Sue

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.

DagmarJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think a Marks and Sparks similar to the one on > the Walworth Rd or in Brixton would be great as > both of those have small clothes sections and > that's pretty handy. xxxxxxxx But because their clothes sections are small, there is practically no choice anyway, so what's the point? If you want to shop for clothes in M&S you can easily get up to Oxford Street from ED.

No. No. No. For all the reasons everybody else has said. It would be the thin end of the wedge in ruining the unique character of Lordship Lane with all the independent shops. I quite like to shop in M&S or Waitrose occasionally, but I think the disadvantages of having one in ED well outweigh the advantages.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Keef Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > on a summers day it soemtimes feels like a > holiday > > resort than a part of london. > > > > I like ED as much as anyone, but come on. > > I'd like to know where 'Shadow' goes on holiday > (mainly so I know which places to avoid). xxxxxxxxxxxxx :))

Yes, DMC will give you a phone appointment so that you can speak to a doctor on the phone. I've used this in the past and it's very useful. Or you could have phoned NHS direct. It is really not fair to go to a GP's surgery if you think you might have something catching. You might be feeling "shattered", but flu can be fatal for some people. Seems like the GP was quite restrained under the circumstances.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I still don't understand your purpose in starting > (and perpetuating) this thread. You are obsessed > with the case, that much is clear (that's not a > criticism, by the way). You are determined that > everybody should recognise, if not the accuracy, > then the validity of your point of view. However, > there does not appear to be any other point you > are trying to make. I have explained several times why I started the thread. I'm now trying to let it finish, as should have been clear from my posts last night. So why are you continuing a pointless conversation? > > I should make it clear that I have zero interest > in the specific facts of the McCann case, although > the surrounding arguments about parental > responsibility are kind of interesting. If you have zero interest, why on earth are you posting on this thread and perpetuating it? Why not start another thread about parental responsibility? I'm sorry for the bold font, I'm not trying to shout, but I find a load of plain text makes it hard to disentangle one person's comments from another, and maybe other people do too. Edited to add: Sorry if any of the above sounded rude, but I really was hoping that last night's posts would be the end of it.

I looked out of my living room window last night and saw a foxy staring at me from across the road. We gazed at each other for a while and I went outside. We continued the gazing for a further while, then he (or she) padded off down the street. Only other time that's happened to me is when I was living in a hut on a farm. I love foxes. Sorry for the hens though. The farmers used to shut their hens in a henhouse each night so the foxes couldn't get them. Unfortunately one of the hens stuck its head out of a small gap in the henhouse. The next morning a headless chicken (literally) was found inside the henhouse. Ooops.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have said it before and I shall say it again; > parking attendants are the scum of the earth. xxxxxx That's not fair PeckhamRose, some of them might have a bit of an attitude but there is a reason for parking restrictions, and it's to keep traffic moving. Hugs, however xx

Giant Moths. Or clowns, possibly.

computedshorty, respect! You are the East Dulwich equivalent of William McGonagall! xx

Tarot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > public toilet needed though. xxxxxxxx What's wrong with the Palmerston? You just need to stride boldly in as if you were about to eat there :))

zeban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But the thing is Sue, if you had already made your > points there's no need to reply to other peoples' > posts in order to show that you don't agree with > them because if their viewpoints are different to > yours in the first place then obviously you > wouldn't agree with them. xxxxxxxxx Unfortunately, experience has shown me that if you don't respond to a post then it will be assumed that you have given up attempting to make your point. It is very hard when you are trying to argue based on logic and other people do not seem to be able to do the same. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Anyway, you've all ended > up agreeing to disagree (I think) so I just think > this thread has been an insane waste of your > energy. BUT maybe some people have enjoyed it? Who > knows. xxxxxxxxxxx Yes it has been a bit harrowing because I don't like to play games. But my purpose in starting the thread was .... oh, wait, I've explained that several times already :-S Edited to attempt to disentangle zeban's post from mine :)

Tarot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue are you writing a book on, theory and evidence > of murder. xxxxxxxxx To repeat yet again what I have already repeated ad nauseam (well I'm sick of repeating it, anyway) I have never at any point suggested that murder was involved in this case, and nor do I believe it. I do think that it is possible that Madeleine accidentally died in the apartment whilst left alone, and I have explained why I think that is a possibility. That is a very long way from murder. That would really be a dark thread. Think badly of me if you must, but please don't think I am suggesting that.

zeban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > > I've said all I've got to say, and I agree > there > > is absolutely no point in dragging it out any > > further. > > Thank God for that. Only took 8 pages to realise > that xxxxxxxx Let's be fair here. If you look back through those 8 pages you will see that almost all my posts were in response to other people dragging it out. As I already said about 6 pages back (:))) if I had not responded to other people's posts it would have looked as if I agreed with them. It wasn't me who said I was making my final post and told admin I would no longer post on the thread, and then started again.

As I have previously posted, I bear full responsibility for everything I've written on this thread. So far as the McCanns are concerned, they and their "spokesman" have kept this story in the news, so they can hardly be surprised if people like myself want to discuss it. I have been very careful in what I have said, and I have tried to keep away from any kind of speculation which could be construed as slander or libel. I have tried to keep to the known facts, though I can't be responsible for other people's posts. It was not at all my intention to make the thread seem like a kangaroo court, merely - as I said at the start - to bring to people's attention some information which the UK press has not publicised. I've said all I've got to say, and I agree there is absolutely no point in dragging it out any further. There is little point in attempting to discuss the case with people who don't address the points I am making.

And to pre-empt yet another post about "evidence", I made a distinction early in this thread between conclusive evidence and indicative evidence. If you can present me with any indicative evidence for your theory that Madeleine was abducted by an organised gang and that the police tried to lay the blame on her parents, I am very happy to consider your theory. If you can't, then I'm afraid I don't think there is any point.