ianr

uplandrd2020, I'm wondering why, after you'd started your Strange Ingredients thread /forum/read.php?20,2187353, you then removed your opening post in this 27-month-old thread about shoplifting /forum/read.php?20,1986069,1986069#msg-1986069.

Try https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/find-somewhere-to-park/parking-zones.

Have any views emerged of the accuracy or fairness of his comments? And would it have been wholly out of bounds for him to make them in his own person? It's perhaps a pity if so, unless he was in the position of a quasi-judicial decision maker.

NewWave wrote: --------------- > Mines Wednesday and I'm 61 y/o. > I'm so pleased! I'm pleased for you too. Your mentions of carrying on doing public-facing work during the non-shutdown periods, and the worry of public transport commuting to the west end along with the non-mask-wearers, and your colleague's positive test, ... all rightly made me feel at least a little uneasy myself. I think people have already warned about not thinking that whatever partial immunity you get sets in overnight. Somewhere there sre the Israel figures showing the amount of time it took for reported infections to drop off there post-first-jab. ISTR, after seeing one set of results, setting myself three weeks leeway after my own jab before feeling on the safer side, though even now I'm still taking the same precautions.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The staff are all on a well > deserved holiday for a month > while the work is being done. Is the co-op really not making any use of them at all elsewhere?

I was tempted by it, but then found the understandable bar on those who've already had one jab -- it would presumably clash with their protocol and potentially mess up any randomisation. I thought it would be useful to pass on, to save anyone else from spending too much time before reaching that dead end, and in case it was of use to those in lower priority groups. Though I did leave them to discover that there are also small possible 'costs' involved, like the several follow-up tests. I'm quite open so far to having a mix-and-match imposed on me whenever the second jab is offered, based on the vagueish preconception that there are benefits in heterogeneity. OTOH, perhaps I've been over-influenced by such as Tim Spector's advice to eat 30 varieties of plant each week. Who knows?

bobbsy wrote: > And parents standing around chatting, > provided they socially distance, are > doing nothing wrong unless it was a > pre-arranged meeting. Do you not think that's a gathering as specified in the current regulations https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374/regulation/2? "2(6 )(e) a gathering takes place when two or more persons are present together in the same place in order? (i) to engage in any form of social interaction with each other, or (ii) to undertake any other activity with each other;" Do you have any view on any risks of cross-infection in such a meeting?

Bob, I've just seen your latest post, which came after my last edit. Just to confirm, that my post above wasn't aimed at you at all, and to apologise if it might have seemed to.

> It's meaning is rather boring - > just an ability to understand > injustice and history - nothing bad. Cool.

I see that "Trolley Snatcha" is no more. Does anyone know what triggered the eventual deactivation?

TheCat wrote: ------------- > More delectable prose from Jay today to > satisfy my base middle-class instincts. > While reading this I've found that I've > managed to slip an entire roast chicken > in the front of my trousers, without > even realising it.... I suppose that's all one can expect from a typical EDF male lounge lizard. It's not within spitting distance of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voina#How_to_Snatch_a_Chicken.

The Cat wrote: > PS..with regards to the Post Script discussion on 'woke'. What/where is this?

Some facial recognition algorithms are now taking masks into account, with some claimed success.

beigemartin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > See attached I'd want to see the paper, not just one figure from it.

I've just been looking at https://bepartofresearch.nihr.ac.uk/vaccine-studies/approved-vaccine-studies/ for details of the research project looking at the effects of combining the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines. They're currently looking for volunteer subjects age 50 or over. The London centres involved are UCH and St Georges, Tooting. They want people who haven't had any dose at all yet. They'll be giving two doses, of either the same or different vaccines, at an interval of 4 or 12 weeks. Both those choices will be made randomly, and without informing the subjects of the vaccines used until the end of the study, which lasts a year. More at the above link.

Users can't delete posts; they can just edit them down to a single character. You could also at the same time change the Subject Line to, say, Deleted.

> The fake site also asks for bank details > either to verify identification or to > make a payment. And even before that, mother's maiden name, which one of the interviewees didn't immmediately register as phishing, and so entered.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I understand that the prime minister is now > prepared to invoke article 16 after today's PMQs ? Who's told you what?

Thanks to DFox for the mention of other market closures, both public and private. This is about Hackney's Broadway Market, published 25/11/20, though in other cases, such as Cambridge, it might conceivably be a simple matter of overcrowding without the takeaways or any apparent socialising: The Town Hall?s inclusive economy boss Cllr Guy Nicholson said: "Only a fraction of the usual Broadway Market stalls were open last weekend in line with the council?s Covid-secure street markets plan, however large numbers of visitors collecting takeaway food and alcohol from some nearby shops led to severe overcrowding along the street, which meant we were forced to close the market early on Sunday." https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2020/11/25/broadway-market-on-hold-another-early-closure/ Some photographs of any crowding or otherwise in NXRd would have been helpful.

alex_b wrote: ------------ > If it?s taking AZ to court then presumably > a court in whichever jurisdiction was > specified in the contract (I guess Belgium > as that?s where it was signed). And stated: "18.4 This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of Belgium."

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Marshalls are stopping people not > wearing Masks walking through > North Cross Road Are you certain you saw them physically preventing people from doing so? > but ignoring Stall Holders preparing and > selling Food not wearing masks. I don't believe the regulations on wearing of masks in shops, etc would apply to stall holders, or customers, because the market is not indoors. See the definitions of 'relevant place', 'shop' and 'shopping centre' in para.2 of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020. The word 'market' doesn't appear. It seems to me that the best legitimate action would be against instances of gathering, of any group of two or more who aren't from the same household or bubble. That would be for a police officer to do. The best personal safegaurd would probably be to avoid the place if it's crowded. The risk each day of getting infected rises with the number of people you get near to, and masks are far from perfect barriers to something the size of a virus.

> Surely someone within local law > enforcement must be able to clamp down > on this epidemic of petty car crime. PC George Dixon will probably have a good idea who's done it. He'll be round their gaff later for a little chat and nose around, notice a small stash of converters in the backyard, and have the scrote safely locked up in Dock Green nick.

But don't be a tease. Tell us about your trolley snatching.

That's ok. I've lots of experience of knowing what not to trust, as well as being a Lidl customer. While checking I did come across this awful example, of people who possibly think they can make money by setting up a portal to online delivery sites. https://www.buyonlinegroceries.co.uk/. They appear to have got Iceland to sign up and presumably give them some click-through commission. But dig down and that appears to be all. Iceland appears on their top page. But click on any of the other supermarkets listed and you get some near-contentless spiel and a link to Iceland. They even have a similar page prepared for Lidl. https://www.buyonlinegroceries.co.uk/lidl. It's actually so bizarre, when you get down to the area-specific parts, you can start wondering what it's really for. A school exercise ground? An eventual repository for a string of paid SEO backlinks? ...

Not if you believe the only authoritative source, the lidl.co.uk website. We do not offer any home delivery or click and collect services, we also do not have a stock checking system online or at Customer Services. https://customer-service.lidl.co.uk/SelfServiceUK/s/article/How-to-purchase-goods-at-Lidl?language=en_GB