Damian H

I was in Plough Homecare and I saw in their pestcontrolk section something called Scoot Fox Repelent. Apparently you mix it with water and pour it round the territory you wish to make ff limits to Mr and Mrs Fox. Might be worth a try?

peckhamboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Come on pearson, get with it. Sainsburys are > discriminating against the able-bodied and those > without children by providing dedicated spaces to > the disabled and those with young children. Of > course, amongst other things, Damian H is making > an enormous and unjustifiable leap of logic by > claiming that parking spaces for people with > children is discriminatory on the grounds of > marital status. I don't recall any signs saying > that you can't park there if you're not > married... > > But whilst we're at it. there's a dedicated space > for electric cars too. Isn't that discriminatory > against people with petrol cars? > > There's a lot of crap on this thread imo. Disabled > people have their own spaces because they often > need more room either side of the car to get > themselves and wheelchairs in and out. It also > makes sense to give them spaces near the entrance. > People with young kids need more space either side > of the car to get babies in and out (I think it's > a bit ridiculous to extend the definition of young > kids up to 12 though - frankly, once the kids are > about 5 they should be more than capable of > getting in and out with minimal help), and it also > helps if you can get the pushchair down the side > of the car rather than trying to get a small child > into a pushchair in the 'road'. So I have no > problem with spaces for those with young kids. Do > they need to be right by the entrance? No. In fact > they would be better slightly further away so that > selfish ar5eholes don't feel the need to park in > them. The point of the spaces ought to be extra > width rather than proximity. I dont think there is any huge logical leap at all. Let me enlighten you a little about discrimination law. There are two types of discrimination - direct and indirect. Direct discrimination is where overt, stated discrimination against one group takes place. Indirect discrimination is where a policy is implemented that does not overtly and intentionally discriminate but which will indirectly have a dspoportionate effect or disadvantage to a group that is legally protected from discrimnation. As I pointed out I am not entirely sure of the exact law relating to discrimination on gruonds of marital/family status but I believe that may now be illegal. Since the simple fact is (not a value or moral judgment, just a statement of fact) that most people with children in modern society tend to be married there is indirect discrimination (or very possible direct) if certain services are provided only to those with children. Let me give you an example - when I was in the Civil Service there was a concept introduced called Term Time Working Hours. This would allow staff to request that they be permitted to take a substantial amount of time off work during school holiday periods to be able to be with their children more. Their salary would be calculated and paid pro rata in order to reflect the reduction in working hours. This was designed initially as a 'family friendly policy. It was then pointed out that this policy provided a benefit to a group with a certain marital/family status and therefore unlawfully discriminated against those who were single and without children. I understand that legal opinion confirmed this and Term Time hours had to be offered as an equal option to those who were single or had no children to avoid the potential of claims of unlawful discrimination. Sainsbury's from what I can see may be doing the very same thing. They are offering a service to customers that is restricted to one group of customers and discriminates against others based solely upon marital/family status. If Sainsbury's want to offer 'Extra Wide Parking Bays' that might be a very good idea - but to state that they are only for the use of those with children may well onstitute unlawful discrimination for the reasons I have just outlined. As I have said, I am not a lawyer but have been involved in a number of discrimination cases and tribunals as a witness and as a Trade Union rep and the law in these areas is remarkably complex, convoluted and sometimes bizarre. The matter is made worse by the fact that one of the earliest posts on this thread implied that Sainsbury's actually planned to trace and fine someone for parking in one of these bays. If my point outlined above is correct that would be adding further discriminatory acts and would very possibly compound any existing offence. With regard to bays for parking electrical cars rather than petrol vehicles - there is no legislation making it illegal to discrimnate on the basis of the way a person's vehicle is powered. There is however, I believe, legislation making it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of marital/family status. If, of course, it was shown that petrol cars are proportionaely driven more by the disabled, ethnic minorities, people of one gender, sexual orientation etc etc, there might be a case of indirect discrimination involved as one protected group would be disporoportionately disadvantaged whether that was the intention of the legislation or ot.

QueenMab Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Quaverflava did make me laugh, but somehow the > debate got shifted so much that people seemed to > be defending the right of the stupid, lazy and > ignorant to park wherever they please, whilst > berating as stupid, lazy and ignorant those who > might actually have a more legitimate claim to > park closer to the store. > > As for the "I am not sure of the exact legal > position but I believe..." post, Sainsbury's is > private property. They can therefore impose their > own rules on it. If you don't like their rules, > you could go somewhere else. That is complete nonsense. Private property is still subject to the law of the land. Unlawful behaviour or discrimination is unlawful discriminatory behaviour in the provision of services whether it is carried out on private property or not. If someone went into a Sainsbury's store - private property - and was refused service becuase they were of a certain gender or race or had a disability the defence that it happened on "private property" and was therefore out of reach of the law would be laughed out of court. Your point is meaningless.

When I travel to America I shall insist they rename Thanksgiving as I think it would have been a service to all humanity if the native Americans had let the settlers starve and there is nothing to be thankful for. Plus, I am an ungrateful b*****d!

I found a 2GB Mediastar memory stick attached to a slim black lanyard on the pavement beside the HSBC ATMs on Lordship Lane. It appears to contain documents and spreadsheets relating to Spanish language teaching and possibly a connection to the European Business School of London. If the owner wishes to be re-united with their property please PM me or call 07957 517 330. P.S. Memory sticks and the risks associated with losing them can be considerably offset nowadays with virtual storage systems such as Dropbox. If anyone wants me to email them an invitation to Dropbox please let me know. You get 2GB of storage free and I get 250MB extra free storage for anyone who joins after geting an invitation from me :-)

duchessofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and to take sainsburys to court to contest a ?50 > fine on the grounds of discrimination, would cost > how much? Scarcely the point is it? Are you suggesting that people should put up with unlawful actions simplky because it might cost a little to challenge it? I shudder to think of the society we would end up with if we applied that notion. Anyway it would be up to Sainsbury's to pursue the alleged offender for the fine rather than vice versa. Question is whether Sainsbury's would attempt to enforce a fine if it was made clear to them that it might have been unlawfully issued.

I am not sure of the exact legal position but I believe it is unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of marital status and I know that this has been extended to include family status- i.e. whether or not people have children. I know that in the public sector 'Term Time' provisions (which allowed people to choose to work patterns that allowed them to be off during school holidays and be paid proportionately) also HAD TO be available to those without children as well as those with children. Not to offer this would have been discrimination against individuals on the grounds that they were single or without children. In light of this I think Sainsbury's could be on shaky legal ground if they tried to suggest that the Family Parking spaces concept is anything but voluntary. Certainly if they tried to fine someone ?50 based on the fact that they chose not to comply with what might be a legally unenforcable policy based on indirect discrimination - they could be on a sticky wicket.

Personally I would say that you would be fully entitled to be extremely angry about the children kicking your car as well! If I had gone around kicking cars at the age of four or whatever I would have been left in no doubt by my mother that it was completely unacceptable.

I flew from Stansted on the 21st and was only delayed back to Belfast by about an hour. My younger brother was delayed coming from Gatwick, via Leeds to Belfast by a couple nof hours last night. My uncle was returning from a cruise in the Red Sea and was delayed for about two days in the utter Hell that is Heathrow but he made it back to Belfast yesterday.

Do a search for all historic posts on this site as I know there was a thread about a chess club here before.

Dulwich Mums? They are an offshoot of the Stepford Wives. Just joking :-)

Is it too late for a festive version? The accused could be given a Santa hat and mulled wine and mince pies could be supplied to all the stoners. Perhaps the accused could be transported to the location on a reindeer?

And I assume he was ruled out of the investigation following interview. But unless suspects are identified they cannot be interviewed or investigated to establish whether or not they may need to face prosecution.

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From the letters page of the latest Private Eye > (No.1276): > > "PPS The police have just issued pictures of the > most wanted students in the UK in connection with > the riot. Unfortunately, two of them are > architects from our office which was under siege > at the time in 30 Millbank. We have had a great > deal of fun today at their expense. One of them > was heard to comment, "How can I be a violent > student? I'm wearing a pullover"." > > (If anyone would like to discuss the propriety of > clue 12 across in the PE crossword, please PM > me.) > > Cf also, re vigilantism Obviously mistakes can be made so care must be taken.

If the shopkeeper and police believe that the full CCTV evidence is sufficient to secure a conviction, IF they were aware of the identity of the alleged shoplifter, then would the picture not be serving as a request to help identify the alleged offender in order that they can be brought through a formal process of justice? Is that not what happens, as has already been suggested, on Crimewatch and in those circumstances when newspapers print montages of people wanted by the police in relation to football violence - the latter usually taken from CCTV? Recently, after the student riots at Millbank, the press published a picture of a student who it was believed may have been responsible for throwing a fire extinguisher from the roof that narrowly missed seriously injuring police officers. That individual had not been identified, interviewed, arrested or charged let alone convicted at the time. I believe that as a result of his photograph being published he has been identified, arrested, interviewed and is on bail pending charges or something like that for offences including his ludicrous haircut being an offence against public taste and decency. Had it not been for the press publishing the photograph (presumably they felt they had sufficient evidence to back up their claim that he was responsible) the individual in question might never have been identified or subject to a formal, appropriate and proportionate investigation.

If the alleged shoplifter had been confronted by staff, had run off and the staff had pursued the alleged shoplifter out of the shop crying "Stop, thief!" without having secured a criminal conviction through due process would we be talking about her rights being violated? After all, she would be branded a thief without any proper trial having taken place. That scenario is similar in principle to what was described in the OP of this thread - the only differnce is that the situation in the OP was after the event, whilst the situation I describe here would be in the moment. The similarity is that both are attempts to identify and accost an individual in order to be able to take formal legal action against them. The concept of innocent until proven guilty is a concept that is designed to frame the approach of the criminal justice system to its activities. It is a fine concept but I do not believe it has ever been mandated that it apply to the opinions formed by the ordnary Joe or Jane on the steet.

This is clearly a difficult stuation for you and it is too your credit that you are concerned. The bottom line is that if they are not safe to drive, either they or someone else couldend up badly hurt or killed as a result. I agree with the poster who suggested youcontact Age Concern or perjhaps social services. There is no way you or your parents can have been the first to experience a challenge lke this and I am sure there are ideas or strategies or services available to offer a solution.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi untamedstylist, > UK rubbish at cost effectively building or > extending tubes lines - remember 2000 Jubilee line > extension worked out at over ?200M/km. > > Saying that recently DLR extended to Woolwich > Arsenal for ?180m/2.5km but feels very much an > aberation. It was turn key project with minimal > London Underground involvement. Madrid they churn > out new tube lines at ?30m/km > > 1930's plans in place started to be realised in > early 1950's after WWII to extend Bakerloo line > 2.5km to Camberwell Green and Denmark Hill > station. Unfortunately they ran out of > money/will. > > The obvious thing would be to copy the DLR model. > Cut some bus routes that would cover the same > route and divert the roughly ?4M per bus route to > pay the interest on some bonds as well as more > tube revenue generated. Which is what I've been > trying to glean sufficient information together to > propose. The prices are shameful. A few years ago I was in Madrid and any single journey on the Metro (ANYWHERE! from one end to the other if you wanted) was 1 Euro (about 75p at the time). A similar journey on the London Tube would prolly cost five or six times as much and on a much grubbier route.

You are not allowed to be thiefist under the new Equality Act. Thieves have a right to have their lifestyle and rights recognised without having to conform with a patriarchal, oppressive, capitalist regime that obsesses over property rights!

Doubt it was an M16 as they are kind of outdated and were never used by the Met. I suspect you may have seen a Sig Sauer or a Heckler & Koch carbine.

Warning to all. A friend of mine who lives around the Gowlett area was woken last night by a man knocking her door and wanting to borrow money. He said he was from a house in the same street. She didn't believe him - police were called but I believe he had long gone by the time they arrived. Don't open your doors to people you don't know at night, folks.

Or note how late you typically tend to be for things, then work on the assumption that your appointment is that much earlier. Another possibility is to figure out what your procrastination or delaying strategies are. I mean by this - if you had to teach me how to be consistently late for things how would you do it? WHat would I have to do? Specifically? Write it out as if it is a set of instructions for someone who has to fill in for you for a while. Once you realise what it is you do to allow this to happen - do something different!

Surely many folk have stress and rush in their lives - noty just parents?

I agree that there appears to be an established link between trivial crime such as fare dodging and serious crime, hence the justification for zero tolerance approaches in the US and a few UK locations. Doesn't answer, however, the issue of the excessive number of police officers on hand (I counted at least 10 last time I saw it happening) nor does it really justify IMO using a bottle neck situation to corall predominantly innocent people into a sudden confrontation with a mass of police and sniffer dogs. What is the law about being subjected to the intimate attentions of a police dog without permission?

Happy birthday Karter. You are looking well for a man of fifty-seven!