Every Loquacious Idiosyncrasy Treated Equally - 11+ ELITE Thread

Savvybuyer

fairclaire wrote: »

Oo.. I like those symbols. Very tantalising, and they give a nice 'attempt at shock' by changing to black border every so often:rotfl::rotfl::D:T.

Savvybuyer

davemorton wrote: »

But I never took your biscuit, I never would, unless you offered it to me, I just said you were an irresponsible young man
(I didnt take anyone else's biscuit either)

I was joking. I was pretending that you calling me an "irresponsible young man" had offended me and that "that really took the biscuit". In other words, just how highly offensive it was. The whole joke was that it was the complete opposite and that it caused me no offence at all.

:rotfl::rotfl:about you not taking anyone else's biscuit!

Savvybuyer

davemorton wrote: »

I dont know. The one I posted sounds okay on the radio, and also sounds a lot older, but in his pic he just looks smarmy.

Maybe you could post a link to the pic so that we could all decide whether he looks smarmy or not?:rotfl::rotfl:

Savvybuyer

Tinyshoes wrote: »

That's because I haven't gone to bed yet.

Still trying to catch up. :eek:

Mr TS has been setting up his new toy Macbook been a few cross words while he has been doing it and he could not remember his email password.

And did not have a clue how to reset it. Believe it or not I am the techie in this house. :rotfl:

The surest way to highlight something is by leaving a blank space in your post. Always wondering how people get those, when quoted, white text words (I see them as white, when quoted, anyway).

Savvybuyer

Goodbye folks!:wave:

Savvybuyer

David. wrote: »

See now I am wondering why you did not just write No

Wonder on:).

Bumping for the day shift...

Savvybuyer wrote: »

Post held over from last night, until I could finish it. Amazingly, I now find, it's within the 25,000 characters limit!:rotfl::rotfl:

I may as well just create paper airlines out of my receipts tonight. I've been off - (un)fortunately not always sorting out the house but doing another, or new, specialist topic instead:(.

As you know my 'new' - or, more accurately, revisited - topic (as I used to have this topic about five to eight years ago - in fact it's been going on and off throughout my life:rotfl: ever since I read [red] one of Geoffrey Robertson QC's books on civil liberties back in about 1993) - another book I read [red] from cover to cover, every word, in one sitting, and then returned to at periods since:rotfl: - is censorship and, more to the point, just how ineffective it is and draws attention to the very thing it is supposed to be aimed to suppress. This was sparked off by something else a few weeks ago but, now, I'm really getting into it with Google's "right to be forgotten" and, in short, just reading every article that anyone wanted to be 'forgotten', none of which I'd never even seen or been aware of before, and remembering every last detail.:D

It would be just like me to have believed, with my naivety, that people's privacy was being protected and that this law - which has long existed, it's just the European Court of Justice (ECJ) having made a ruling on - was a good thing. Now though it's backfiring and every attempt to suppress search results is drawing my attention to the very articles that they linked to and, of course, with my thirst for information and unstoppable curiosity (that killed the cat) - been reading, thanks to Google translate, an article from 1995 from De Spiegel earlier, about scientology that one of the people mentioned on that page must have wanted to suppress. If something backfires though, far better that it does so spectacularly as it is more fun.:D It's also quite fun watching (I presume) neurotypicals wanting to stop the truth, about themselves, being revealed and known.

As we talk about Mr T a lot on here, we may now be reminded - remembering:rotfl:, not forgetting - those Tesco staff that posted comments about customers on Facebook. So, shall we take the opportunity to refresh ourselves of the details? I think we shall!:D
After all, we need to know what some T staff were thinking about us and welcome their truthful and honest postings! Obviously a very reason for Mr T possibly to want to suppress or discipline staff for it then or for people who made the comments now to wish to erase from the Google searches. If it was true, that must have been the reason why it should not have been posted!

We may have forgotten the Mail on Sunday of 18 January 2009 and what it reported - if so may I now remind you:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1120763/Red-faces-Tesco-dozens-staff-post-insulting-comments-customers-internet-forum.html

The paper reported that one guy wrote about customers complaining about the prices of mini-cucumbers. I immediately noticed the paper's own censorship with the use of four asterisks of course in the paper's quote and thus immediately Googled the rest of the quote to try to find an unexpurgated version. Sadly it appears there is no longer any available online or, if there is, it is behind a paywall and not being picked up by the search engines:(. Therefore, until I have any information to the contrary, I shall conclude that it was the most severe word it possibly could have been in the context of the quote(:D:(:D:( :rotfl: ).

However, we're not too bothered with this quote. I googled the name of the Tesco worker and it still came up in the searches on google.co.uk, therefore I conclude it wasn't him that made a right to be forgotten request, so I'm no longer interested in it! I've highlighted below what I am now interested in! Just to mention quickly beforehand that they do this sometimes - whenever the television or supposed 'family' press has a blurred out version of some text, I always immediately go to the Internet, search for the bits they have left in and immediately see the full version! I always think the term "family newspaper" is a bit strange as these words are suitable for my family! Sometimes it happens on here when occasionally I notice the Forum Team have removed something. That always draws my attention, so I immediately Google everything still left in the post, or Google the wording of a post very near to it and fortunately Google's cache is still online and the original fully available to see! What puzzles me is when they delete one thing on some basis only then to leave other posts, which equally or even more so break the same rule, totally intact! And it doesn't matter if anyone deletes me now as I'll simply set up a mirror site and continue to post exactly the same and far more beyond in addition. Right, back to what interests me from the Tesco story now. But I'm not bothered with that cucumbers quote.

Instead, as the Mail on Sunday had told us:

Rob Richardson, from Newcastle, moaned about shoppers ‘who keep coming to find you ... even though there’s 20 other staff members about to help them find something’.

His reaction? ‘Give me your damn shopping list, you senile old cow, and I’ll do your shopping for you. Just leave me alone!’

Scott Harrop objected to having to serve ‘smelly ppl ... who make me feel sick’.

Of course I checked all staff names mentioned in the article on both google.co.uk and google.com and cross-referenced the results. I noted that originally the statement about data protection law was only to appear in relation to names that had actually had search results removed but the ECJ felt this would be too revealing and thus it's now added to be to added to all name searches (once they get put into Google's system), except for celebrity names where the opposite approach applies - it was felt the data protection statement would tip people off there.

However, in this interim stage, I noticed that some T staff names from the article did not, on google.co.uk, bring up the data protection notice and I've ruled these people out. The only two that did were Rob Richardson and Scott Harrop - so, I've concluded it was one or other of them (possibly both) and therefore the details about them are now the only information in the article that I find interesting:D. It's all good fun and leading to delightful speculation about which or other it might be:rotfl:. They are quite right though - they do get smelly people that go shopping. Just like those smelly or drunk people we have to put up with on buses. Again, the truth, from Scott Harrop!

The article about "Merrill's mess" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/robertpeston/2007/10/merrills_mess.html) gave rise to thought that the former chairman of investment bank Merrill Lynch might have requested the search result to be removed. The actions of bankers are indeed very significant to the money-savers on this site. However, it transpired the request relates to one of the people who made comments on the article. Already people have googled the names on google.co.uk and google.com and some of the speculation seems to centre on it being someone called Derek Farmer who might have made the request. So let's remind ourselves of what he wrote, which is all in the public domain:

"At 08:01 AM on 31 Oct 2007,

Derek Farmer wrote:

I am an old-fashioned banker with almost 35 years experience in the markets.
The rise of the so called "Investment Banks" to global proportions is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Previously, the world's "Merchant Banks" operated on a very much reduced scale of operation.
The faults in the recent debacle lie squarely with the Regulators, who take far too lenient a view of the treatment of "off-balance-sheet" instruments.
In fact it is likely the case that Regulatory Heads do not understand the extreme risk complexity of the plethora of "off-balance'sheet" credit instruments invented by mathematicians and quantitative analysts employed by many Investment Banks today.
Such instruments, in my book, have little to do with banking.
They are a form of speculative investment and there is no way that any public funds should ever be provided to bail out institutions whose investment foolishness leads to financial losses.
The world's bankers should get back to their basic duties of assisting national/global economies and desist from the temptations of spinning and inventing instruments of dubious usefulness to be sold to the gullible for vast profit.
Such people ae not bankers.
They are charlatans." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/robertpeston/2007/10/merrills_mess.html)

I think I agree with one of the commenters here:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140702/12094027764/google-alerts-press-about-right-to-be-forgotten-removals-putting-those-stories-back-news.shtml
"
That One Guy (profile), Jul 2nd, 2014 @ 1:01pm
How about adding a new category to their sites, 'Pages that someone wanted gone', where they can link to all the pages/articles that someone tried to get de-listed.

They could even get people really involved in it, have open comment sections where people can go back and forth, discussing the who and what, and who they think tried to get the thing to be buried, something like that would likely get people interested and engaged in pages that were all but forgotten, driving up the number of visitors and page hits they get."

:rotfl::rotfl:I quite agree! It's a prime example of the "Streisand effect"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

"ethorad (profile), Jul 3rd, 2014 @ 1:18am

[...]

Instead of a !!!!!!-mode image search, how about a Streisand-mode web search which just returns the stuff people want deleted?"

I agree. I think they should set up a search engine, from outside the European Union, that only returns articles that have been removed from search results on Google in Europe, as those are the only information that I am interested in. I think, if people wanted to be forgotten, they should have done nothing at all. I would never have even seen the information they wanted delinked and, in the infitemisal chance that I had, would almost certainly have forgotten it by now. However, as they want it to be forgotten, that immediately makes me extremely and profoundly interested in it. You want it to be 'forgotten'? Oh! Well then, let's have a look at what it is. I want to talk to you about this - if you want it 'forgotten', that's precisely why I want to know it even more!

Any attempt to keep information from me immediately makes me want to know it so much more, so, especially if someone wants it kept from me, it now has a status and a quality that, without it, it did not possess before and thus all the more desirable.

And remember the Daily Mail? How they reported in February 2011 about Salim Zakhrouf, a Muslim airport worker that, the Mail told us, had "...accused airline Cathay Pacific of racism after he was refused a job interview – only to be offered one when he applied two days later using a fake white British-sounding name." The paper told us: "Algerian-born Salim Zakhrouf applied to Cathay Pacific for a job as a passenger services officer at Heathrow Airport." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358753/Muslim-refused-job-accuses-airline-bosses-racism.html

Oh, is Google lying to me again? Can't find this link now - I'll google.com:

Oh, the blog post has since been deleted by its author! Well thank goodness I took a screenshot earlier!:rotfl: Google btw is doing exactly what it is required to do by the law. It is removing search results from its sites in Europe and complying fully with the laws that apply to its search engines elsewhere by maintaining them.

It was a basically a news reporter on a local paper about the countless times that someone asked them to remove an article about a previous conviction. Usually it caused problems for the person by coming up on search engines. The reporter said it was always the newspaper's fault for publishing, rather than the person's fault for committing the crime.

And, since this highlights one of the boundaries over which it is unacceptable to cross, I find it relevant here.

It turns out that the Oxford Mail had published a story in May 2006. In the hypothetical case of me likely being outside of Oxford, I never knew anything about this before. Although on the Internet and theoretically available to the world, it was likely that only people interested in the local news of Oxford would have seen it on the Oxford Mail's website and, of those few that did, almost certainly have forgotten it entirely by now. But, now my attention has been drawn to it, and it has been reported across numerous media across the world, I will now never forget about Robert Daniels-Dwyer.

As you may recall, on 5 May 2006, the Oxford Mail reported "AN archaeology specialist tried to steal £200 worth of Christmas presents by hiding them in his child's pushchair.

Dr Robert Daniels-Dwyer, 35, of Manor Road, Oxford, spent 30 minutes hiding toiletries and presents in a bag underneath his two-year-old son's pushchair while shopping in Boots, Cornmarket Street, Oxford, on November 5 last year.

The specialist in Roman archaeology then tried to walk out of the shop without paying for the gifts, claiming he lost his wallet, Oxford Crown Court was told this week.

A jury found him guilty of theft following a two-day trial."

As I am posting on a website whose servers are, presumably, based in the UK, it would be fair of me to point out that this conviction is now spent and I now do so. The conviction is spent. However, if I were to decide to post a comment onto a website hosted from another country, say America, I would not need to mention this at all and, yet, you mention just as easily visit a site based in America and not need to see this.

What I like though is the fact that searching for Robert Daniels-Dwyer on google.co.uk now retrieves, as second or third search result, this:

Google removes first Oxford story about man caught ...
www.oxfordmail.co.uk/.../11318318.Google_removes_first_Oxford_sto...
4 days ago - Whilst it is not known if it was Daniels-Dwyer who applied to Google to remove ... You can read the original story about Robert Daniels-Dwyer's ...

Google has, indeed, removed the story about Robert Daniel-Dwyer's conviction, in 2006, for shoplifting. However the story about the removal of the story about his conviction is now there as a first page result! And there is no need for them to remove this story about the removal of the story as that new story has contemporary and new relevance. I would trust, if there was any removal of the new story from the search results, that Google would immediately inform the Oxford Mail and that the Oxford Mail would immediately report that matter as prominently as possible.

As the old saying goes, if you want to provide information to the press, you can provide them the information and they can choose whether to publish your story. However, if you try to prevent the paper from obtaining the story, then that is the story. The same with when the Guardian was prevented from reporting the Trafigura question.

I do like these things. Such as when Ryan Giggs had a superinjunction and, in the UK, could only be mentioned in Scotland. Or one I remember is Jack Straw's son in the 1990s. The BBC reported that it could not name the politician, but helpfully told me that other media, including RTE in Ireland, had. I promptly got out the old crackly medium-wave radio and listened to RTE from then on in, every news bulletin, every half hour, until, finally, at 1pm, they mentioned his name and how the British press couldn't report it. I was appalled when the High Court injunction was lifted by that evening. At least I could have had a day or more being in the knowledge and unable physically to breathe a word of it to anyone else in the country.:rotfl:

As regards the unforgettable Dr Daniels-Dwyer, whose name will now forever be etched onto my mind, the Oxford Mail tells us (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/11318318.Google_removes_first_Oxford_story_about_man_caught_shoplifting_under_Right_To_Be_Forgotten_ruling/)
"Whilst it is not known if it was Daniels-Dwyer who applied to Google to remove the story, he has previously failed in a bid through the Press Complaints Commission to have it taken off our websites. " So, draw our own conclusions.

"...Daniels-Dwyer complained to the Press Complaints Commission about accuracy four years after the court case and that he was being caused “embarrassment”.

Amongst his demands was: “Newsquest [the publisher of the Oxford Mail and the Oxford Times] should purge the article from all databases, internally and externally available, and from any news databases to which it provides content.”

Two factual amendments were made the article and the PCC dismissed his case."

Or what about the Daily Mail's story of the couple having sex on the train? I note that the only person mentioned on that article is someone called Gregory Sim. As you may recall, on 11 November 2008, the Mail had reported:

"Businessman Gregory Sim, 49, has been charged with unacceptable behaviour while the unnamed woman, from Essex, has been bailed while inquiries continue.

A spokesman for British Transport Police said the session took place on Wednesday, October 22, at 2.45pm.

'The man, Gregory Sim, from Richmond, Surrey, has been charged with unacceptable behaviour on a train and is due to appear at City of Westminster magistrates on November 16,' he added.

Quizzed by reporters last night, Mr Sim confirmed his arrest but refused to give any more details."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1084723/Couple-arrested-having-sex-crowded-train.html

You know, I missed the article at the time, but it's now great to catch up!

And what of the original man himself, Mario Costeja Gonzales? I've no idea about anything at all else in his life, I'm sure he's done lots of things, but the only information I know about him is that he fell into trouble with his debts and had his house repossessed and auctioned in 1998. The one piece of information that he wanted the search engine to suppress.

Of course we now have the original article being reprinted in news reports now. So I googled the text and came straight back up with the original article! And here it is, the one he wanted removing from Google:

http://hemeroteca.lavanguardia.com/preview/1998/01/19/pagina-23/33842001/pdf.html

(I think I had to remove his name from the text but search for everything else as that wasn't coming up on google.co.uk.)

But - how well did he do, with suppressing results of the information published in 1998? Well, here we are, when I search for

Les Dues meitats indivises d'un habitatge al carrer Montseny, 8, propietat de MARIO COSTEJA GONZÁLEZ i ALICIA VARGAS COTS, respectivament. Superficie: 90 m 2 . C!rregues: 8,5 mili!ns de ptes. Tipas de sbhasta: 2 milions de ptes. cadascuna de les meitat

on the US search engine google.com, asking it to show similar search results, it comes up with these results:

2 results (0.33 seconds)
"de" (and any subsequent words) was ignored because we limit queries to 32 words.
Search Results

Edici!n del lunes, 19 enero 1998, p!gina 23 - Hemeroteca ...
hemeroteca.lavanguardia.com/.../pdf.ht...Translate this page
La Vanguardia
Jan 19, 1998 - Hemeroteca. B!squeda. Temas; Al minuto; Lo m!s; La Vanguardia TV; Fotos; Gr!ficos · Portada · Internacional · Pol!tica · Econom!a · Sucesos ...
[PDF]
El Parlamento neg! la eutanasia en el debate del C!digo ...
derechoaleer.org/media/files/.../LVG19980119-023.p...Translate this page
Jan 19, 1998 - u Habitatge al carrer Rambleta, 2 1 , de Sant Adri! de Bes!s, ... ptes. respectivament. ... meitats indivises dun habitatge al carrer Montseny, 8, propietat de MARIO COSTEJA GONZÁLEZ i ALICIA VARGAS COTS, ... Superficie: 90 m2. C!rregues: 8,5 mili!ns de ptes. Tipas de sbhasta: 2 milions de ptes.

If I switch the search to google.co.uk, will that information disappear?:think: [Edit: Sorry folks, the text is coming up with exclamation points on some of the accented letters and I can't be bothered to go and change them all.]

Here's google.co.uk:

1 result (0.15 seconds)
"de" (and any subsequent words) was ignored because we limit queries to 32 words.

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
Learn more
Got it
Search Results

[PDF]
El Parlamento neg! la eutanasia en el debate del C!digo ...
derechoaleer.org/media/files/.../LVG19980119-023.p...Translate this page
19 Jan 1998 - u Habitatge al carrer Rambleta, 2 1 , de Sant Adri! de Bes!s, ... ptes. respectivament. ... meitats indivises dun habitatge al carrer Montseny, 8, propietat de MARIO COSTEJA GONZÁLEZ i ALICIA VARGAS COTS, ... Superficie: 90 m2. C!rregues: 8,5 mili!ns de ptes. Tipas de sbhasta: 2 milions de ptes.

Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe. Learn more

So he didn't even manage to remove it from derechoaleer.org, published on the same date, but only from lavanguardia, the source he complained about:rotfl::rotfl:. Typical that people should be so incomplete in their requests to remove and, if they want it removing from the search results on the Internet, they are going to have to attack every single source of it.

And I also added this later:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=65976545&postcount=7176

Savvybuyer

And I guess I ought to bump these too, as we were bilging a lot last night:

Whatever this relates to:o:o.

Shortfatscotsbloke wrote: »

Confirmation that the Impulse sets are still working as a trigger in the 3 for £10.

1 x ASDA Smartprice Chicken Flavour Instant Noodles (6... £0.20 £0.20
1 x ASDA Smartprice Instant Noodles Curry (65g) £0.20 £0.20
1 x Haribo Maoam Giant Strawberry Stripes £0.10 £0.10
1 x Haribo Maoam Giant Sour Stripes (15g) £0.10 £0.10
1 x Swizzels Matlow Strawberry Refresher Bar £0.10 N/A
1 x Candyland Flumps Mallow Twists (12g) £0.10 £0.10
1 x Haribo Starmix £0.10 £0.10
1 x Haribo Tangfastics £0.10 £0.10
2 x TRESemm! Keratin Smooth 7 Day Smooth System Heat A... £13.98 £6.98

Total spend (including fillers) = £11, apg = £7.79..

But I notice the above got 20 thanks - maybe not necessarily to bump?

Chrisv wrote: »

Cheese shop A v Sains

Kitchen roll comparing well, mouthwash down to 70p for 750ml, n/a against all others.

That's it - I think that was most of the comparison/money related stuff we talked about. If anyone had anything else, maybe post again if it got lost in the other stuff.

bubbs wrote: »

Tesco Loves Baby Fever Glow Digital Thermometer £2.49 down from £9.99

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/store-tesco-loves-baby-fever-glow-digital-thermometer-2-49-down-from-9-99-1947858

Hope that helps your catch up folks!:)

Savvybuyer

TrulyMadly wrote: »

A v M

Some unusual and tasty items:)

1 x ASDA Chosen by You Pitted Dried Dates (500g) £1.89 £1.39
1 x ASDA Chosen by You Green Spanish Olives Pitted (31... £1.00 £0.70
1 x ASDA Chosen by You Jalapeno Houmous (200g) £1.00 £0.90
1 x ASDA Chosen by You Moroccan Spiced Houmous (200g) £1.00 £0.90

Thanks, this is extremely helpful, I'll add the Dates to "the list"!
The Houmous usually gets ignored on the list as Savers/Eday etc. versions cheaper. The Olives - I think there's twice the size ones in M (non-comparable from A) that work out cheaper?

Folks, I've think I've gone down the olives route on here before. I think I'm waiting for some much larger bottles to go on half price in M - branded version, has been on my lists before?

[Edit: Yes, I think this is what is considered similar, from the M list, and what is keeping the 310g:( olives off the list:

Morrisons Whole Gherkins (680g)69p

Waiting for 900g(?) bottles of olives in M to go down to 99p again - meaning far cheaper than 63p for 310g. :think:I think M may now have sold off the 900g olives and they don't produce them anymore? But, otherwise, a bit like we (or I) not going for £1 on 500g cooking sauces anymore - offers which are currently available vs M - but waiting for 750g to go to £1.30, which is somewhat cheaper per 100g.]

Savvybuyer

Just reading this, as part of people's privacy:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements

Just typical that the UK should be listed without a clear "Yes" or "No" to any question. And...how do people expect me to work out the rules of this society?(:rotfl:) Typical, in my view, of the way our legislators make a rule, then have exceptions to the rule and then exceptions to that. A typically British thing I feel. Lack of clarity, vagueness, inconsistency and downright contradiction, as well as legislating for things already covered by laws numerous times (but the old laws just not enforced - perhaps because they are so flamin' unclear:rotfl:). Having said this, and how the European Court of Justice ruling backfires, in fact I have much support (I'm think a minority in the population as usual) for the European Union and feel we get a lot of good consumer protection law from the European Union that we wouldn't have otherwise (except our attempts to opt out). In fact I like it when our politicians don't like "Europe" telling Westminster what to do. As I have even less confidence in Westminster than Europe, I always feel it is great whenever a Westminster law gets struck down for being in conflict with European legislation. Some of our MPs seem to assume that their arguments make me support them. In fact, whenever they argue that the European Union is defeating Westminster and that the solution, allegedly, is to fight against that within Europe, it plays right into my own approach and makes me support Europe even more - especially as it is overriding Westminster legislation. A very good thing indeed, if your view (as mine often is) is that you don't like the Westminster legislation. (Another example of "unintended consequences" - achieving the precise opposite of your intention - in this case the MPs' arguments against the EU make me, for the very reasons they give, support the EU even more.)

We mentioned European rules earlier about selling eggs at least 7 days before their best before. I don't know anything about this rule but maybe someone can give more precise details of its source? The website previously linked to just says that but does not specify the legislation. I have thought about this: 15 eggs (albeit one broken) on the best before date - I think you'd have to eat all of those eggs before the date is out. Best before for eggs is an anomaly and, for eggs, means 'use by'. I wouldn't eat eggs much beyond their best before.

It's great, too, how these days, with the Internet, we have (within reasons) democratic publication and can just publish things, like I'm doing now, on the Internet without having to find a willing publisher (newspaper to print our letter, publisher to publish our book etc.) and the barriers to entry, as it were, are thereby lowered allowing 'ordinary people', like me, to have their say! So there you are...whether you agree or not (or maybe :oI've even persuaded you).

nerfdad

Good morning all:o