Otta

Pugwash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the man in question was genuine he would have stayed on the pavement until the nanny reached him. You absolutely can not know that. The OP says he "tried to grab the child". Well how the hell did he fail then? We're talking about a grown man and a 3 year old here. The whole thing just doesn't sound right. But as Rusking says, if the police think it's genuine, they'll be on the look out.

It is right that people should be vigilant, but there should definitely be a "SUSPECTED" at the start of this thread title. It is entirely possible that this man thought the child was unsupervised and got out of his car to ask him/her where their parent was. I am not being naive, I read the OP and thought how the hell was this 3 year old so far ahead of the nanny that a would be kidnapper felt he had the time to get out of his car, approach the child, put them in his car, get back in himself, and make his escape? This MIGHT have been an attempted abduction, but there is AT LEAST as much 1chance that it was a misguided attempt to help an apparently unsupervised child. And as for "why would he run then?", well see this thread.

I had perfect roasties in the plough on sunday. Bit I've also had bad ones there too. Basically the spuds are the one part of a roast that will akways be hit and miss when you eat in a pub serving food all day.

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However, I think there is a more interesting > general issue. There is quite a lot of comment > (not least on TV) that the whole 'Justice' thing > is just a distraction, that a democratic choice > has been made. There is also a clamour for the > executive to implement that choice without further > ado - in particular, that Parliament would simply > get in the way of the necessary negotiations. This has nothing to do with "justice". It is a simple question as to whether the PM can do what she wants without checking with parliament. Don't forget it wasn't just tory voters that voted to leave, and far from all tory voters voted to leave. So surely it's right and proper that this is considered in a cross party manner. People still taling as if this is an attempt to thwart democracy and stop brexit all together, are just worrying for the sake of worrying.

RE Honey G, she was God awful. But no more awful than several that have come before her and gone quite far in the live shows. Jedward anybody?

I very much doubt it's the worst ever. It's always been total shit, but you're just getting to the point where you can't take it anymore. I watched it (well the live shows) for a couple of years, going back a few years now. I'd even go so far as to say I enjoyed it as a guilty pleasure. But then I just couldn't be bothered with it anymore. I don't think it had dropped in quality, because it never had quality. I think I'd just had my fill. See also The Apprentice. Used to be the only reality series I'd call myself a "fan" of (I enjoyed watching how clueless they all were). This series I just haven't been able to motivate myself to watch a minute of it. Just not interested anymore. So basically, I think you've probably just had enough X Factor in your life.

Had a funny feeling Liverpool would lose this weekend. But not by giving away a 3-1 lead.

Out of interest, what exactly are your neighbours renting for ?1000 a month? And is it in ED? I'm actually amazed you can rent anything in Dulwich for 1000 a month to be honest. Not saying that's good or right by the way, but thought rents in that area were stupidly high.

Ooo, good week for me, closing that gap.

puzzle007 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > can you pay as you buy and do you have to pay separately each month Both options are available. You can pay for each book, or there is a monthly subscription option, but I am not sure this includes every title. They often have sales on where you can get books for 99p for a limited time. I use the kindle app on my ipad and like it a lot. My wife has the small light paperlight kindle and loves it.

It's probably a standard figure taking in to account working hours, cost of the space, admin and all that jazz.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/feb/03/cities-culture-peckham-only-fools-and-horses-del-boy-se15 "The Nag?s Head There is a pub of the same name in Rye Lane, Peckham. But this blamelessly ungastropubified joint (very different from, say, more genteel SE15 establishments such as The Rye, with its sunken terrace and outdoor table tennis tables) was, sadly, never used as a location in the series. Instead, a vast range of boozers stood in for the Trotters? favourite watering hole, some of them in Bristol and at least one demolished. But not all. The London pubs used as locations for the Nag?s Head include the Middlesex Arms (Long Drive, South Ruislip, HA4 0HG) and the Bolton Hotel (Duke Road, Chiswick). In 2015, neither is the kind of place the Trotters would have patronised: the former serves mocktails, whatever they are, and the latter stopped being a pub in 1995 and was converted for residential use ? the unacceptable fate of many the British boozer in the post-Only Fools and Horses age."

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > complete with "luvly jubbly" stencilled onto the headboards). You made this up right?

Nothing Blair has done in the past means he isn't capable of commenting on the current political mess we are in. Harold Shipman killed loads of people. He still could have offered you sound medical advice if he'd wanted to. All this "because of Iraq, nothing Blair says should be listened to" attitude is doing my head in.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Without our faults we are all perfect. > > > Without the war, WMD..... not really minor flaws, > are they. No, but equally they have absolutely nothing to do with what he's been saying recently. His previous mistakes don't mean that everything he says is wrong.

Tim Farron was good.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Chelsea spoiler game still rankles with me - must > be much much worse for Liverpool fans. It was an exceptionally cruel twist of fate. And then his final game going horribly wrong against Palace. He must have felt pretty broken after that couple of weeks.

I'm not forgetting Blair's past (and again, I never voted for him), but I can't disagree with anything he's said in the last 6 months or so.

I don't think many reds fans would have begrudged him making a few appearances to get a winners medal. But they are a long way off winning it yet. I actually thought he might join Rogers at Celtic, as they had a very good relationship, but I think he has his heart set on coaching and eventually managing Liverpool.

Stevie G officially retires. Sad that a player that good never got to win a league title, even Shearer managed one of those. But surely opne of the leagues greats in the past 20 years.

Only just seen this KK. I haven't seen it, but by all accounts it was a very good fight.

Haha, spot on about the canary.

We probably do have much in common. And I am sure I find the mail / sun / express every bit as distasteful as you do. I think the real issue is that the SFH Campaign hasn't set out their aim clearly enough. The video I saw left me in no doubt that the aim was to starve the papers of funding so they would be forced to close. I suspect they quickly realised this wasn't going to happen, so made some adjustments.

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, Otta, I really hope you do some further > 'rethinking'. For a start you might consider the > idea that aligning yourself with orthodoxy (well, > as you perceive it) is not in itself anything more > than conformism - it is not an argument (reason) > or an ethic (value) that deserves any > consideration. And to describe all this as > 'centre-right' truly takes my breath away. 1. I haven't aligned myself with orthodoxy. 2. What exactly do you think I've described as centre right? If by "all this" you mean the shocking stuff the Mail/Sun/Extress print, you are wrong. There is nothing centrist about that, and I wouldn't suggest there was. If by "all this" you mean the huge middle England readership, and the majority of the elctorate, then yes, I think centre right is reasonably fair.

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Where there are publications that (legally) > publish this kind of trash then it is good that > they might one day disappear through lack of > support. But they DO have support. Masses and masses of support. That is why the advertisers pay for the space, not the other way around. It is up to those people that buy the papers (not all of whom are stupid or ill educated) to decide whether they want to boycott them or not. It is not really for you to try to close them down. Instead, boycott the companies that you particularly like if they advertise in these papers, that is fine, but there is a difference. At the end of the day, we live in a centre-right country that voted to leave the EU. I am/did neither of those things, but I'm starting to get slightly tired of the whole "we know better than the silly oiks" attitude I am seeing a lot of. Don't get me wrong, I've said those things myself, but now I'm rethinking.