peterstorm1985

If someone has a notice on their letter box saying "no junk mail" or "no unsolicited mail", or anything similar, I'd always presume they mean that they don't want anything that isn't personally addressed, or has a stamp on it, coming through the door, so you may have upset a few people Sue, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. (If there was a sign for no junk and you left the leaflet sticking half way out of the letterbox then that's more of a sin). What's really annoying now is that the Estate Agents are sending junk mail through the post. We've had two letters this week; no name but our address and a stamp.

I'm sure that in another thread somewhere on the forum it was mentioned that Charity shops don't just sell what was handed in locally but they redistribute to where they think they'll get the best price. Your list is what the local Mind shop thinks we're most likely to buy.............. By the way, why were the shoes on the bookshelf?

I don't think it matters what religion the residents of ED are (I'm certainly not C of E), nor the council - that just takes us off down a dangerous path - but I do think that the residents of North Cross Road should be able to have one quiet morning over the weekend. If the market opened at, say, 1pm then I wouldn't object, but I doubt it would be worth it for the stallholders. Unfortunately for those who live on the road, there simply aren't enough of them to vote down those who won't get disturbed but fancy somewhere to take the weekend visitors. (I don't live there but I chose to vote against as I wouldn't like the market opening up outside my house when I'm having a Sunday morning snooze.)

I think we're all agreed that Franklins are in the wrong (If there's any remaining doubt just Google B&S and "Jamie at Home"). You've a right to your money back but I'm not sure that Trading Standards will be that bothered. But if you do give TS a call, let us know how you get on.

Sue, you are right, they are wrong. I think they may be mixing it up with Colcannon which is an Irish cabbage and potato mixture but not fried.

Bobbly, did you mean to attach something but forgot? I haven't seen evidence that supports the 'point' that you keep referring to, as stated in your posts. The attachment you provided lists a number of very sad cases but a high proportion had no inquest verdict (so of no value as evidence) and others made clear indications of mental health issues, or matters that suggest that the outcome was beyond (or unrelated to) the control of police officers. I didn't see any that could support the point that I think you are trying to make. Perhaps you could reiterate exactly what point you are trying to make and which case, if any, you refer to as supporting the point. A also think that perhaps you should read some of DJKQ's posts on other threads. Whilst I don't always agree with her, there is no doubt that she is very well informed, and to say that she defends society without enquiry could not be further from the truth. Also, what's with the upper case letters?

Tarot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The toy is now called a Golly,due to the other > name being offensive. > The first sensible thing Tarot has said. If I go down to Peckham and shout "Golly, gosh it's hot here today" will I survive or not? It's not what words you use, but when.

Take photos, email to [email protected] with your name and contact details and a description of the problem. Keep doing so until they sort it out.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What colour skin did your American friend have? Damn - got there before me!!!!!!!!!!

One question - why did it shut so early? A typical Sunday lunch meant that by the time we were looking for tea and cake (yeah cupcakes!), everyone was packing up to go home. Seemed a shame.

Tarot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Frankito ,do you think it would be ok then, if you > had an elderly relative,who maybe went through the > war,or the austere fifties, then was told they > would have a tenancy for life are widowed,then > they are turfed from their home > then stuck in a flat ,maybe miles from their > homes, > I certainly don't think they should be moved to a flat that is a long way (say, more than 30 minutes by bus) from their previous home but, otherwise, why not? It's called downsizing, as vast numbers of retired/widowed people have to do when they no longer have the working/partner income that they previously had. Just because a person is in social housing shouldn't make them immune to that.

As a small child I collected the gollies off Robertson Jam, as did my then best friend at school (and many others). I still have some of them, amongst which there is a fireman golly. I see that image as a very positive depiction of a black person and (if I actually thought it was a black person rather than simply a toy) must have provided a useful image of black people to my young mind (I grew up in a predominately white area). I suppose some cynics might say that a fireman, as an emergency service provider, saving the lives of white people, still indicates some level of subjugation. One of the other badges is an astronaut golly - you surely can't say anything negative about that. By the way, my best friend at the time was black. (The only non-white child in a year group of 60 - her parents were both lawyers). I don't know what conversations went on in her household as to what gollies represented and it may of course be that they suffered her collecting the badges simply so that she could 'join in' with the other children. But I rather suspect that her parents chose to embrace the positive images available; that they were fully aware of the true origins of the toy - as explained above by Penguin68 - and saw that any racist connection was misapplied.

My tip would be that if you haven't managed to make a profit in 6 months, give up; I've seen a couple of friends waste months of their time and thousands of pounds trying to 'build up' websites that never had a chance (Misspent redundancy money). You need to grab attention and make sure that if someone Googles the product that you're selling, your website name shows on the front page of the search results. It doesn't matter how good your site is if no one visits it.

Glasgow has character, Harlow doesn't. Yes, I have been to both. If I had to choose to live in one of them it would be Harlow but only because it's closer to come to London at the weekends, and it's a few degrees warmer down south. Otherwise, I can't think of anything positive to say about the place.

Did a similar thing (ill on sofa) and watched one slimming advert three times before I realised that the 'after' photo wasn't actually the 'before' picture (I don't think I recognised the actual 'before' picture as humanoid - too gross). I guess one shouldn't read too much into it though; it doesn't mean the world as we know it has changed, just that the demographic of those who still sit through the adverts has.

My problem (*Bob*'s earlier example) is that if I send my loved ones out to get me a chocolate bar, what I want is a Green and Black bar and if they can't find it at the first shop I want them to try a bit harder to find it. I don't want them to simply buy me a Mars Bar because I offered it as a second option and it was easier. I want them to convince the shop owner that he really should be stocking Green and Black's; in fact, if he can call up his supplier and bike some round all the better. I get what you say that I could just say 'Green and Black or nothing' but then they'd come home with a couple of packets of crisps and I'd have to watch them eat it with my tummy grumbling, so I suppose in that case I'd prefer the Mars Bar. But I only want to choose the Mars Bar if I already know that the Green and Black isn't available. Otherwise I suspect that we may all end up with the Mars bar that no one really wanted. And a whole one always makes me queasy.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > It's about finding practical solutions that > account for modern society that the society is > willing to pay for. You're right on this point of course and the chances are that the majority will decide that they are not prepared to pay for the benefit of a minority who need counter service provision, but I'm not sure that we've quite got to the point where that minority is so small as to be dismissed. All young people have mobile phones, most of those in their 20s, 30s and 40s do but above 50 the percentage lessens and amongst pensioners the number is quite small. Age related deafness precludes their value to many older people, and is also the reason why face to face communication is often preferable to using a landline. That same group still has limited computer literacy so making an appointment needs to be arranged by a face to face communication. Spend a morning sitting in one of the doctors' surgeries and see how many older people walk in to the surgery to make an appointment rather than using the telephone. (I hadn't been aware how high the numbers were until I praised my GP for installing an automated check in system, but then she explained how limited the potential for cost savings were, as so few of the older patients were able to cope with such a system, and how much time counter staff had to spend making appointments face to face - I've since witnessed the same problem at the hospital).

Sorry, been up in the attic looking for my Police and Dire Straits albums. Is something happening today - it seems awfully quiet outside?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Back on topic.....the Royals have more than a bit > of fun. They get to stuff themselves with the best > food, holiday in the best resorts, wear the best > clothes and all without having done anything to > earn it, i.e. by luck of birth. I'm not joining in with the graywallpaper debate - I guess we all know that he/she is just winding us up for a laugh but I do take issue with this DJKQ. I can't imagine anything worse than having to force down yet another mass catering event dinner - particularly if you're one of the female royals knowing that somehow you've got to look as if you're enjoying it while hoping desperately that not one calorie has made it to your thighs, otherwise every newspaper will be carrying endless articles that you've put on weight. In the first few months of marriage Kate won't dare gain a pound otherwise there'll be endless pregancy speculation. And then those holidays - great fun if it weren't for all the telescopic lenses poked from distant roof tops trying to catch you at the pool and yet more speculation that you're pregnant, getting cellulite, or discussing whether or not there's a skin blemish that might be more than just a mole. As for wearing the best clothes, what a minefield; everything you put on will be scrutinised in a level of detail that makes me pity the poor things. And you say that they do nothing to earn it? There are plenty of others in our society with inherited wealth who get to enjoy it properly without anything like the demands placed on the Royals. Kate and William have only just started down the road of public engagements but look at the diaries of the other royals (on 'the list') and you'll see that life could be a lot more fun without all of that. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason William is so eager to do active service in Afghanistan is the chance to get away from the probing lenses and all the crap he'll be expected to do back here. Of course we might find a single day of their lives fun to swap with but day two would be making most of us want our own lives back. By the way, anyone wanting to check what each of the Royals actually do for their day jobs can look it up here What the royals do every day

If this was the first time Cameron had used this phrase I would understand the supposed uproar, and the suggestion of sexism, but it isn't. He previously used the phrase to quieten down a man (I think it was David Milliband). There weren't any complaints then, so why the excitement now? I rather think this was just an exchange of normal political banter that a few journalists managed to get in the middle of.

But dita-on-tees, they're not 'born to rule'; that went a long time ago, and even then it was only the first in line. Their 'job' is primarily one of marketing UK plc, but a quick look at the court diary shows they do a lot more than that. I have no interest in the royals myself - I certainly won't be watching the wedding - but there are plenty who treasure the chance to meet them (sad but true) and all those visits made by even minor royals are on someone's request. I really can't imagine Prince Andrew thinking "Oh, I fancy addressing the Plumbing federation at their annual conference today, let's see if I can arrange it" but for some reason he ends up doing such odd things. And DJKQ, of course there are people with far less who do much more but there are so, so, many more with similar levels of usable cash to the Royals who do absolutely nothing - why not pick on them?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have no time for any of > them. "Them" - a term used to describe a minority group whose identifying feature is an accident of birth. Members of groups described as 'Them' are generally persecuted by the majority for something that 'they' had or have no control over. Feel free to apply this principle to a range of other minority groups; although don't expect to be treated so lightly.

PeckhamRose, are you sure this Freepost address is still valid? I thought it was withdrawn, so the only people to suffer by sending junkmail to this address would be post office employees.

Collect all you junk mail (of all varieties) then choose the local estate agent you dislike most and push it through their door. It doesn't solve the problem but it sure feels good.

I don't have school age children so it's only the possibility of a waste of my tax that concerns me but I've always believed strongly that anything that may be of benefit to the poorest in society should also be used by the richest. My reason being that the poorest often have the least ability to be heard. A bad school meal that is only eaten by the poorest child simply goes into the bin, whereas a bad school meal eaten by a child from a much wealthier background may result in some very loud parental complaints, and one can hope that that may result in a much better school meal for the poorest child. I also believe in as much equality in the early years as possible. There are enormous benefits of getting a cross section of society to sit down together and eat. From a financial point of view I would prefer that all children were required to have school meals, with the wealthier parents paying for the cost, as this would achieve the same aim, but it seems that that mechanism is not available.