Sue

belladonna Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Another point, the people who shop in Iceland are > in a different economic bracket from those > ordering their weekly shop from Ocado. Those > agitating for a Waitrose may forget not everyone > from East Dulwich is looking for Ciabatta and > Walnut Oil... xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Eh? I use Walnut Oil, sometimes shop in Waitrose and also shop in Iceland. I didn't realise I was only supposed to frequent certain shops depending on which "economic bracket" I was in. Must do better. ETA: I don't want a Waitrose here, however.

emc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was on my Christmas list but unfortunately > didn't get it. xxxxxx Same here. My sister appeared to think I'd rather have a set of bongo drums :)) ETA: I really enjoyed The Corrections

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A bit rich of you to ask a thread/ debate you > started to be locked. If you can't deal with other > views (no matter how insane they may be) then > don't start controversial debate. xxxxxxxxx The post is potentially libellous. So were some of yours (where you accused the police of corruption and attempting to lay blame on the McCanns, and also where you said I had said that the McCanns killed Madeleine, when I had said nothing of the sort). The difference is, the police are hardly likely to sue you when they had worse from the gutter press over the last three years, and I am hardly likely to sue you because I think you are - well, never mind. If you can't see that difference, then you are even more - well, never mind.

I have reported the post about Operation Ore and asked for it to be removed. I have also requested that the thread be locked.

juandan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Another explanation. the McCann?s are being > Protected, is connected to Operation ORE, the > investigation in to people who paid to access > pedophile sites on the internet, operation ORE > netted all walks of life, Tony Blair, then prime > minister at the time slapped a D-notice on > operation ORE to stop the reporting on the case, > Jim Gamble of the CEOP, he was head of operation > ORE at the time, > > He knows pedophile government ministers, Judges, > senior police officers who where not prosecuted, > allot of high ranking people owe Jim Gamble big > time, Jim Bates once recognized as one of the > country?s leading computer forensic experts, has > made the extraordinary claim that senior police > officers in Avon & Somerset and in the Met have > miss lead the public > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/10/ore_case/ > > http://www.propagandamatrix.com/blair_protection.h > tml xxxxxx Unless you have facts to back this up I suggest you don't advance this kind of "explanation". Edited to add: And it is at this point that I am going to ask for this thread to be locked. I don't want to be associated with rubbish like this.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Such is the countless convictions made by such > thinking only to be later overturned when forensic > techniques caught up....so there's a very good > reason why unsubstantiated (whether substantial or > not) evidence is no longer admissable...and quite > right too. xxxxxxx Yes, you're right about that DJKQ. I don't believe you'll find anything in the thread where anybody is suggesting otherwise. Or maybe you can point us to something? Let me refer you to your posts where you put forward the theory that an organised gang abducted Madeleine, leaving no trace, and that an incompetent and corrupt police investigation (presumably including the British police who were involved) covered up their incompetence by trying to lay blame on the McCanns. Anything more you'd like to share with us about that? Your sole rationale for this theory - which is the only one you have advanced so far - appeared to be that there are gangs in Portugal. There is fire in Portugal, and there are dogs, as well. So, going by your argument, may we infer that you would also support theories whereby Madeleine was spontaneously combusted, leaving no trace, or eaten by dogs, leaving no trace? They are equally as (non) logical, and there is just as much evidence to support either of them (ie none). So far as this new poster is concerned - whatever their background is or whatever they have said elsewhere may discredit their own posts, but it does not affect other salient facts (and they are facts) put forward in the rest of the thread.

DJKQ - reading previous posts properly is not your strong point, is it? Nor it seems is logic.

The honest truth is that I don't want the thread to end on vague generalisations, plus misrepresentation of what has been said on the thread. I know that anybody reading the thread from start to finish will see the full picture of who has said what, but most people coming to it will just read parts of it. I think it is unfortunate that the person who has restarted the discussion has brought in additional things which I would personally not have raised, but I can't help that.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > "Time to let this thread sink" - well, unlike > you, I tried! > > You've got to be joking. xxxxxx DJKQ said pages and pages back that she wasn't going to post again - which admin commended - and then continued to post a large number of posts. I said on NYE that I was trying to let the thread die, and didn't post again for 6 days. The thread had slipped well down, and was off the first page. I expected that that would be the end of it. I only posted again today because I felt that Louisiana's post was inaccurate (and because by then the thread had gone back to the top, so my post made no difference) and then DJKQ started again.

And so it goes on ... and on .... and on .... "Time to let this thread sink" - well, unlike you, I tried! Where were Juandan's points dismissed, DJKQ? Just for once, could you answer a question I ask you on this thread? And try to answer it logically? And have you actually read the posts concerning why there has been no prosecution? And have you read Hal's posts, for example? Just asking.

The uncomfortable thing though, Louisiana, is that much of what has been said on this thread is not actually rumour and innuendo. Are you saying that it is just rumour that Kate McCann refused to answer 48 questions asked of her by the police (and yes she was within her legal rights to do so)? Are you saying that it is just rumour that the McCanns and their friends refused to return for a reconstruction when requested to do so by the police? Are you saying that it is just rumour that two highly trained British police dogs alerted in places connected to the McCanns and nowhere else? What one may infer from the above may vary, but the facts themselves are not rumour or innuendo, I think. I would not have posted again but other people have now let this thread come to the top again.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln, (attributed) 16th president of US (1809 - 1865) ?You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.? George W. Bush quotes (American 43rd US President since 2001. b.1946)

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tonight 7pm at Southwark Town Hall (junction of > Peckham Road with Vestry Road) the Licensing > Committee will decide whether to increase the > number of pitches, add Sunday 8am-4pm with 7am-8am > set-up, and closing Northcross Road between > Archdale Road and Lacon Road every Saturday and > Sunday. xxxxxxx Why have residents in affected roads not been consulted about the closing of the road? That's disgraceful.

husbandjim Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As a local > resident in the area for 12 years I feel we should > be given priority for pitches rather than stall > holders from outside the area. xxxxxxxx I agree, other things being equal xxxxxxxxxxxx > I had a very successful stall on Northcote Road > Market for years selling high end wine > accessories, glasses and hampers but was told that > someone else on Northcross Road is already selling > these products. xxxxxxxx But there are hardly any shops on North Cross Road, how could they be? What shop? (ETA it could have been the one where Pretty Pregnant is now, which used to sell ethnic things - that had a few glasses etc?) They have a greengrocery stall at the market sometimes, and there's a greengrocer in North Cross Road. There are numerous shops selling bread just round the corner from North Cross Road, yet stalls selling bread are allowed. There's a cheese stall, with the Cheese Block just round the corner. So what actually are the rules applied when allocating stalls? ETA: Sorry, just re-read your post and I see it doesn't specifically mention shops. But surely there has never been a stall in North Cross Road selling the type of products you sell?

The residents' parking issue has been discussed before on here, and I believe there was a consultation on it. If my memory serves, the vast majority of residents didn't want it. I certainly don't, and I'm one of the people affected by people parking in my road to go to the market (and to go to the mosque on some days). It's a mild annoyance if I can't park near my house, but that's all.

Alec John Moore Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > However, I seem to recall that when Somerfield was > revamped a few years ago they had a small fresh > fish stall. That may well have closed due to lack > of patronage. That is a shame and it is > interesting that Moxons seems to be surviving > further up the Lane. xxxxxxxx Yes, they did have a fresh fish stall. The fish looked fine to me. The stall didn't last long. I have no idea why it was removed, but maybe - just maybe - the people now buying their fresh fish at Moxons didn't want to be seen shopping in Somerfield. Just a guess ..... Oh, and *Bob* and Silverfox, :))

:))

That's a really useful link ed_pete, thanks. I gave up the other day trying to find out when my garden waste collection should be - I'd mislaid the leaflet that came round, and I couldn't find the info on the council website :-$

GinaG3 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also left my house on > NYE at around 4.30pm when I got home the next day > the postman had left a parcel on my doorstep all > night. Glad it wasn't nicked it was quite a > expensive order I had placed in a less convincing > sized box but still shouldn't of been left there > at all! xxxxxxxxxx You need to complain about that, otherwise it will happen to other people who may not be so lucky. Are you sure it was the postie and not a courier delivery?

They don't seem to have had any deliveries since the holiday. But I don't want to make excuses for them, because sadly it does seem to be quite badly managed, in terms of stock control at least. It's a shame, because I like their ethical approach, but what good is that if you can't get even very basic things which you need there?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > plans to expand it and > add Sunday opening and close Northcross Raod > between Archdale Road and Lacon Road. xxxxxxx Lacon Road is opposite Ulverscroft Road. Does that mean that cars coming up Ulverscroft Road towards North Cross Road will just be prevented from turning left at the junction, but will be able to turn right? If so, as an Ulverscroft Road resident I don't have a problem with that.

Crikey, flappers, had a bad day?? :))

Has anyone else noticed that the stall at the Lordship Lane end of the market (I think it's the roast pork stall) seems to protrude more into the road than other stalls? It's a nightmare driving down the road and trying to pass it with cars coming the other way turning the corner. And I've only got a tiny car!

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the road should be closed to traffic. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Please bear in mind those of us who live in Ulverscroft Road. If North Cross Road is closed off completely, if our cars are facing "the wrong way" on a Sunday we will have to either reverse the length of the road, or attempt a three point turn with cars parked both sides of a very narrow road. If you had experienced my driving you would not wish for either of these :)) I think the other roads off North Cross Road are different because they have other roads running off them, but I stand to be corrected.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How would people feel about a supermarket along > the lines of The People's Supermarket where > members put in 4 hours work a month cooperatively > to receive a 20% discount? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I'd be well up for that, though again provided it didn't result in our small food shops closing down. But if that's going to happen anyway in ED, I'd rather it was for something like this than another (insert your own swear word here) high street chain, "aspirational" or not.