indiepanda

My other half has dark brown hair, but when he doesn't shave for a few days some of his beard comes through ginger. Another reason he should shave more often - not that there is anything wrong with ginger hair (I dye my hair to emphasis the reddish tones), but it looks odd having facial hair that doesn't match that on your head!

I wasn't really aware of this case until I read his "apology" in the i today, but I have to admit I was pretty underwhelmed with what he had to say. How can you need to go to journalist school to learn that it's wrong to change people's wiki entries to include defamatory lies about them or adjust quotes to improve a story? Ok, he's apologised, but I rather got the impression that he did this not because it was the right thing to do, but because it was the best thing for his career. If he toes the line in the future, I will be inclined to assume that it will be because people will be looking very closely at what he has to say for "mistakes" - i.e. for fear of losing his job not because he would find it repulsive to do anything else. I've generally thought there's only one group of supposed professionals I trust less than politicians and it's journalists... this case doesn't do anything to change my view. (obviously I don't think all are bad.... but there is a sizable minority that give a bad impression)

I had laser eye surgery in May, best thing I ever did. Bit sore that evening but ok by the following morning, eyesight good enough to drive within 48 hours and near 20/20 a week later. Too young for reading glasses so spec free for now, though expect to need them at some point in the future. No problems with night vision and I know people who had it done years ago that have had no problems. I went to the advanced vision centre on Harley St - had heard bad things about the pushiness and quality of the work done at some of the high street chains - didn't want to take the risk. A friend went to Moorfields and also spoke well of them.

Lets face it, management is a skill and just because someone is good at something doesn't mean they were good at managing other people to do it. Lots are dreadful at managing and would far rather get on with doing what they are good at. Provided you have enough understand of and respect for what people are doing I don't think you need to actually have done it yourself to manage them. As for a tattoo parlour in the area, I think some good comments about making sure the place fits in with the area would help, some do look a bit rough and intimidating from the outside. I can't say I'd be looking to be a client (I don't like pain, work in a conservative job where visible tattoos would be totally unacceptable and I'd worry about what they'd look like when I get old) but I've no objection to other people having them done - it's a matter of personal choice.

Tarot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They bite more in the evening, but it is the > season for breeding insects like gnats and > mosquitos,and those big horseflys,who jump up when > you walk on the long grass. > They give a very nasty bite some people have to > have antibiotics after an allergic reaction to > them. I got bitten by one yesterday morning and I've just had to go get antibiotics for cellulitis - it's not really an allergic reaction, it's an infection caused by the bite, hurts like hell!

Yes, they are definitely the worst I've found in East Dulwich. If you go over them at anything more than walking pace you can hear the underside of your car getting scraped.

Looking at the first picture I think on the right hand side in the background you can see a church. I think this is a plot out the back of the allotments on the south side of Underhill road / east side of Dunstans road. I live relatively close to there and there's a plot which previously had what looked like disused garages (brick walls back and sides but no roofs) which has recently been cleared. The church seems to sound the bells every quarter hour - which is nice enough at the distance I am, but am not sure I'd want it right next to me, could be enough to disturb sleep at that close range.

It probably depends what field he will be looking for work in, but I know my employer would be unlikely to look at the CV of someone with less than a 2.1, and that's been true of all my employers - I work in professional services now (big 4 firm) and previously in financial services. I think it would be worth appealing if it's going to harm his career prospects.

If the NOTW is just going to be replaced with the Sunday Sun, feels like Murdoch has got away with it... I shouldn't be surprised I suppose. Has anyone signed the petition to stop to the BSkyB takeover, and a full public inquiry into the Murdoch empire's phone hacking activities? If you want to, the 38 degrees web site is here - they are up to 100,000 signatures already http://38degrees.org.uk/

Mockney & Moos, I know what you mean... seems in this world if there's one thing worse than everyone talking about you for the wrong reasons it's not being talked about at all. No such thing as bad publicity. (I'd like to think of some exceptions to that statement.... but it's not that easy!) I'm not suggesting Ford should be given a medal for their stance - clearly they benefit from it too. I was just surprised the BBC seemed to be suggesting there was no circumstance where companies should try to influence the media. Personally I don't mind if Ford benefit from this if it makes some shabby journalist think twice before sinking so low in the future. It's quite hard to think of a good act that doesn't benefit oneself in some way. Even if not public something like private charitable donations can give a warm feeling of having done something to help but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make them.

I spotted a story on the BBC website about the hacking and was interested to see this comment by Torin Douglas (it's the closing couple of paragraphs that interested me) "The News of the World has already started paying compensation for phone-hacking. Now it's facing another financial penalty - a loss of advertising. Following the Milly Dowler allegations, Ford has suspended its advertisements, saying "it cares about the standards of behaviour of those it deals with externally". Halifax and Npower say they are reviewing their options. Tesco and Virgin Media say they're awaiting the outcome of the police investigations. Many will applaud Ford's action. But should advertisers use their financial muscle to try to influence the behaviour of the media? It is not usually regarded as a good thing for big business to threaten newspapers and broadcasters, particularly over editorial issues. There have been exceptions. Carphone Warehouse stopped sponsoring Channel 4's Big Brother, following allegations of racism towards Shilpa Shetty. It's the advertisers' money - but are they the right people to tell the media how to behave?" Now while I wouldn't want to see advertisers using their power to force papers to cover up stories that might be disadvantagous to them but are genuinely in the public interest (e.g. if Beko were trying to cover up the link between fires and faults in their fridges rather than offering to fix them), I am struggling to see the problem with advertisers behaving as Ford have in this case. Ok, I suppose it doesn't do Ford any harm publicity wise to come out and say they will not be associated with a paper that behaves like this... but it also hits the paper where it hurts and I am not sure there is any other language they understand. The fact their behaviour was unethical or illegal doesn't seem to have stopped them, perhaps the prospect of bankruptcy might? I don't really see why companies should be discouraged from taking an ethical stance or not wanting to work with those that follow illegal practices - in fact, given they have more ability to influence than sole members of the public, I'm inclined to think its what they should do. What do others think?

Hardly one and the same thing. I was against the UK entering the Euro because I thought it wasn't possible to effectively manage such a large economic area properly and that problems like this would arise. I think we benefit from being able to set out own interest rates and the floating exchange rate. As for the Olympics, ticketing issues aside, I think we are doing a pretty good job of it. The building looks well advanced and it seems to have been well thought through, especially about how the area will be used afterwards to give a boost to a deprived area. Am sure I will be glued to the TV when its on and hoping the local support will inspire us to a great medal tally.

http://www.demotiximages.com/news/734334/aftermath-bus-crash-south-london Ah, just found the above - 6 injured, thoughts go out the them & their families

Still? The accident happened last night, think we were there not that long afterwards, and that was around midnight. There were fire engines, ambulances and police cars screeching past us while we were stationary on the bus just past Camberwell Green, and then when we walked down the road to the junction with Coldharbour Lane there was a bus right up on the pavement a little further up Denmark Hill and it looked like two shattered shop fronts (all cordoned off so couldn't really tell) and I thought I could smell gas. I do hope no one was hurt, but even if they weren't (which seems a little unlikely) it must have been a horrible shock for all involved, not to mention the owners of the shops.

Well it's not an easy thing to fix. The reality is most people have got fixed on the idea of being able to retire at a certain age rather than being able to enjoy a certain number of years of retirement, and with life expectancy increasing over time, there an increasing cost associate with that retirement age which to maintain the same level of income as before, means increasing costs that would have to come from somewhere, be it employers, individuals or out of taxation. In many respects I don't think is an issue that can be solved in isolation. Many people are not in a position to save more for their retirement even at levels of income where they should be, because of excessive levels of personal debt, be that mortgage or other kinds of debt. And whilst some responsibility for some of that rests with the individuals, I think a fair amount of it rests with the government for being far too lax in regulation of banking. I can't help thinking if banks hadn't been allowed to lend such high income multiples and LTVs, house prices wouldn't have escalated as rapidly as they did. And the way in which companies are allowed to continue to push credit on people that really can't afford it is just wrong. I used to get at least one offer for a pre-approved credit card every week before I joined the mailing preference service and I only paid off the debt I ran up post graduation with profits from the sale of my first home. We also seem to have a real issue with income inequality - for many low to middle income workers, real salaries have barely been increasing while those of the company boards and senior management have been racing away. Whilst they argue that those salaries are needed to attract the best talent, the ratio of top to bottom earners in UK and US companies is meant to be rather higher than other European and Far Eastern similar companies so am a little skeptical about that argument. Part of the issue is the owners of the company shares don't seem to be willing to do enough to challenge these massive pay packages, and in many cases, the owners with enough clout to make a difference are the pension funds. It seems to me until such time as we can solve some of the other economic issues we face as a country it's hard to see how you can solve the pension issue by any other way that accepting many will retire later and potentially with a lower income. And if all this wasn't enough, the EU have plans to increase the capital insurance companies have to hold on pension annuities, making them even more expensive than the rates others have quoted here. It is supposedly in the interests of the customer - making insurance companies more financially secure. Oh and then there is the ruling that insurance companies cannot charge different rates for men and women - not great news for men retiring from December 2012. Though I guess at least for women will stretch their usually smaller pension pots a little further.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The actuaries in the private sector who for years, despite advances in medicine and living standards, > continued to sanction old pensions levels up until relatively recently in the private sector need to > be scrutinised. How did they maintain that it was doable for so long? And how did it it go almost > overnight from ?yep? to ?no way jose? Am not sure whether to be pleased that someone has heard of my profession or somewhat embarrassed at the context. Relieved at least that I can say am not in pensions so can't take the rap on this one. In seriousness, I think the issue of private sector pensions being unaffordable on an ongoing basis is not something that has only just been recognised. There are very few final salary schemes that are open to new joiners and a number of those that are in existence have closed the scheme to future accruals and I wouldn't be at all surprised if many went the same way. It wasn't just under-estimates of the future life expectancy increases that led to the death knell being sounded for private pension schemes, it was the payment holidays taken by companies in the late 1990s when many pensions schemes were showing healthy surpluses and the subsequent market crash when the dot-com bubble burst in the early noughties. Actuaries cannot be blamed for all of those issues. Having said that, I suspect more bad news is still come on life expectancy. I have to admit if I were the type to set up my own life insurance company (I'm soooo not), I wouldn't touch annuities with a barge pole, far too risky. As for the public sector pensions, I am largely in agreement with Quids. The retirement ages now were set at a time when life expectancy was much much lower and the cost of funding those pensions has been increasing dramatically over time. It's not pure jealousy that makes me say I don't think it's fair that public sector workers should benefit from a generally more generous pension scheme linked to final salary or career average rather than having to run the risk of markets falling and life expectancy increasing reducing the value of our defined contribution pension savings like most of us in the private sector. It's a feeling that it is intrinsically unfair that I should have to pay more tax to fund those pensions. Sure, some public sector jobs are demanding and unpleasant - that's true of plenty of private sector jobs too. And private sector employers are not going to be willing to go back to the days of defined benefit pension schemes no matter how many unions get involved. It's so easy for people to say "the government should pay for...." - but it's not the government, it's tax payers. And there is never going to be enough tax to pay for all the things everyone thinks "the government government should pay for..." and if cuts have to be made, I don't think this one is unreasonable. I have to say that

OrganicGirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for all the responses! The fact that my > potential buyer seemed so absolutely dead set on > getting my address and coming to my home doesn't > sit all that well with me. I'd have understood if > he/she had asked me to provide a receipt or > something as proof that the phone really is mine > or even show ID. But to insist on coming to your > home and call off the purchase immediately when I > suggested Cafe Nero, is a tiny bit odd in my > opinion. That does sound a little bit odd, I think I would have been a bit jumpy about that.

Well, I've always had people come round to my home collect stuff I've been selling and they've done the same when I've been buying. I suppose I am quite trusting, but then I think most of them have been ladies, and when it has been men my other half has generally been around so I've felt safe anyway. But to be honest main reason for ensuring my other half was there was because I sold some heavy stuff and it needed two people to shift and he's a lot stronger than me, not because I felt in any way threatened. I can understand why you would be nervous under the circumstances, but equally if I were a guy and someone refused to let me have their address to come and look at something they are selling then I'd probably feel a bit insulted. It must be hard on the decent men to get tarred with the same brush as the few rotten apples in the barrel. But I guess it doesn't totally rule out someone being one of those rotten apples... only you can judge and if you really don't feel safe then better to miss out on the sale than play havoc with your peace of mind.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If it makes you feel better Indiepanda (if that is > possible, considering the subject matter) the > reporting to conviction rate for rape (the > 'attrition rate') is really not much better or > worse than most other major offences. Not that > that is any reason to be complacent. > > I can dig out the stats if you like - I posted > them a while ago during the Kenneth Clarke > brouhaha. Seriously?? Am not sure that does make me feel better actually! We still seem to have a pretty bad record on rape and getting worse, if this newspaper report is anything to go by - worse conviction rates in Europe this says:- (I know this isn't the full story - but it's articles like this that give the impression conviction rates are very poor here to rape) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5321555/Britain-has-lowest-rape-conviction-rate-in-Europe-study-finds.html

I have difficulty with this one... on the one hand I totally agree that men can't say it's ok to rape women if they dress provocatively. But I've no desire to reclaim the word "slut" - I can't think of any time when it's been anything other than insulting... I'd rather demonstrate for a proper investigation into why so few reported rapes result in a conviction and as a result even fewer bother to report, and some positive action to resolve. Recognition it's not women's fault (which to be honest I don't think many men would really argue with) doesn't seem enough.

I pay my cleaner direct, got through recommendation by a friend. ?10 an hour, and because it's just me and my partner and we aren't that messy we have her in 3 hours every other week. I'm happy with her work - certainly a lot happier than I'd be having the money back and having to do it for myself!

To be fair to puzzled, this doesn't really belong in the ED section - should be in lounge if at all. And really sounds like it's an apology to the boyfriend that's warranted not a post on a public forum. And I'm not a bloke.

Hastings isn't that bad, am just back from a very enjoyable weekend there. But then I expect part of the reason I like the place is I've been going there with my family ever since I was a little kid. It's still got plenty of tacky areas, but it has improved a bit over recent years, some nice restaurants now where not all the fish comes in batter, which was less the case a few years back and some nice art galleries and gift shops. The park has been given a good makeover too, spent a nice afternoon there yesterday. And the b&b we stayed in was very nice, admittedly not cheap, but pretty much perfect. Not sure about the place being overrun with Guardian readers though - on our first trip together last summer my boyfriend declared "I like it here, much more working class than Brighton"

The notion that all immigrants are leeches is ridiculous. My other half and many of his friends are immigrants - all work very hard, pay their taxes, live in privately rented homes, and when they need medical or dental treatment tend to go private, even though their incomes are modest (most are in the building trade or working in restaurants). When one of them is short of work (some are self employed) they tend to look after each other financially - not claiming dole. They came here not to scrounge off the state but simply because employment prospects were greater here than where they are from. I also work with plenty of immigrants - there aren't enough actuaries in the UK to meet demand (too many mathematicians tempted into the banking industry for the higher pay). They wouldn't be here if the UK market provided enough staff to meet the demand. And trust me, you won't find my colleagues from overseas are here to get a council house to live in. They are here because the UK offers the best chance to develop their skills. Many intend to return back home long term, and will have paid plenty of tax in the meantime whilst not imposing much cost on the state during their time here. Neither groups would be here if there were enough people in the UK willing and able to do these jobs.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agree with MP, he came across as very genuine and > decent moral base. Aside of when he was having an affair with Edwina Currie eh? Though at least he didn't try to sell a book off the back of it... I really thought that was so uncalled for - Norma did not deserve to have that dragged out into the open. Major may have been a fairly decent guy, but he did mess up quite comprehensively taking us into the ERM. As for Thatcher. I can't say I will cry when she passes away (not that I tend to cry about the deaths of people I dont' know personally) but I don't think she deserves to be vilified in the way she has been by some people. Could do with someone with her attitude to sort out Bob Crow....