Carole Stitcher

You b****r! I've got something in my eye now!

Are you allowed to plant a tree? If you can, I wrote the following some time ago, you're very welcome to use it if you wish. In loving memory We dedicate this tree So all the world will know How much we loved you so And when our time is through We will be joining you We'll rest beneath the tree For all eternity.

I'm so sorry Margaret She was a lucky girl to find you. Run free Gracie

Complicated question and to answer it fully would be even more complicated. Your point at 3) is absolutely correct, there can be no better solution to the problem and food waste is getting to be a major problem mainly, in my opinion, due to social development issues. When I was young and my mother was teaching me the skills I would need as an adult, she taught me to feel and smell food to check whether it was ok to eat. She taught me how long different things were likely to keep fresh and what was the best way to keep them in order for them to stay edible for the optimum amount of time. She also taught me how to shop on a budget and to buy what was needed. Nowadays many mothers don't have this basic knowledge, because their mothers either worked and didn't have the time, didn't have the inclination, or felt that their children should be having fun rather than learning boring stuff. Add that to the fact that successive governments both here and in Europe have increasingly treated the population as if they are too stupid to make a decision about whether or not a tomato is fit to eat so have legislated that all foods should be marked with a BB or sell by date. Consequently, people have degenerated to that level of stupidity because they don't have the knowledge or the determination to question arbitrary decisions. Your point at 1) is not necessarily correct. Different foods degenerate in nutritional value at different rates and, in all fairness, any nutrtion is good as long as its not going to make you ill. Plus, where you buy your food from can make a huge difference to whether something will last beyond its sell by. For example, when I worked for a chicken processor, for Tesco/Sainsburys products, meat had to be used within 2 days of the kill date, Asda/Iceland within 3 days, other minor supermarkets 4-5 days, own brand 5 days. Not hard to work out that Tesco or Sainsbury products were likely to last well beyond the sell by date. I would also disagree with your point at 2). You may not need the calories or nutrition today but if it can be eaten safely tomorrow, why waste money buying something else when you can eat what's left over? The reasoning behind not removing BB food is a little more complex (but I agree with your reasons for being cross). Sell by has always been mandatory, BB advisory and with the onus becoming more on preventing waste (and the need to minimise losses and maximise profits in a credit crunch) the shops you are concerned about have obviously chosen to interpret the expression differently to the way they did previously.

I'd like to say thanks for that link Cycas, but I can't. I knew I shouldn't watch it, but I did anway. Now my mind is filled with very un-Christian thoughts, not only for the puppy farmers, but also for the council. In my opinion, their lack of action when faced with that evidence, makes them equally guilty.

discussion starts around 12.30 My link

In your case Mel, the fear was rational. You and your sister were children, in the power of adults who were abusive. You had neither the physical ability or the knowledge of what other steps you could take in order to stop the abuse. Michael Jackson was one of the youngest of the children. Some of the older ones were young men at the time, just look at the size of them compared to Michael in the video footage. From a very young age I have always stepped in, whatever the odds and risks, to protect others. That doesn't make me a hero, just too stupid to realise the danger I'm in. My first marriage lasted only two years and believe me, I knew a great deal of fear in those years. I ended it because in the last incident I totally lost it and had a blackout. When I came to, I was standing in the kitchen with a huge knife in my hand telling him if he took one more step towards me I would kill him. To be honest, had a child been involved in his violence, I doubt he'd have got the warning. Both of us knew I meant it, so it was definitely time he left. I guess I was more scared of going to prison than I was of him. That was the day I chose to stop being a victim. Has it left me with hang ups? Of course it has and I'm not at all surprised that your experience has left you with them, that the fear is still with you after all these years. I'm sorry that you and your sister went through that, it shouldn't happen, particularly when Social Services are involved.

The fear is irrational, though that doesn't stop it being real. If you were walking down the street with eight of your friends and someone came towards you who had a history of violent behaviour you may be wary, but rational thinking would tell you that if he/she started something the nine of you working together would probably be able to physically overpower them. If they were also carrying a gun or axe or something of that nature then fear would be rational, because the balance of power would be theirs. Many years ago I had an abusive partner, so I am well aware of what it feels like and how difficult it is, but it is the abused persons fear of the abuser that gives them their power. I can assure you, though, that not even at my weakest point with that partner would I have allowed him to hurt a child, I'd have killed him first. When I heard Latoyah (I think) tell that story an image of a small boy lying unconcious in a hallway leapt into my mind and it is with me to this day. Every time he hit the headlines it always surged into my head. I really don't know why. I like a lot of his music, but wouldn't call myself a fan. Freddie Mercury was my tipple and I've always been a one man woman. I'm not making the assumption of lack of love based on that alone, but on the way they have acted over the years. The entire family, with perhaps the exception of Michael, have taken sibling rivalry to a level that is painful to see. A week before he died, Jermaine announced to the press that the Jacksons would be touring and Michael would be in the line up. The following day Michael said unequivocally that he would not. They didn't love him enough, but that's not really surprising as the were all subject to Joe Jackson's 'ministrations', though all those who spoke of the abuse said that Michael took the brunt.

New tax on mobility scooters

Only one detail stuck in my mind when the 'revelations' were made about the abuse perpetrated on Michael and the others by Joe Jackson. I think it was Latoyah (it was certainly one of the girls) who recounted the tale of going to the bathroom in the middle of the night and having to step over Michael's unconcious body, left lying in the hallway after a beating by his father. I think she said Michael was 9 or 10 at the time this happened. Even discounting the father, there was a mother and eight of his siblings, most older than him, living in the same house. Not one of them had the decency to as much as lift him onto his bed. I do understand that living with a violent abuser is difficult in the extreme, filled with irrational fear of the abuser, but faced with the fact that none of his family loved him enough to even show him basic care, I don't find it difficult to understand why he grew up unable to form adult relationships. IF he did as he was accused, even that doesn't excuse what he may have done, but given that his accusers come from obviously disfunctional families I think its possible that rather than having any sinister intent, he only wanted to show these kids the love he had never been shown as a child. Though a very clever man in many ways, I think on this particular issue he wasn't able to consider things rationally and determine that his behaviour towards them was not appropriate.

Ian, I think that it may be more to do with licensing. That message often appears and I have always assumed that they only paid to show the programme once and so couldn't show again on the +1.

We should meet. Ben is my favourite (followed by Gone too soon and Earth song)

The very nature of what happened means that none of us will ever know the truth. Children have lied about such events, without any obvious motivation, there are many well-documented cases. False memories have been instilled, none of us know the children involved well enough to discern whether this is a possibility in their cases. Children have misinterpreted perfectly innocent expressions of love and caring, that's one of the reasons my husband won't go near an unknown child without there being other adults present and he's very careful around children we do know. We do know that Michael could be very stubborn. Has anyone considered that HE might have been the one who wanted to shield Jordy from the rigours of a very traumatic court case? That HE might have been the one who wanted to avoid him being put through the cross examination that would only heap on more trauma? That Michael may have cared for Jordy more than his parents did? That he might rather pay settlement no matter what his lawyers advised? That he made a mistake I do not question, he should have let the case go to court. What I do question is the thought that because he chose to settle, that automatically makes him guilty.

I was one of the 28 Cher and I did try to ring but the complaints line was continually busy (or not being answered). I didn't post because the lady gave me a direct number and I was going to post when I managed to get through, so that I'd be able to tell what had been said. Sorry if that left you feeling that I was ignoring the issue. For what its worth, I totally agree with you. For anyone who wants to know, the direct number I was given is: 0208 4812701

Wishing you and Gracie all the best. Arnica can be very helpful with strokes, don't know if you may think its worth trying.

They're probably trying it on because they think they can and the economic climate is being used as an excuse, one that many people would accept. Unfortunately, depending on your length of employment, hours worked etc., it's quite possible that the offer they have made is within the law. In total fairness, with a managerial/budgeting hat on, it's a sensible thing for the company to do. Even in good times, its far easier to reduce your operating costs by 10% than it is to increase turnover by the same amount and for most companies the lions share of costs are staff wages. However, cutting your pay by half is taking the p**s by anyone's standards. It depends how far you are prepared to go to fight this. They can just turn round and say accept the new contract or leave. (Just not signing the contract is no help because by remaining with the company beyond the date you are due to sign indicates tacit acceptance of the contract.) You may be able to initiate unfair dismissal proceedings if it comes to that, but that's a lottery in itself, no matter how good your case is. In your position, I would probably contact ACAS, they are there to try to resolve issues between both parties. The danger is that involving them may make the relationship between you and the company a little difficult to say the least, without actually gaining any improvement in their offer. It's not supposed to, but you can have as much legislation in place as you have paper to print it on, but you can't make people abide by it. The plus point to involving ACAS is that you will have documentation to prove that you have done your best to come to an amicable agreement, so may help to strengthen an unfair dismissal case. I hope you get it sorted, its a nasty position to be in.

I voted the Jury Party because I'm sick to death of the self seeking party politics in this country, something that I think is partially to blame for all this expenses fiasco. Normally a left wing voter, much as I think Gordon Brown is a well-meaning person, he has been promoted to the level of his incompetence and has shown no real leadership qualities in the time he has been PM. He takes too long to make a decision in a crisis situation. I would prefer a drunken Charles Kennedy to a sober Nick Clegg as leader of the Lib Dems, I think he's far more honest. As for Mr Super Smarmy Cameron, with all his pontificating over the expenses, which he's only doing to gain political purchases, he would do well to take note of the AMOUNTS that have been claimed by Tory MPs. They've had their snouts so deep in the trough I'm surprised they were able to breathe.

I really wish the two of you could have had longer, but I'm glad you had the strength to let him go when he wanted you to. He'll be waiting for you when your time comes and watching over you until then. Run free, lovely Malc

No, I didn't think that for a minute, not even a second. When Sooty was ill, particularly towards the end, it was so hard to see her so ill, but I knew she wanted to keep going, so I let her. It would have been far easier, physically, mentally and particularly emotionally, to take the decision out of her paws and stop her suffering, but I let her have control of her life. When she had the stroke, about 3 weeks before she passed, I cannot describe how bad she looked. Any vet would have recommended pts and for some dogs that would have been the right advice. But something inside me told me she was still there and still fighting, so more Reiki from Muriel and arnica and four days later although she couldn't walk properly, she looked much like her usual self and she certainly made it known that she was still in charge. Nothing in my life has touched me the way that Sooty did and to go through her illness with her was very harrowing, there were times when it would have been less painful to make the decision for her and let her go. No offence taken, Billy. I'm not even a vegetarian, let alone a vegan and worked in the food industry for nearly thirty years, seeing many yukky things along the way. Nonetheless, making the gloop was quite a vile experience for me sometimes. But it did help her, which is why I persevered with it. You take your time, when you need to, you'll make it.

You're absolutely right Muriel, that is what you said and you explained in detail about Reiki and the need for attunement. I expressed it badly, my apologies. Thanks for that. The results I have read about are very impressive and its good to know that it is available should (God forbid) I ever feel the need to use it. Billy, I hope that what I say next doesn't come across as patronising, because I certainly don't mean it to. Whether Mal has a liver tumour or a diseased liver, he is chronically ill and the relationship between the two of you is going to change all the time. There are going to be good days and there are going to be bad days. Try to enjoy the good ones and not cry or despair too much on the bad ones. There are going to be days when you question your motives for the steps that you take, whether its for you or for him. He's obviously a fighter, only you know how much of a fighter he is. He may never give in, as Sooty didn't. There are going to be days when it would be easier on you emotionally to let him go, rather than let him continue his fight, but you may choose to let him keep fighting while HE wants to. There are many people here who know from bitter experience how you are going to feel, we can tell you how we felt, what we did, how we got through. We cannot advise you, because this is your fight, yours and Mal's, and nobody else's situation has been exactly the same. I wish you both the easiest time possible How well I remember those wise words, spoken to me so many times by Muriel. It's the hardest piece of her advice to follow and my reason for not wanting to follow it was exactly the same as yours. Afterall, food is life and strength, we are what we eat. That's why the gloop did me as much good as it did Sooty. I knew it contained all the essential nutrients, so while she was taking it I could listen to Muriel and worry less that she wouldn't eat anything solid. He will probably eat, and keep it down, when he wants it. The drinking a lot could mean that his blood sugar is a little raised, it happens. It will probably lower again. The liver has an influence on many of the systems in the body.

I think you are probably right, Ange and Muriel thinks the same way you do. We have had many companion animals in the 30 years we have been together and most have favoured Martin more than me. Except when they were ill, when the only one they wanted was their mum. It was actually quite useful, because we got to know that when they wanted me all the time, they were likely to be unwell even if not showing any obvious symptoms, so we knew we had to keep a close eye. It was only when I got to know Muriel that my eyes were opened to the possibility that they might be getting something from me that I wasn't even aware of.

For once I have nothing more to say This would sort it all out, though perhaps an unused building could be converted into reasonable accommodation rather than purpose building one.

This happened with Sooty too and if he's following the same sort of path as she did it will probably happen again. She was also less bothered by it than we were, (though the first time she seemed to be thinking WTF was that?) and she learned to manage them herself, by stopping (for what seemed, at first, no reason) resting for a few minutes, then carrying on. I know you're not keen on homeopathic remedies but one that Sooty's homeopath prescribed really helped to reduce these episodes, so if they continue you may wish to take that path. As to the cuddle, Muriel believes that we can all give Reiki, so maybe Mal was drawing strength from you without you even realising it. Sending everything positive possible your way.

If it isn't licenced in this country, your vet may have difficulty getting it, they have to follow the rules. It might be worthwhile contacting the lady who wrote the article, because she doesn't have to follow them and maybe she has a way.

Sorry to make vile thing even worse Billy, but its best if things are raw, as you can lose some of the nutrients when you cook them and the cooking process reduces the water content. I know that's a particularly horrible thing to do to a vegan and I apologise for that. Take a look at the following link, I don't know if that may be an option for you. http://coldwetnose.blogspot.com/2009/01/jo...yond-grave.html