Enter, Laugh, Integrate, Talk, Enjoy.

Tw1nb0ys

Dippydoo wrote: »

FREE Pampers Nappies 2015

Did you know that you can get FREE pampers nappies from P&G if you have multiple babies! You can get £20 for Twins, £30 for triplets and £40 for quads. Babies are always expensive but having more than one must be extra hard! That’s why Pampers want to help! All you need to do is email them at p&g@teleperformance.com. Simply say you are a multiple Mum/Dad and you are enquiring about their FREE Pampers coupons. You will also need to send them a copy of your children’s birth certificate via e-mail or post.

Your vouchers will take around 3-5 days to arrive and you can use them at all supermarkets and Boots

finally! I have been asking them to do this for ages, too late for me. Thanks for the info though

3Dogs

Bananababe wrote: »

I knew there was a reason not to feed dog food to cats. Why on earth does they put weird stuff in anyway like ash etc xx

I know, it's terrible. And what if you have cats and dogs and the cat gets to eat some of the dog food :eek:

trubster

bubbs wrote: »

:T:T:T well done, do you take the money out every week/ month?

Yep, every week, standing order into savings account. I take my "Vape Spends" out of this account too.

Bananababe

3Dogs wrote: »

I know, it's terrible. And what if you have cats and dogs and the cat gets to eat some of the dog food :eek:

That must happen I know some doggies that cant help themself but hoover up leftovers xx

aau1

Mumto2monkeys wrote: »

I found you all when @rgos had the fabulous idea of selling gift cards at a reduced price for a Valentine's promotion.. I followed a link on one of martins emails and found you all rinsing and repeating with visa and Mr shoes I think...it was like reading Swahili
We were struggling at the time as Mr monkey had just started a new job but I managed to use some savings to buy the gift cards and pay off my next account saving £70:T. Then @rgos pulled the promotion on the better gift cards.
That was a good one:)

My first ever glitch shop was copied from another member- the mullers that worked out at 2p each, also another fabulous find:)

I was gutted when they pulled it, but I did very well because the 2 shops you had to move back and forth between (Boots and Argos) were opposite each other in the shopping centre :cool:

auto.armadillo

3Dogs wrote: »

Oh I agree wholeheartedly with you auto.armadillo, better safe than sorry, especially where our dearest animals are concerned

Exactly 3Dogs in RL I am known as being very blunt I say it how I see it I don't see the point of maybe - it either can or it can't lol I have to say I admire your adoption of a Romanian stray it's heartbreaking what they do to them especially rounding them up and selling the to German(and other countries)gangs destined for dog brothels I'm heavily involved in the campaign to stop this happening in Europe xxx

aau1

redfox wrote: »

the problem was links in signatures, not the links on posts in the thread. Your signature contained links which is in breach of the forum rule on signatures.

The rule I quoted was purely relating to signature links and as such was perfectly correctly applied in that situation.

Savvy tends not to pay attention to the finer detail :rotfl:

rhosynbach

Westvleteren wrote: »

Well I missed Tesco DTD - head in the clouds Not sure how HC found the thread but once I knew where he hung out I decided to keep a watchful eye over him from a distance knowing how easily he gets into trouble and upsets people :eek:

I dont believe a word of it, the idea, HC causing trouble and upsetting folk;):D:rotfl:

bubbs wrote: »

He didnt let you down then:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: he made me laugh:D

me to never a dull moment when he was around hope he is keeping well westie xx

zippydooda

Savvybuyer wrote: »

Yes it was, although some would say completely pedantic and technical. I assume you've never driven at 1 mph over the speed limit ever?

Furthermore the link was aimed at making it easier for people to find something, on the thread itself, that might save them money! I wasn't going to get into this; however you've raised the issue. I note that the forum rules also say that "Of course, our aim is to ensure legitimate information about saving money or fighting for consumer rights stays." Therefore, if that was really the aim as claimed, then the spirit of that ought to trump the technicality of the rule on signatures. However, I assume that, as it's found in breach of the signatures rule, it's therefore classed as illegitimate information and that one therefore prevents that from being argued. Even though it's counter to the aim of enabling people to save money more easily!

However, I notice that the issue was not originally directed towards myself and I think that that was an acknowledgement and reflection of the fact that my infraction was innocent and I hadn't even thought about the issue of links in signatures. The matter hadn't even occurred to me, but I shan't be breaching this rule again! Yes, it was in breach so, therefore, I am sorry. Thanks for your guidance.

sorry mate, I think it was me a while back that suggested you link posts in your sig, however im sure the rule back then was "external links"

Bananababe

auto.armadillo wrote: »

Exactly 3Dogs in RL I am known as being very blunt I say it how I see it I don't see the point of maybe - it either can or it can't lol I have to say I admire your adoption of a Romanian stray it's heartbreaking what they do to them especially rounding them up and selling the to German(and other countries)gangs destined for dog brothels I'm heavily involved in the campaign to stop this happening in Europe xxx

Oh dear god I just googled that. What kind of world do we live in :(:(:(