rendelharris

Well, Burnley and Sunderland weren't in the same division in either of the '38 seasons (37-38 or 38-39), and they didn't meet in the FA Cup (no League Cup in those days), so seems unlikely. The advert on the stand for "Wednesbury Hippodrome" would seem to indicate it's in Birmingham, so the team in the dark kit could be Aston Villa. They played Sunderland at home on December 27th 1938, drawing 1-1 (having, bizarrely, beaten them 5-1 in Sunderland the day before), and it was a white Christmas that year. The internet's a wonderful thing, and if my agent doesn't send me work soon I shall go mad(der).

cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There seems to be an air from some > posters of needing to stay out of it if shop staff > don't seem bothered. How about staying out of it if the shop's official policy is that people are allowed to put their shopping in their own bags instead of baskets or trolleys? > You also cannot say with any > certainty that no theft took place. Even BusyBody admitted that they saw the person paying for their items at the checkout. Come to that you can't say with any certainty that any person we see leaving a store hasn't pinched anything, perhaps a vigilante group should be formed to search everyone as they leave and force them to account (in a "firm but polite manner" of course) for everything in their bags?

I refer you to the penultimate line of my last post, Sue. All the best.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > > Just to make it clear Sue, you believe that a > > person can have negative emotions alleviated > > psychically by holding their hand over a > > particular plant, and that when the sun shines > on > > a dewdrop on a flower the "healing energy" of > the > > flower is transferred into the water? > > > Yes. > > And btw I have a scientific background, so please > don't treat me as if I am completely stupid. I don't in the slightest believe you are completely stupid Sue, and I haven't treated you as such. I've asked you a question and you've answered it. I do believe your answer shows you are staggeringly gullible, but there we go. Healing energies being transferred from flowers to dewdrops by the power of early-morning sunlight, forsooth! By the way you'd be on firmer ground objecting to being treated as stupid (which you weren't) if you hadn't described me as "like a colourblind person ridiculing people who can see colour" and that saying I don't believe in this nonsense "because you are not sensitive to subtle energies." Do unto others, and so forth. "And as regards Rescue Remedy, the first time I used it somebody else gave it to me and I had absolutely no idea what it was at the time, but it worked immediately." No doubt. I presume they gave it to you saying it would help, you believed it would, and it did. The very definition of the placebo effect. Anyway, I'm leaving this argument now as it's just going round and round and you're clearly getting all in a tizzy about your non-evidence-based beliefs being questioned. Do get back to me if you ever find a peer-reviewed scientific paper or double-blind trial that proves any of your claims, won't you?

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rh everything you say above has happened with > conventional treatment, there have b?en overblown > claims about drugs that have killed people, false > advertising is rife, a sense of detachment from > patients who question meds, or often who wish to > have some responsibility with there health. I can > go on but I am more interested to hear if you have > the same > concerns with conventional drugs, If you were > advocating for a system that does not do what you > are accusing homeopathy of, it would be easier to > understand. I've already said to you elsewhere that yes, real medicine has f-ed up numerous times, big pharma companies have been responsible for false claims, greed and all the rest of it. It has, however, also saved billions of lives (I for one would have died, definitely, three times without lifesaving drug treatment). Nevertheless, the fact that real medicine has sometimes been in error does not actually lend any credence to the idea that water molecules can somehow magically become imprinted with trace substances and that these have healing powers.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RH Has your mood ever been affected by music, have > you ever say had a headache,pain etc when you have > heard, smelled or tasted something and it changed > how you felt. Vbrational heaine is not > A new form of healing. Hearing, smelling or tasting things has effects on the neural pathways and/or other parts of the anatomy in ways that are scientifically understood and proven. That is not the same as claiming that an emotion can be alleviated by some mystical vibrations that a flower supposedly gives off that cannot be detected in any way. However, let's say for the sake of argument flowers do give off some mystical energy vibration even though it can't be detected, you then go along with the fact that this "energy" can be somehow imprinted on water molecules (sorry, it has to be specifically dewdrops) by having sunlight (sorry, early-morning sunlight) passed through it? Would you like to buy some magic beans?

There aren't - every study has shown its effects are no more significant for trial groups than placebo groups. But if it works for you, great - I wouldn't want anyone to stop doing something that makes them feel better. My objection to homeopathy is that practitioners make absurdly overblown and totally unfounded claims that have led to people delaying proper medical treatment, to their detriment, and, in extreme cases, their death.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > I genuinely do not see how anyone can read that > > and not ignore/ridicule it. > > > That is presumably because you are not sensitive > to subtle energies (or possibly you are, but would > be horrified to find that out :)) ). > > As I said previously, like a colour blind person > ridiculing people who claim to be able to see > colour. Just to make it clear Sue, you believe that a person can have negative emotions alleviated psychically by holding their hand over a particular plant, and that when the sun shines on a dewdrop on a flower the "healing energy" of the flower is transferred into the water? Your analogy is a footling one, we know that people can see colour and we know how they see it too, thanks to science - we could scientifically prove to a colourblind person that colour exists. You can't just make nonsense up and then say "Oh you don't understand because you're too blind to see" - well you can, but it's not a good basis for rational argument.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was just fed up with the EU telling me I could > no longer buy Potatoes by the pound. > and all the other trivial rules and regulations. The EU did not actually ban selling spuds by the pound. They mandated that prepackaged goods had to be sold in metric weight (though it was permissible to have the imperial weight displayed on the packaging as well as long as it was the same size font or smaller). There was no rule about loose veg; it was, in fact, the Tory government of 1994 that, deciding they didn't want two systems running at the same time, passed legislation banning selling loose veg in imperial measures that came into force in 2000. Yep, it was actually the British government, and a Tory one at that, that told us we couldn't buy spuds by the pound. More info here if you're interested: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3258360/Metric-vs-imperial-How-the-law-stands.html

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Could well be Rpc many things come into healing > and often things are ignored or ridiculed if it > does not fit into the system of measuring and > seeing how science evaluates. "Bach derived his solutions intuitively and based on his perceived psychic connections to the plants, rather than using research based on scientific methods. If Bach felt a negative emotion, he would hold his hand over different plants, and if one alleviated the emotion, he would ascribe the power to heal that emotional problem to that plant. He imagined that early-morning sunlight passing through dew-drops on flower petals transferred the healing power of the flower onto the water, so he would collect the dew drops from the plants and preserve the dew with an equal amount of brandy to produce a mother tincture which would be further diluted before use." I genuinely do not see how anyone can read that and not ignore/ridicule it.

cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Carrying a few items to the till sounds fine to me > as it's visible. I'm more intrigued by people > deliberately not using the store baskets/trolleys. > Just plonking your own folded bags into theirs > seems less work than unpacking then repacking at > the till. You don't think the fact that the supermarkets themselves (or at least Sainsbury's) have absolutely no objection to this practice makes your objection to it just a wee bit redundant?

I have been so amused by this thread and the spluttering outrage it's engendered (plus it's been a really slow work week and yes I know I should get a life) that I emailed Sainsbury's this morning (Co-op don't have an email for customer service) to ask for their policy. They replied: Thanks for your email. I can confirm that it's fine to place your shopping in your own bag or trolley before purchasing your items. As long as of course you pay for your purchases at the checkout. So at least in Sainsbury's BusyBody, sorry Rabbit, can mind their own business and not march around accusing others of being shoplifters.

hellosailor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Quite. The OP?s behaviour was beyond > inappropriate. An adult going up to another grown > adult and saying this is absolutely extraordinary. > I don?t believe they thought there was a chance > they were shop lifting from what they?ve written, > they sound like a self important control freak > with no concept of behavioural boundaries or what > is or isn?t their business. Even thinking about it > has really cheesed me off so I can only imagine > how the man going about his shopping felt. Well > done him for remaining calm and polite, I suspect > if the OP behaved like this with a lot of people > they would have had quite a different response. That nails it very nicely, I'd say.

uncleglen Wrote: ...even the > Romanian mayor thanked the UK for taking the > Romanian criminals Romania's run by a mayor, eh? Sounds about as likely as most things you claim. In the absence of a single hit on Google for "Romanian mayor thanks UK for taking criminals" or "Did Romanian mayor thank UK for taking criminals" I'm calling your usual bullshit. Citation or retraction please.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Friends who chose not to cycle in the winter do so > less because of inclement weather per se but > because this leads to adverse road conditions (ice > or to pooled water) which can obscure pot holes > etc. making cycling more hazardous. Most are > robust enough (and have enough bad weather > clothing) to cope with rain and chill on its own. Fair points though one of the great advantages of segregated cycle provision is that without motorised traffic they don't develop potholes, or at least I've never encountered any.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RH, do you by any chance have a calico bag? I do not, and although I have cropped greying hair I don't think even my best friends would describe me as fashionably dressed.

> Jacqui5254 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- You will need > to > > pay for parking in all the other roads covered > by > > the CPZ as 'your' permit only covers your road > and > > one or two next to it. That's not the case, is it? Looking at Southwark's website it appears that a permit covers the whole of whatever CPZ your street is in.

jenny pink Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris... > How patronizing,you are....YOU are the one in > doubt,so why Don't YOU invesatigate with pet > owners,who use Homeopathy for their pets...I > 'KNOW' it does work,for humans too.....one can > lead a horse to the water...springs to mind It is a highly relishable irony to be accused of being patronising by someone who thinks writing "I know" in capital letters constitutes some form of evidence. Behind your somewhat incoherent ramble lies the obvious fact that you can't actually present any proper evidence. Do stop this silly "YOU investigate" thing, it's so transparent; as I have already pointed out to you, I could search for a lifetime and not find a single peer-reviewed scientific paper or double blind trial showing that homeopathy works in humans, let alone animals, as none exists.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree that cycling should be equally promoted as > a form of active travel > > Remembering (I would hope) that a significant > number of people may be excluded from cycling > through age or infirmity - particularly relevant > in the ward you used to represent which is hilly > and does not replicate the flat plains of northern > Southwark. It should not be promoted to the > detriment of those who cannot, or choose not, to > 'benefit' from it. Keen cyclists I know in SE22 > still chose in bad weather (the winter) not to > cycle, or may have been scared through bad > experiences to stop. After my arm was twice broken > (when I was much younger and on two wheels) I > chose discretion as being the better part of > valour. I doubt whether I would be alone in such a > decision. But if safe and segregated cycle provision is available, people may be encouraged back onto bicycles, to the benefit of their own health and the environment - I know several people who wouldn't have dreamed of cycling in London ten years ago who are now very happy cycle commuters due to the superhighways. Each to their own re cycling in winter of course - personally I long ago realised I'd be warmer riding at a good pace with suitable clothing for half an hour than I would be standing still on a windblown railway platform for half an hour waiting for a train to battle its way through half an inch of snow!

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > By the way, comrades, is this the most prolix > troll in the history of the forum? Bloody good effort for someone who was originally too busy to answer, certainly (though not too busy to go round pestering innocent shoppers then writing a 700 word account of it for our edification).

Stone me. Someone thinks a lot of themselves, eh? To the extent that they think they have a "right" to demand answers to impertinent, intrusive and arrogant questioning of people doing nothing wrong. I'll say again, you were bloody lucky the guy was patient and passive enough to give you a perfectly reasonable and polite answer.

God Almighty. This guy was not stealing. You said yourself you saw him paying for his goods. The staff weren't bothered by his actions. You've constructed a massive castle in the air about shoplifting on the basis of the fact that the guy, quite properly, refused to be intimidated by your self-righteous self-appointment as some form of shoplifting vigilante and that the staff refused to do what you told them to. You don't have the right to go round accusing other people of shoplifting willy-nilly (which was clearly the implication (not inference) of your attempt to order him to use a basket, whatever you say about being careful with your language). Frankly I think you were very lucky that this guy refused to be riled by your unwarranted, officious and petty intervention; it would be understandable for someone to take far more offence at such nonsense. If you think someone's shoplifting, tell the shop staff and let them decide how they will react in their own store. Don't strut around thinking you have the right to tell other people how to behave when they're doing nothing wrong, it's pompous, petty, unjustified and rude.

BusyRabbit Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- The Co-op Food Group is mostly owned > by its customer members, although these days staff > are also able to be members. Because I am a > customer member of the Co-op Food Group, I do > indeed own the business in common with many > thousands of other members, and hence I do have a > right to be interested in what happens in the > shop, and whether things may be happening that > compromise the business. Bring interested in what happens in the business and pompously marching round shops accusing innocent shoppers of shoplifting and ordering staff about then complaining when they refuse to do your bidding are not the same thing. > the man I spoke to did not offer any reason why > he felt he could not use a shopping basket Why should he offer you a reason? Owning shares in the Co-op does not give you the right to go around harassing other customers who, it appears, are perfectly lawfully going about their business. Like PeckhamRose above, I sometimes put things in my cycle helmet to carry them around the store (usually if I've gone in for one thing then realise I need several others). If another shopper with no official standing in the store asked me what I was doing I wouldn't offer them a reason either - I'd tell them to mind their own business and get a security guard if they were that bothered, and I'm pretty sure 99% of security guards would act in the same reasonable way the Co-op staff did. Until a person leaves the store with goods for which they have not paid, they have committed no offence and don't deserve to be bothered by pompous self-appointed vigilantes.

If the Co-op staff were cool with it and the chap wasn't stealing, in what way was it any of your business at all? Unless I've misread this, it sounds as if you were being a total busybody, accusing an innocent person of being a potential shoplifter and trying to create a situation out of nothing - in an hilariously pompous way, assuming that as a "co-owner" of the Co-op (I assume you mean you work for the business) you somehow have a right to act like a policeman and order other people about in any Co-op store. When my elderly great aunt goes to the supermarket (Waitrose) she takes her shopping trolley - unable to cope with both her trolley and a basket/second trolley, she always asks the security staff if it's OK to put stuff in her own trolley and they're more than happy with it - I presume if you were there you'd accuse her of using her trolley "in a way that enables others to steal"? Love the fact that you're "too busy to reply to any comments there might be" but somehow have the time to post seven hundred words of nonsense about a non-issue.

I go about once a fortnight on weekday evenings (usually the 18.25 show) and we never queue more than a minute or so, they have plenty of staff on. Also I believe it's possible to order online and collect from a separate window if you wish.