Sue

No, but it's a franchise. They have salons all over the place. https://www.headmasters.com/franchising/

There's a whole discussion online as to whether this is being used to improve digital facial recognition, eg how people may have aged over a decade. For all sorts of nefarious reasons, obviously. Quite apart from that, as I have aged about fifty years in the last ten years, there's no way I intend to undertake this "challenge" :)) ETA: Unless, of course, I can find some extremely flattering recent pix. Which is extremely unlikely :))

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think a penny or two on NI contributions is > needed but can you see any party offering that on > a manifesto? Get saving! Off topic, sorry, but that's similar to why the NHS and Education are in such a sorry state. Years ago the Tories won an election because they said they would cut income tax (which they did). Perhaps the people who voted for them didn't realise what their tax was used for. So, no, people won't vote for anything which involves them paying a little more a month, even if they - and their parents and children - are the losers in the long run :( I hope you sort things out, Minitoots.

My memory is not great (and getting worse) but I'm sure somebody on here will know. I'm sure I filled in a consultation on the exact same subject some years back, and said that I didn't want controlled parking in my road (off North Cross Road). Am I imagining it? And if not, why are "they" having another consultation?

Hemingway Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > North of 50 - I already have a teenager and older > kids. Congratulations!

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I never ring unknown numbers back - if it's > important they'll leave a message or get in > touch. > > or am I blase :) I sometimes do if it appears to be a normal UK number and doesn't come up as dodgy on a Google search :)

d.b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However it's REALLY stupid to think that therefore > if you force more people who currently drive to > walk, then they will pay more. No... clearly not. > They will go somewhere else where they can drive > and park easily. That was one of the first things that occurred to me.

I had a call from that number the other day. Same thing, I answered and they hung up. Although it appears to be a Manchester number, googling brought up India, if memory serves. If you phoned back, I would check your phone bill PDQ to see what you were charged for the call.

I quite often see cyclists on the pavement. What really pisses me off is when it's a grown man and there's virtually no traffic on the road. WTF? Timid cyclists in the rush hour cycling on the pavement I can understand (a bit). Off topic, but I was on a 185 today and a cyclist was nearly run over by the bus. She began to step off the pavement with her bike without looking, and the bus was literally (and in this case I literally mean literally) about 30cm from her. She wasn't at a crossing. She just didn't look to see if there was anything coming ...... I was looking out of the top deck window and I'm amazed (and relieved) I didn't witness a very nasty accident. She saw the bus just in time .....

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dover - Lux Thai (formerly Sema) is a wasted > opportunity. I don't think it's moved on a > restaurant in the 28yrs I've been in ED. Real > shame. We went during the summer and I chose an > obvious easy dish (Pla Rad Prik) which > unfortunately was disappointing because it's sooo > easy to make. > They are not even trying and the menu is plain. > Thai food is such a great cuisine and we see > little evidence of it there I'm afraid. I had one of the worst meals of my life there. I can't even begin to describe how terrible it was. I love Thai food, and this was an absolute abomination. To be fair, it was on New Year's Day, it was quite a few years back, virtually nowhere else on Lordship Lane was open, many people had therefore ended up at Sema Thai, and the staff seemed rather overwhelmed. However, that doesn't excuse the pitiful plates of crap we received after a very, very, very long wait. We have never been back since :(

If you get a call from a number you don't recognise and think it might be a scam/spam, you can google it. There are several websites which will tell you whether other people have reported it, and why. If you don't find it by googling, of course, it doesn't mean that it isn't a scam, or spam, but it can be useful.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi sue, > Please see planning portal here - > https://interactive.planningportal.co.uk/detached- > house/outside/windows-and-doors > > " > It states you DO NOT usually need planning > permission if: > - repairs, maintenance, and minor improvements, > such as repainting window and door frames > - insertion of new windows and doors that are of a > similar appearance to those used in the > construction of the house (note ? a new bay window > will be treated as an extension and may require > permission) > " > > So uPVC non sash windows replacing wooden sash > windows would need planning permission. If you > look at the planning list you'll see a steady > trickle of these planning applications. One was of > telling a reputable installer is if they point > this out. > > Hard wood windows have better fire resistance than > plastic ones. The materials in making plastic > windows are worse in the manufacture and eventual > disposal when they one day get replaced than > wooden ones. Both can be double or triple glazed > so neutral on that one. But I'm replacing the windows with ones that look identical to the sash windows that are there now. I'm not replacing them with "non sash windows."

sjsl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The light at the end of the tunnel might be a > train.. > That's a jolly thought for the day :))

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've just spent the last fifty one years thinking > it was "stupid butty Tuesday". And then I looked > on the interweb ... Eh? I don't understand!

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Funny looking chicken! That's probably because it's a picture of the lamb :)) ETA: Isn't this thread in the wrong section??

AndrewBarton93 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Went in for a roast and wow was I not disappointed > in the slightest! Hoped to have the lamb shank but > had sold out so went for the chicken instead, glad > I had it! Beautifully seasoned and cooked to > perfection. The rosemary roasted potatoes were > delightful and the rooted mash veg was the perfect > companion to an overwhelmingly amazing chicken > roast dinner, will for sure be coming back again! > Please save me some of those honey mustard pigs in > blankets for next time!! > First post? Sounds remarkably like one of those paid-for "reviews" in local papers ..... :)

pinkladybird Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue- the pollution that I was complaining about is > an open fire but is woodsmoke OK, fair enough, there must be another open fire in the same area which isn't burning wood but isn't burning smokeless fuel either.

jimbo1964 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nothing wrong with Thai Corner. It has had its ups and (very very) downs over the years since it opened. Unless I was sure that it was now consistently "average", I wouldn't risk eating there again :(

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I called it just to share some bile. Hope it's not one of those scam numbers where they charge you a zillion pounds a second when you call them back, then :))

Apologies if I've missed it, but what is happening at the old Threshers site in Lordship Lane? It is boarded up and something finally seems to be happening there!

I'm pretty sure that the pollution referred to by the OP was nothing to do with a woodburner. It was the same again on early Sunday evening when we went out - horrible choking fumes from somewhere in the North Cross Road area, spreading all down the adjacent roads. It wasn't woodsmoke, and as before it smelled like some sort of coal - or other non-smokeless fuel - being burned on an open fire. At least we were going out, so didn't have to sit in my living room breathing it in.

ED Light Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sweet, sticky, stodgy westernised chinese food - > hope the menu gets a revamp with something more > modern than the 1980s appeal they have today Yes, sadly it wasn't very appealing the last time we ate there (some years back admittedly). It didn't really encourage us to return. Hopefully, as jimbo says, they have upped their game.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I never mentioned anyone?s name. You didn't have to. They were very easily identified by the contents of your post.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- the wholesale assumption > that an untested regimen of 100% natural origin > will somehow be superior in all respects to > medical treatments is dangerous and must be > challenged. > Sorry, but I'm very confused now. Who has suggested that, either on this thread or anywhere else?

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I'm quite happy to believe many herbal > remedies are effective (although saying that, lack > of testing/regulation makes it hard to know which > ones are really effective, and what the side > effects may be) Well, very many what you describe as "herbal" remedies are now integrated within conventional medicine. Digitalis is derived from foxgloves. Just one example.