KalamityKel

I knew it!

Every time I'm off work there's bloomin' builders chopping, drilling, sawing, hammer banging in the surrounding areas... is this deliberate? ;-)

I'm deffo one of those who annoys the hell out of most of you - I can assure you it's done mostly out of habit especially when dealing with callers from all over the world using various devices AND one shouldn't assume just because you're sitting in a particular area that the person you're giving a number to knows where you are or where they are! Cant's really understand the frustration here... More annoying are those amongst the human race who insist on pronouncing the zero part of a postcode as an o and try to correct you when you repeat it back with a zero! eg. SE22 ZEROer V SE22 oer

LadyNorwood Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the-e-dealer Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > preggers is old as the hills. And they are at > > least 50. > > > Didn't realise it had to be a new thing that > causes me irrational rage - what's at least 50 > ted? The hills?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As a long-serving geek, I object to that. Never thought of you as a geek man... although I'm fairly stupid so I'm probably a bit blind ;-)

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TFL Buses with seats so close together that no > reasonably sized person can get there legs into > and sit properly. Can they not test these things > with some reasonably sized people? oooh I get ya! AND the seats on top of the wheels on the single deckers... surely common sense would suggest more space needed when going over bumps!

Oh my this is a dangerous thread... where to start! No no I'll curb my life frustrations and keep quiet.

jctg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Getting dressed up to go and watch a film as one > of the film's characters. Just the getting dressed up to see a film is enough surely?

shhhhhh

:-O are you physic?

second grade? Where a WE now?

I was given one the other week that was named "mate" I nearly burst in to tears... not sure if I was simply emotional or hysterical! :-s

Hadn't this pathetic "issue" been raised before in the media? Seems a bit out dated...

Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Wouldn't everyone look > silly if M+S now decided this is not what they > want anymore and don't take up the option but the > planning permission still stands. > Bring on Aldi!!!

Ive never seen one with my name on it :-(

maybe not the "norm" but certainly the "trend" can't agree with you on "move out quickly its not because their lease has ended, its because they've gone bust" - simply not true in the instances I've seen. The businesses in question are very much still alive and kicking.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Another friend's dreadful attempt - he was from > Wigan, so imagining the accent helps. > > He walked up to a fairly large chested girl in the > pub, pointed straight at her chest and said, "'Eck > - I bet you din't get many of them to tha' > pound". > > She wasn't impressed. Loz, this "friend", is this you?

Hey I never said I was in favour of such "flexibility". It's simply how things are. I see it regularly in other areas where a business will move in to a property, completely gutting/refurbing a place, only be there a couple of months, move on and the whole thing starts again for the next occupier. Expensive waste.

I think offering short leases is the norm these days. Gives flexibility to all those concerned by not committing for too long a period.

harold76 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My wife heard the objector at the meeting > yesterday raise this, however, the development > representatives made it very clear that this has > already been refuted, and they had the legal > documentation to prove it. or disprove it...

Hahahahahahahahahaha oh hahahahahahaha!

jaih1 I don't think you're overly familiar with the entire application in question or indeed the history leading up to now. Your opinion may be a little different if a) you had all the facts and b) if you were actually affected by the "new" development to the site. It has absolutely nothing to do with which retailer will be taking over the site as to why residents are so against the application being granted.

cl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > A depressing process. Council admitted the case > had been dealt with poorly early on, with full > implications not considered properly, and the > councillors making the decision clearly did not > agree with the inspector's previous appeal > decision and conclusions, but ultimately they felt > they could not go back on them. So... the whole thing was admittedly conducted wrongly yet it's acceptable to pass it anyway? Hmmm makes perfect sense don't it. Surely on those grounds alone the whole thing should not have been considered, with the advice the application be re-submitted and a new committee appointed. I bet this admission won't be mentioned in written decision. Again, I ask, what is the point of the planning department? A precedent has now been set so expect all sorts of ridiculous applications to be made and accepted by the council.

The car wash, really, is not so much of a problem and has never been - of course newer residents to the road will disagree. The site is certainly better used now than it was after the small garage closed where needles, rats etc were regular features! The car wash is constant and at suitable business hours. Lorry deliveries made and proposed to the site in question is an unnecessary disturbance. Healey, do you grumble each week when the rubbish/recycling collections are made at the noise? This, you know to expect on a certain day and usually guess roughly what time it will happen. Imagine this kind of thing randomly at all hours of the day. Still think it's fair?

again?