Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This one's not that much of an annoyance, but it is petty: people who don't remove the stickers from the bottom of a new pair of shoes.


Yes, we can in fact all see the stickers when you're walking despite their being on the bottom of your shoe. And yes, it does make you look a bit silly. And lazy/forgetful/generally a little bit slack.

Are you never tempted to talk to these so called men like they were ikkle wikkle babies? Just to see how it goes down. Your post reminds me of the episode of Sex In The City where Samantha's squeeze baby talks in bed and she finds herself unable to, erm, enjoy herself.

Conformists who write phone numbers thus - 020 8xxx xxxx, or 020 7xxx xxxx.

As a traditionalist I've just got used to "ROD" becoming "701" before we start on the myriad of prefix changes...

In fact what have been the changes in Inner London since the glorious 1960's..starting with the letters..like "ROD"..?

Anyone?

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

Conformists who write phone numbers thus - 020 8xxx xxxx, or 020 7xxx xxxx. As a traditionalist I've just got used to "ROD"

becoming "701" before we start on the myriad of prefix changes...

In fact what have been the changes in Inner London since the glorious 1960's..starting with the letters..like "ROD"..?

Anyone?


After "rod" then "701" there was "071" then "0171" then "020" split between "0207/0208" now its "020 7701".

Progress initt,innit?

BRI (which was the Brixton exchange) became 274 and TOW (Townley) became 693. Both good Dulwich numbers by the way. God I'm getting old.


Back to petty annoyances though - people constantly rabbiting on the phone and not just on public transport which really does my head in. For instance, I have a girl in the office who is constantly talking fatuous boring crap all day long to her friends and family and I really don't want to hear it thank you very much.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Counterpoint: there was zero misrepresentation of truth 
    • Point is.. top two have quit.. BBC is now what? From being well respected world wide.. not only for news, programs, no idea about pod casts.. Only thing we as a country do well currently is broadcast remembrance service…. Lets face it.. only country that I know of who can release wrong people from jail.. one gave himself up if news is to believed and the other is where? Only country I know of who actually pay people to leave, flights etc and they are back in country .. all heard via Radio 4…  
    • It doesn't matter what channel it was on, how pernicious the subject is and when it happened. Mis-representing the truth in broadcast is not only morally wrong, it's against the OFCOM code of ethics.  Everyone in the industry is trained in how not to do it, most are made to take the BBC's own 'Safeguarding the Trust' course, even if they aren't making BBC programmes.  There wasn't much fuss at the time, because no one knew about it.  "Unless you hate Britain, hate liberals, hate the BBC, want a divided country, support the most powerful person in the world despite his many failings". What the programme makers personally think or feel should never affect how they tell a story; to do so is deeply unprofessional and a sackable offence.  It's the job of the BBC and of all programming to inform viewers of the facts and let them make up their own minds. Even in campaigning documentaries.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...