist > to enter the 'corridor of death' that everyone, > including the Met and cycling organisations, say > that cyclists should not go into i.e. cycling to > the immediate left of and very close to a vehicle > stopped at the lights. We have seen deaths of > cyclists every other week or so in London from > this cause. It's a very stupid place to be unless > you want to commit suicide. > > But given that the majority of the time the entire > ASL box is occupied by motor vehicles (who are > thereby committing an offence), it's kind of a > moot point. Well, not really. Is this another law cyclists mark down as 'optional'?

native Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > djkilla i dont need to read this thread in detail > , you have the knockers,and the supporter's , i > know who id want dampening down my gaff on the 5th > if a firework was to spark a blaze at my abode . > Simple . Who you want and who you get are very different. Somehow I don't see you turning away AssetCo on the 5th in hope one of the normal crew turn up. As for everyone coming down to neat sets of 'knockers and supporters', well life is a bit more complex than that. > Why is that wrong then ? because they plan to strike on the 5th ? maybe it's for a reason have you ever wondered > loz ? i understand fully !!! Not rocket science is it ? OK, I'll take you up on that. Why are they striking on the 5th, native, instead of, say, the 3rd Nov or the 8th Nov? If it is 'not exactly rocket science' then you should be able to explain that. The only logical explanation I can see is 'because they want to lose all public support for their cause'.

native Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree totally the firemen should get what they > want , there always getting crap because they take > union or strike action That's just plain wrong. Previous times the FFs have gone on strike they have had a lot of public sympathy. This time they have, quite literally, thrown that public support on the bonfire.

Twirly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I read this article about it a > few months back, and there seems to be some > confusion about the legality of doing so, but the > article concludes that it is illegal to stop in > these boxes. Interesting article. Make me wonder how London Borough of Newham (See PR's post) can override the law to say motorcycles can use them as well. The other interesting point was in the comments of that article. Seems cyclists can only use the ASL boxes if they enter from the connected cycle lane. How many cyclists are using the boxes illegally as well? :))

woofmarkthedog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did you know....? > > Britain has the highest rate of shoplifting in the > world > > ( true ) ... and the highest number of CCTV cameras in the world (about 25% of the world's total). As the Americans would say... go figure.

I think this might explain it...