Domitianus

HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You should be working in Brixton then you'd know > what the edge really is, and no it's not the green > bush outside your 'ouse. > There's this building near where work that has > police going in and out of it all the time, day > and night. > The place must be an absolute hotbed of > criminality. > Torture, it's the only language they understand. Not quite true, HB. I understand they also understand "innit".

I believe there was a doughnut in the house that was nearing its sell-by date.

I understand it was a false alarm but the word on the street is that it could all happen again. I hardly dare leave home!

The whole 'respek' thing is such a joke though. I mean you have to wonder what pathtically fragile sort of self-esteem or ego these characters have if they can have it bludgeoned by someone just looking at them. Imagine living a life where the rules were that if someone looked at you the "wrong way", they were "dith-rethspeking me, blood" and you had to then shoot them and spend the rest of your life in prison where one of your victim's "homies" would probably "shiv" you with a "shank" or whatever. Very, very sad!

What in the name of God, is a "Man Dem"? Why can't these boyz get a nice hobby - like stamp collecting?

Asset Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > does it not go on to say in the Wiki article about > the Kitty case that in fact it was completely > misrepresented by the press and in there were not > as many bystanders as reported, the police were > called and most of the witnesses that heard the > murder couldn't see it. Further, that the case is > still misrepresented in psychology books as an > example to students. > No idea. Do you think I read it? > Therefore not worth referencing.

Posters might be interested in the Bystander Effect, in particular the notorious Kitty Genovese case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect To set your mind at rest, however, Caffine Addict [sic], I heard screaming out the back last night (Barry Road) and it definitely WAS foxes.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Eliza.D - Even huge penises disappear eventually. But they always return to the scene of the crime.

With regard to the "cooling off period" - I may be mistaken but I believe this differs for unsolicited calls from salesmen. I understand that if you have made an appointment for a salesman to call (even if arranged through a different person such as the youngster in this case) your rights under cooling off periods are weaker. Is this correct? Any consumer law specialists out there?

Domitianus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Went to one of those once and the traffic wardens > clamped me outside for parking on a very poorly > painted yellow line! This didn't really happen. "I can't back that up with paperwork" he says, in his best Dr Evil voice.

Went to one of those once and the traffic wardens clamped me outside for parking on a very poorly painted yellow line!

When I was in a hotel health club a couple of years ago I had my wet, freshly used swim shorts stolen! I realised as I went back to my room that I had left them in the changing rooms and went back but they had vanished and were not handed in at club reception. Incredible! Who would steal someone else's wet swim shorts?????

Why does nowhere seem to offer trout on the menu any more? I LOVE trout but it is so hard to come by.

Am I right in thinking they have no powers of arrest? If so, what do they do if they attempt to spot fine someone or ask for your details and you simply tell them to b****r off? Not that I would, being so well brought up, of course!

ruffers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > silverfox Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Bugger me! I never knew that > > > Search will also reveal the same jokes ;-) Well blow me! I

Perhaps DM has re-registered under a new nom-de-pomp?

Apparently there was a rumour about a free bacon sandwich!

You completely miss the point. A gift had been made by a donor to MIND. The goods therefore became MIND's. The goods were NOT merely dumped in the street for anyone to take - that is obvious to anyone. MIND are clearly desirous to receive donations which they sell to fund their work. The fact that they had been delivered in a manner that was not to MIND's liking is utterly irrelevant. MIND were clearly not rejecting donations but were attempting to discourage people from leaving them outside the shop. My analogy wth Royal Mail is rock solid. It is a matter of possession. When a gift is made by one person to another (whether delivered in an ideal manner or not) ownership passes from the donor to the recipient. For someone else to take the goods is theft - plain and simple. This is elementary law. Fact is, however the goods had been deposited, whoever owned them, they did not belong to the DM who lifted (stole) them. It would have been clear as day that the goods were donated to charity to generate funds for charitable work. Why else had they been left outside a charity shop? Whether or not the donor was lazy or negligent has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER upon the ownership issue here. Let me put it another way - if someone was foolish enough to leave as a donation an envelope containing fifty quid in cash on the doorstep, despite MIND's attempts to discourage people from leaving donations outside, and someone came along and pocketed it, would you still be saying the same thing?

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Domitianus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Of COURSE it is theft. The clear intention (and > it must have been > > known to the culprit) was that ownership of the > > goods concerned (absurd to call it litter) was > > being passed over to MIND. > > but the charity has said that they don't want > stuff left on the pavement - as i said earlier, if > i come and leave my junk outside your house, does > it become yours and your problem? the intention of > the owner is surely not enough, does the recipient > not need to agree that they want it? Irrelevant! Possession is still that of MIND. I didn't want my parcels left out in the street but I sure as h**l wanted my parcels! The fact that they had been deposited contrary to my instructions didn't entitle anyone to come along and pinch them. Same goes for MIND.

PinkyB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Not once did I feel crushed or devalued"!! > > Loving this line. Why do I suspect this is an > exact quote from a letter of complaint they've > have recently? Let's face it, no-one uses that > phrase in normal conversation. > > "I went to Sainsburys on Saturday afternoon, the > queues were massive and there were only about 5 > tills open. I have to say, I felt completely > crushed and devalued." > > "I got on the 176 bus last night, after waiting > twenty minutes, it was rammed as usual and I > couldn't sit down because someone had their bags > on the seat. I felt completely crushed and > devalued." > > "My cat ran away at the weekend, I felt completely > crushed and devalued." > > See, it sounds almost normal now, doesn't it? > > Now determined to shoehorn this phrase into > monthly sales meeting with boss this afternoon! How about "disempowered and marginalised"?

Can I also add (and I think I posted about it here a couple of years ago) that a similar incident happened outside the St Christopher's charity shop and I did challenge the thief. She looked very embarrassed and told me to mind my own business. I believe I told her I would be sure to mind my own business if I ever saw her being mugged in the street or saw someone breaking into her car!

Indiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Peckham Rose - I agree that it's very low when > people rifle through the charity bags and take > stuff but my point is that it wouldn't happen if > people didn't dump their litter there in the first > place. > > They are not technically stealing as it's just a > load of bags on a pavement.....the shops always > ask people not to leave bags out of hours as by > the time they open it's either ruined by rain or > all the good stuff has been taken and they have to > deal with the litter. > > Why can't the people return when the shop is open > and give their bags to the staff instead of > leaving a load of litter for them to deal with! Someone may already have addressed this point but I will stick my oar in anyway. Of COURSE it is theft. The clear intention (and it must have been known to the culprit) was that ownership of the goods concerned (absurd to call it litter) was being passed over to MIND. For someone to take property that clearly had been donated to another party (and was therefore the recipient party's property) is without question theft. I recently had a parcel stolen from outside my house because the postman had decided to leave it on my doorstep rather than fill in one of the little collection cards and return it to depot. I have previously asked for the Royal Mail not to do this in case stuff was stolen/spoilt. Are you trying to say, just because it was left outside my house when I had asked that it should not be, that that wasn't theft?????

Shu.Kurimu.Sensei Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sad to hear about the alcohol licence, there's far > too many blow ins and localish residents walking > around LL loudly at night as it is and way too > much vomit on the side streets, especially on the > short cuts going up to Barry road. > > Some woman was on Frogley Road simultaneously > urinating and vomiting outside the bakers last > weekend. > > Why anyone feels the need to get drunk over the > age of 21 is beyond me, it's just pathetic. > > Time for the killer clown to do some late night > patrols and go on a real killing spree like his > brethren from Killer Clowns from Outer Space! What happens at the age of 21?

Nero Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Re newsagents upping the price of stamps - > Adding money to the stamps is not legal! Someone > tried it on with me at a shop near Aldwych and I > found out that it is akin to charging ?1.10 for a > pound coin etc. Trading standards take a v dim > view of it, as does Royal Mail. I thought so as well but wasn't sure enough to say so.

After she clobbers you and nicks your phone you realise she had swine flu as well?