It's always the same; nobody can ever find George Jeffreys when they need him!Why only ~ £2k when caught red handed?
I had a baffling thing at Tesco.
I take someone with health issues shopping and that's what we were doing. So, up and down the aisles we went and at one point a couple pushing a trolley said "Excuse me" which wasn't baffling in itself but what was was that I wasn't remotely in their way. It wasn't until later that I thought that they may have had some sort of vision impairment or some other physical thing... or something... which meant that I was somehow in their way although I couldn't really see how I was. You'd have to have been there. I suppose another explanation was that they were undertaking some sort of social experiment or just having a laugh. I'll never know.
It was just a baffling moment.
So did you move?
I've just rang a guy who advertises his services for car valeting and asked him if he could do my three cars and I was amazed by his answer.
"I don't want to be working outside this weather."
(It's a sunny day.)
What The Flip?
Good luck drumming up business that that attitude buddy.
I don't blame him. I wouldn't want to be doing physical work today either.
| Date/Time | Activity | Event Code | Location |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8th Jul 2024 14:37:00 | CUSTOMS CLEARED | 433 | WELSHPOOL,WA, AU |
| 5th Jul 2024 15:34:00 | ITEM IN CUSTOMS AWAITING CLEARANCE | 449 | COOPERS PLAINS,QLD, AU |
| 5th Jul 2024 05:08:00 | ARRIVED IN COUNTRY / NON EU PRESENTED TO CUSTOMS | 204 | PERTH, AU |
| 3rd Jul 2024 22:06:00 | PROCESSED INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT DEPOT | 211 | LONDON, GB |
| 3rd Jul 2024 09:14:51 | PROCESSED INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT DEPOT | 211 | LONDON, GB |
| 3rd Jul 2024 03:37:03 | SHIPMENT MANIFESTED FOR DEPARTURE | 200 | BASILDON, SS15 6TR, GB |
| 3rd Jul 2024 00:09:57 | ACCEPTED AT FEDEX PROCESSING CENTRE | 198 | BASILDON, SS15 6TR, GB |
| 1st Jul 2024 21:38:13 | EXPECTED FROM Parkrun |
WBMT? Logistics.
I ordered 3 items from a global company in Australia as they had a winter sale on. They will ship to the UK but it would have been £35 rather than the $10 charge within Oz. I'm not in a rush and my brother is currently out there, returning to the UK in September.
One item (a cap) was dispatched with an Australian courier company and the other 2 are being sent with FedEx which is not unusual as they use different depots for different items.
However, this is the tracking info I got from FedEx!!!!.
This is for 2 vests $30 each, which are different to the ones I can get here (which are £28 each) Maybe I should have tried to pick up from Basildon!
Shipment History
Date/Time Activity Event Code Location 8th Jul 2024 14:37:00 CUSTOMS CLEARED 433 WELSHPOOL,WA, AU 5th Jul 2024 15:34:00 ITEM IN CUSTOMS AWAITING CLEARANCE 449 COOPERS PLAINS,QLD, AU 5th Jul 2024 05:08:00 ARRIVED IN COUNTRY / NON EU PRESENTED TO CUSTOMS 204 PERTH, AU 3rd Jul 2024 22:06:00 PROCESSED INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT DEPOT 211 LONDON, GB 3rd Jul 2024 09:14:51 PROCESSED INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT DEPOT 211 LONDON, GB 3rd Jul 2024 03:37:03 SHIPMENT MANIFESTED FOR DEPARTURE 200 BASILDON, SS15 6TR, GB 3rd Jul 2024 00:09:57 ACCEPTED AT FEDEX PROCESSING CENTRE 198 BASILDON, SS15 6TR, GB 1st Jul 2024 21:38:13 EXPECTED FROM Parkrun
Perhaps potholes are local authority budget but major resurfacing is "Highways" budget.........and surprise, surprise they don't or rarely speak to each otherWhile we were away (so 4-6 weeks ago), a few potholes at the top of the road were repaired quite well (for a change!) WBMT is why they're now doing a full, proper resurfacing job on that stretch of road. Not complaining, just baffled as to why they wasted the potholing budget on an area that must have been scheduled for the proper resurfacing some time ago.

No, that's next weekPossibly but the road is within the city limits and not an A road.
I suppose it's a bit better than a freshly laid new surface being dug up for scheduled works within days...
According to the R4 schedule, 09:00 was "The Life Scientific" and 09:30 was "Inside Health",,,Radio 4 obviously liked their content at 09:00 (Women in Science & Engineering) that they immediately repeated it at 09:30.
I know people's attention span is shrinking, but that is ridiculous.
According to the R4 schedule, 09:00 was "The Life Scientific" and 09:30 was "Inside Health",,,
![]()
BBC Sounds - Radio 4 - Schedules
View the daily broadcast schedule for Radio 4. Find out what's on now and what's up next, or see schedules up to 7 days ahead.www.bbc.co.uk
One little mistake...Yes; it took them five minutes to work it out and correct.
One little mistake...
Been 65 years on this planet and only just realised that the tune to Baa Baa Black Sheep is the same as Twinckle Twinckle Little Star!
Try Middle Eastern shops - they stock some what we might think of as a bit strange juices.
He pled guilty, so the obvious conclusion is that he thought he'd done something wrong.Not really sure that is fair?
![]()
Huw Edwards pleads guilty to making indecent images of children
The former BBC newsreader will be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to three charges.www.bbc.co.uk
So reading this, Huw Edwards is getting done for being sent images?
Someone sent him images and some involved kids. He replied saying not to send them. Am I missing something here, someone could send me similar and I be in trouble? Not really sure that is fair?
I thought his guilty plea meant he had taken or otherwise created the images so I looked up what making indecent images meant. and found this -
![]()
What constitutes 'making' indecent images | Olliers Solicitors
Specialist indecent image offence lawyers, Olliers Solicitors, consider what constitutes 'making' indecent images and what defences are available for indecent images.www.olliers.com
As it says - "The court’s interpretation of ‘making’ indecent images is broad and the following can amount to making indecent images; opening an email attachment, downloading an indecent image, storing an image, and accessing a website where an indecent image “pops up”."
So it appears if anyone is sent an indecent image and opens it then they could be accused of the offence, but the above link also includes -
"The suspect accused of ‘making’ an indecent image must have the knowledge that the image is/is likely to be an indecent image or pseudo image of a child.
Therefore, in order for a suspect to be convicted, the prosecution need to satisfy the court that the suspect had the knowledge that opening an email attachment, downloading or accessing a website with pop-ups containing images would be likely to be an indecent image or pseudo image of a child.
A suspect who downloads, opens an attachment, or where an image/pseudo image pops-up using a device including mobile phone, laptop or computers could be found guilty of ‘making’ indecent image. If the CPS can satisfy the court that this a suspect did this intentionally and with the knowledge that the image is or is likely to be an indecent image or pseudo image of a child, then the suspect could be found guilty under s.1. (1)(a) Protection of Children Act 1978."
and
"There are limited defences available under s.1. (1)(a) Protection of Children Act 1978. A lack of knowledge is the main defence available to suspects. A suspect accused of ‘making’ an indecent image must have the knowledge that the image is/is likely to be an indecent image or pseudo image of a child. Therefore if the prosecution cannot satisfy the court that the suspect did not have such knowledge then the suspect cannot be found guilty."
Which suggests that someone sent such images without their knowledge would not be found guilty but I'm guessing it depends on what they do with the images.
Dave
Well, he was sent 377 images, of which 41 (so around 10%) were kids. Maybe after the first couple you stop opening the emails, and then go to the police so you can have that as defence? But it does seem quite harsh seeing as 90% were legally fine images.
Well, he was sent 377 images, of which 41 (so around 10%) were kids. Maybe after the first couple you stop opening the emails, and then go to the police so you can have that as defence? But it does seem quite harsh seeing as 90% were legally fine images.
Who would receive 377 sexual images and not either block the person or just get the hell off whatever platform they were on?
I've never been sent a single sexual image in my life. If I was sent one whoever sent it would be blocked or my account would be shut down.
I suppose it's wrong to speculate and jump to conclusions but for me it seems no great surprise that a man who had acted as he had in the past had sexual images of children on his devices.
I thought that too. Assuming he does not have a sexual interest in children why did he not go to the police immediately? I can only think he did not want to have to explain why he would be asked about the other images.
Dave