Huguenot

What a very fine name!

Interesting calculations, I don't know what I think about this. What's your proposed solution then? Would you prefer the traditional model where places are more limited and university fees for entitled wealthy kids were paid for by working class taxpayers? The basic student loan model is simply to ensure that university fees are only paid by those who go, not by those who didn't - a not unreasonable objective. ;-)

GODDIT!! Wildtrack - Jeez, that took me 6 months.

There were any number of 80s Tv theme tunes ideal for whistling - not least amongst these was The Rockford Files. However, there's one little bugger rattling around inside my head that I can't quite put my finger on. I think it was a kids wildlife show, but I can only recall Animal Magic and The Really Wild Show and it wasn't either of those. Anyone remember any other wildlife shows around that period? Probably 1984ish.

Well the convictions were 30 years ago, so they can only really reflect the US police and judicial system of the early eighties. Whereas the overturning of these convictions is present day - so that is a positive reflection of the judicial system now. But you're right in the sense that large sections of society may be too daft to recognize that rather obvious point. Without labouring it, this was North Carolina, so expectations would have been quite low to start with.

I think this thing is so tiresome because the 'Yes' campaigners are demanding an independent 'state' (administrative area) on the basis that they are an independent 'nation' (people). The establishment of an independent state in the modern era is clearly something only a dickhead would lay claim to. We are heavily interdependent for every economic function of modern society, but more importantly we have a finite supply of resources and a shared environment for which we are compelled to both collaborate and act in union globally. The UK isn't big enough to act independently, so the notion that teensy tiny Scotland is better off is plain stupid. The idea of a Scottish 'nation' is no less stupid. We are gratifyingly interbred around the world, not just within Britain - so there exists no blood line to side with in a Dan Brown gene pool. Unless part of the independence campaign is to deliver Iran style media control there is no cultural independence as a people either. So then the whole 'Yes' campaign boils down to witless crapulence from small minded twats without an intelligent thing to say blarting out nonsense to the vacillating electorate. The worst thing about democracy is the people who vote. Don't even get me started on them. Singapore is currently judged to be the sixth best place to be born, and Australia the second. Speak to the locals and you'd be convinced that both countries were a living hell. On that basis, conclusions about whether any nation, even Scotland, would be better off alone should not be delivered by the slack jawed ingrates who populate the place. It is entirely possible that Scotland will be 'split' post referendum, but it won't be between the 'yes' and 'no' voters - it will be between intelligent perceptive progressive thinkers, and moronic tossers (see Sean Connery).

"And the fact Jeli and Xeres are posting from the same computer"... Isn't that the problem eh? First ripping off the community with me me me sales, then righteous indignation, and then sock puppets. Idiots never learn. I wonder if they think other people are a figment of their imagination, just put there to serve their needs?

I can only assume that Andrew Cunningham, Consultant Therapist to ITV, was drunk when he wrote that blog. It may well be that he has a very important issue to raise, and if it's true then it's something we should worry about. But having read it, I am none the wiser. So it will fall to you, reggie, to check his facts and report back in a more coherent manner than he.

Just thinking - is it possible to set him up? Vacate your space and drive off whilst someone videos what takes place? Would be quite the viral video on Facebook?

He sounds like a right arse. He must have a lot of time on his hands. You know what they say about arguing with idiots and drunks: they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. If you're already curtain twitching, you're on the edge of a slippery slope! It'll soon be time for the photos and diary methinks. Any idea what his disability actually is? It can't be that debilitating if he's running in and out of his house?

There's lots of levels in this. Firstly, from a purely practical perspective, if there are genuinely no other parking spaces available on your street (and you have to drive around for ages to find a space) then demand outstrips supply. This means that even if your neighbour stopped pissing around, the space he created would immediately be occupied by someone ELSE. QED - nothing that you achieve in your dealings with you neighbor will actually generate a space outside your house. It's likely that what you are doing is 'projecting' your frustration with parking in general on to one person, and this is causing you (like a bent copper) to inappropriately project other crimes on to him, such as vandalism. That means that if you want to have this out with your neighbour then you can only enter into it knowing that you're simply in it for a fight with no positive outcome possible. In short, you would be disrupting your residential bliss and creating enemies for life on a point of principle. If your neighbour is really abusing your car with litter and takeaways, it sounds to me like this is not going to be remotely reasonable. So unless you want lots of swearing and shouting, and a resentment that will probably ruin the comfort of your own house, you would have to fight this war by proxy. The only real way of doing this is to demonstrate that since the resident parks outside the disabled bay, then he doesn't need a disabled bay, so you should campaign through your local councillor to have it removed. That's clearly not the best solution. The best solution is to get a bit Zen with all this, chuckle to yourself indulgently as he plays his silly games, and recognize that the other stuff like litter is more than likely just badly behaved kids.

There's isn't a 'standard practice' on the forum so far as I know. The primary motivation in creating and maintaining the site is to create a community resource that will be open to all, and create value for all in equal measure. If you unleashed a massive wave of self-serving ads designed to benefit or advantage yourself at the expense of other people (for example by boosting your own products above other people), then clearly you have taken these principles, cast them into the mud, ground them in with the heel of your shoe and probably pooed on them for good measure. In doing so you will have created massive offence to all of the people who give their time freely to help the forum work. It sounds to me like that is what you paid the penalty for - and you probably should have considered that before you went all 'me me me' ;-) Best recommendation is probably to accept that having to rewrite all your ads is a tiny price to pay for an act that you likely knew to be entirely inappropriate when you did it. I'd accept it with good grace, and be grateful you're not banned.

Haha Loz, that's not a reasonable conclusion! Because someone wants to research a group doesn't mean they come into it with prejudice or preconception: quite the opposite. They could be researching a product like a hot sauce that is already popular amongst men, but has comparatively less fans amongst women. They could be researching things that have female health benefits. You can't boycott a food manufacturer because they're doing research. Even if that wasn't the case, manufacturers don't have a responsibility to change social morals: 70% of women in the UK claim a they do the majority of food shopping: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/majority-of-british-women-are-still-responsible-for-cooking-and-food-shopping-research-finds-9605815.html If you don't research your biggest market you'd be an idiot.

Dee, if you have edited the post to take your number out, but it is still appearing in Google Search results, then you are seeing a version of the page that has been 'cached' (stored) by Google. This is outside the control of the forum - you would need to contact Google directly. That might be quite a challenge. If you leave it then Google will most likely eventually update their cache anyway.

"i didn't explain nicker correctly,it's a draw sorry drawer i keep my pound coins in,lol." You know those people who make a mistake, and then won't own up to it? The ones that come up with the most ridiculous of justifications and then stare barefaced at you expecting you to swallow it?

Oh by heck, there is no greater allusion.

We two alone will sing like birds i' the cage: When thou dost ask me about the BBC, I'll kneel down, And ask of thee forgiveness: and we'll live, And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues Talk of television news; and we'll talk with them too, Who loses, and who wins; who's in, who's out; And take upon 's the mystery of things, As if we were Sky's spies; and we'll wear out, In a walled prison, packs and sets of great ones That ebb and flow by the moon.

Blow, Sky, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow! You cataracts and Toryism, spout Till you have drench'd our steeples, drown'd the cocks! You sulphurous and thought-executing fires, Vaunt-couriers to oak-cleaving thunderbolts, Singe my white head! And thou, all-shaking thunder, Smite flat the thick rotundity o' network! Crack nature's moulds, an germens spill at once, That make ingrateful man!

Hahaha

:) Still having fun! Is Paxman a King Lear of our times? Utterly reliant upon his peer support, but patronizing of their competence, he grants them the keys to the kingdom. He's confident that his authority supersedes the fragile (BBC) autocracy upon which it was built? Is he destined to be supplanted by the next terrier interviewer at the BBC and rejected by the political elite that was the source of his power? What will his moment on the blasted heath look like? Who will be his Fool? There seems to be no Gloucester. Will there be a Cordelia? A BBC acolyte who trusted him when he did not trust himself? Who will finally sacrifice themselves as the painful realization of Paxman's fragility dawns?

Isn't there a difference between being socially/economically left or right of centre, and being politically left or right of centre? The former being a judgement call, and the latter supporting a football team? One requires analysis and the other an abdication of critical faculties. Paxman attempts several seemingly innocuous generalizations to make his point, but broadly he paints liberalism as naive, inexperienced, poorly informed, ideological dithering. Conversely he paints his own 'one nation Toryism' as experienced, pragmatic and action focused. In fact his assertions are confused: action demands by necessity that artificial limits are placed on debate; that at some point you must stop talking and do something. Yet at the same time he talks about taking decision making to those people who are affected: a process that is both consultative and never ending - since every involved individual will have a different perspective and interpretation of both the impact and the correct course of action. His parting views would have been dissembled by a more effective interviewer or commentator. I suspect that Paxman is horribly conflicted. His irascible desire for absolutes (exemplified in his badgering of interviewees to deliver black or white answers to questions) would have been tempered by the handwringing of his team, and he was probably a better journalist for this. He's too intelligent not to know this. Like a bad web hack, he didn't want to concede this point as it was too closely linked to his sense of identity, so he resorted to 'ad hominem' attacks and the flinging of insults. The irony is that a polarization of his views at the BBC probably forced his colleagues into even more polarized and opposing positions in order to find a balanced middle ground. In other words, he himself created the '13 year old' idealism that he claims to despise. Paxman was and is an excellent journalist, but without the support of his team he would have run out of interviewees willing to accept his attitude very quickly. A wise man would be more reflective on that. I would like to imagine that with age Paxman would become a wise and somewhat avuncular commentator, but I suspect that without a support network he is more likely to harden his views to the point of becoming a figure of faint ridicule. Regardless of that, I don't think he's a football team supporter, and will probably regret identifying himself as a 'one nation Tory'.

So... one week ago someone starts a thread about whether there is a market for a gluten free shop and takeaway meals. And now 7 days later someone starts a thread asking if there's a shop that sell gluten free food and takeaway meals? What an amazing coincidence. Startling even. ;-)

The England team visited a local orphanage today. "It was heartbreaking to see their sad little faces, having lost all hope" said Jose aged 6

Apologies uncleglen, my iPad spells American. Interestingly it also insists there is a word 'glutent' but not 'gluten'. What do you make of that? Missefficient, I do have an irritable bowel, occasionally downright pugnacious. I guess that since IBS is not a diagnosed condition, but a description of an ailment that has no diagnosis, then I must have that. Something like 1 in 5 people suffer an irritable bowel at some point in their life, so I am not alone :) Gluten intolerance is one of the faddish culprits bandied around at the moment, but I'm also aware that there is no agreed medical evidence of the link. The most popular theoretical physical culprits in the medical world are as yet unidentified amoebic or bacterial infections. Having said that the most likely cause is currently thought to be psychological, as it invariably seems to flare up in people who have other issues such as stress. Given my generally irritable disposition, it seems positively likely that my bowel is simply following suit to spite me. One of the most effective cures for psychological disorders is a placebo - so it may yet prove that your catering services provide an incredibly effective solution for the citizens of ED ;-) Wouldn't that be the irony!

Seems to me you have a bit of a mix of information sought, information being offered, some broad assumptions and the odd bit of proselytizing in your request missefficient. It might make your business easier to plan if you separated some of the issues. Important in this context is whether you believe and/or you will position gluten free diets to be a clinical or lifestyle choice. The numbers have an influence on this: The first thing to decide is whether you want to offer retail and/or catering facilities, and the second as to whether you want to offer in store or home delivery/eCommerce services? This will probably have a dramatic impact on your potential market size and profitability. For example - current estimates place celiac disease at somewhere between 1 in 2000 and 1 in 100 of the general population. So in ED (population 5,000) you've likely got between 5 to 50 genuine sufferers. That's pretty small for a successful catering business, so either you need to ensure that celiac sufferers will drive a sizeable distance for your service (and thus grow your catchment area), or you need to do some sort of home delivery options. Likewise, with such a small market you'd need sufferers to eat very regularly at your restaurant to make it work. In this case you'd need to ignore Ramsay's advice for limited profitable menus, and try to create extensive flexibility and variability in dishes that might make the restaurant unwieldy or unprofitable. Either way, a questionnaire on the ED forum won't be able to give you numbers on sufferers as it's not a valid cross-section of your market. (The lack of responses would support this) Alternatively you could try and pursue a marketing strategy that persuaded fad dieters or similar suggestible groups that the gluten free diet was important to pursue for other reasons than suffering celiac disease. Your reference to autism and gluten free diets may be a reflection of your convictions here, as a medical connection has never been made but the claims persist. I'm sure that the popularity of homeopathic and alternative therapy discussions on the forum tell you all you need to know about this market in ED. If this was your strategy, then again, I don't believe that a questionnaire will help in this: you'd be better to invite a guest speaker to a community event and build your audience base from there. I think it's probably unreasonable to base your questions about gluten free diets on vegetarianism unless you are genuinely try to draw parallels between those who are making diet choices after suffering clinical diseases and those who are making lifestyle choices. There seems to be a wide spectrum of vegetarians, from those who do it from budget or from general perceptions of healthiness, to those who do it for moral reasons, to clinical reasons, to those who do it as an extension of some sort of obsessive/compulsive disorder. It's likely that how vegetarians feel about meat being with 20km of them or their kitchen utensils depends upon where exactly they sit in that spectrum. Hence if you are suggesting that gluten free is a lifestyle as opposed to a clinical decision then I'm sure you will have the same spectrum of customers - being too extreme on the subject may well put casual customers off. It's a thin line between being a niche supplier and being a weirdo. Either way, once you make gluten free diet a liefstyle choice to grow your business, you lose the moral high ground and open yourself to piss-taking on the forum. If you wanted to find out how people felt about that you'd need to be a lot more open in your questionnaire: the phrase 'I'm pretty sure it would flip my stomach if I were' is leading and presumptuous. Not every vegetarian is in the extreme zone. (Just on that subject, I wonder how many vegetarians are homeopathic remedy enthusiasts - has it occurred to them that the more they try and avoid meat, the more powerful they make it??)