Elite 11+ shopping and chat thread

TrulyMadly

Sunshinemummy wrote: »

You talking about bubbs or DM again?

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You do realise that they are one and the same person:D

Nellie35

davemorton wrote: »

Aldi (or is it lidl) have a bottle of champagne reduced to £7.50 this weekend.

Lidl have one at £7.99 from £9.99. Also Danpak spreadable butter 500g 79p from £1.59 and chocolate chunk cookies 49p from 99p. Saturday & Sunday only.

purpledonkey

*puts kettle on* :coffee:

TrulyMadly

Nellie35 wrote: »

Lidl have one at £7.99 from £9.99. Also Danpak spreadable butter 500g 79p from £1.59 and chocolate chunk cookies 49p from 99p. Saturday & Sunday only.

Gets better by the minute

Scampi and champagne :T:T

We don't know we're born:)

Anon

CoS and CS heads up for bakers, pancake makers and syrup on toast lovers :cool:.

Lyle Golden Syrup Bakers Bottle £1 cb on CoS and CS (separate receipts...).

On msm it has gone on offer in M £1 so free (or 10p profit if APG matches).

Hth

Anon

bubbs

davemorton wrote: »

Or both? :cool:

:kisses3::kisses3::rotfl:

TrulyMadly

purpledonkey wrote: »

*puts kettle on* :coffee:

Is it one of those where you have to squint to see the name?













Yes I'll have a sliceplease:)

Savvybuyer

locarr wrote: »

A new BBC drama set around the hoax kidnapping of nine-year-old Shannon Matthews has drawn criticism from the victim's grandparents.
June and Gordon Matthews said that The Moorside, starring Sheridan Smith, was "sick and disgusting" and the events should not be treated as entertainment.


But rather than being Shannon's story, the BBC says it actually focuses on the experience of the woman who led the campaign to find the youngster.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38881419

Unfortunately, someone describing something, that isn't illegal, as "sick and disgusting" always makes me, in a macabre and here somewhat bad way, want to watch it. I would grin and say that I like things that are, in someone else's view, "sick and disgusting" except that's not what I would do on something like this.

The link tells me that the BBC says that the programme does not focus on Shannon. Next is where I take things literally as you say that the parents say the events "should not be treated as entertainment". I am wondering whether this is an exact quote - whether they actually said "treated as entertainment" - does that mean that something is not entertainment and should not be treated as such (the important two individual words "treated as") or that it is entertainment but that someone thinks it is wrong to treat it as the thing that it actually is? However, I did say I was taking it literally - parsing apart two words that someone may never have actually used - but I'm just concentrating on this reported objection (I don't know if the words "treated as" were actually used) and considering it logically whereas of course, if it was made, it is emotional and illogical.

I note Shannon is now 18 and that the following is put forward to me for consideration:

"If she sees [the BBC drama], Shannon is old enough now to understand that it is about her," says her grandmother June."She will know it is about the terrible things that happened to her.
"How is that fair? It will upset her."

So, given that it will upset a single person, and it's unacceptable ever to upset anyone in our society (except only when it is justified for example a doctor telling someone they have a terminal illness and no other justification for causing anyone upset on any occasion exists at all), therefore the suggestion is that the programme should not be broadcast in case someone happens to see it?

She is old enough now to understand this is about her. However, if she sees the news report on the BBC Newsbeat website, at that link, and reads that, she will know about that and it may upset her, so the Newsbeat page itself should be removed, in case Shannon sees it, understand it and in case it upsets her, as should the OP, this reply in this post on this thread and any discussion or reference to it, so how far do we going to ensuring that we do not upset someone?

The objection seems to be that she will "know" it is about her. So...? And...? What is the problem with someone "knowing" that something is about someone and why do we seek to prevent someone's knowledge about something from happening? What is the problem about someone knowing something? Or even about, occasionally, being upset by something and, as a result of that knowledge, trying to process it and coming to terms with it? Rather than suppressing it for many more decades, until it inevitably, at some point, comes to their knowledge and then the dealing with it is arguably much much worse (due to the decades of suppression and not dealing with it)? Are the grandparents trying to be over-protective of their granddaughter who is now an adult? I don't know. Perhaps it's natural to try to protect those we love, although sometimes I wonder if doing does not cause harm.

I think actually everything my parents tried to "protect" me from as a child has unwittingly and unintentionally left with me psychological scars in those areas that have left me vulnerable to being harmed over them in my adulthood much later. I think we all have scars, to some extent, from things our parents/carers tried to keep from us (and our society also tried to keep away from us) as children. Not saying that we should subject children to 'adult things', but it does/can give as an adults rather problems about those things and hang-ups in our life much later.

The fact is that things happened which were/are in the public domain and that anyone in the world can take those things and make a film out of them and really there is little we can do to stop people doing so. Just like we can't shut down discussion about things that are in the public arena.

I suspect if Shannon's grandparent reads this, she will disagree and it may even upset her. People do tend to believe, especially in areas that affect them deeply emotionally, things that are based on that emotion and indeed me saying this truth will, probably, because of that, potentially annoy them even more. I do not do so intentionally though - although that's no defence or excuse since we have to care for others' emotions regardless of whether we intended anything or not - and I doubt any rational points will ever find agreement with anyone that is affected by emotion through some tragedy of their life: people just don't work that way.

It was not "fair", because exactly what happened to her happened to her and no-one else in the first place. I'm not sure I understand the objection here, but things aren't "fair" if someone is upset by something that upsets no-one else since no-one else went through the terrible things that they did. Does this mean that everything that relates to anything that any one of us ever experienced that no-one else did is now "unfair" to us and therefore should not be done because 'it will upset us'? "It's not fair". Life isn't fair. Not saying that's right but... Do things have to be "fair"? Is there any requirement that they be so? As I said, unfortunately, life isn't fair. Is it "fair" that we (that is the vast population) are deprived a programme because something is felt by someone somewhere not to be "fair" to someone else? Especially if that programme may allow some of us to understand what happened, in the public interest, and perhaps to try to prevent such terrible things from happening again in the future?

bubbs

TrulyMadly wrote: »

You do realise that they are one and the same person:D

:eek::eek::eek:

purpledonkey wrote: »

*puts kettle on* :coffee:

Yes please

Anon wrote: »

CoS and CS heads up for bakers, pancake makers and syrup on toast lovers :cool:.

Lyle Golden Syrup Bakers Bottle £1 cb on CoS and CS (separate receipts...).

On msm it has gone on offer in M £1 so free (or 10p profit if APG matches).

Hth

Anon

On toast?:cool:

scamps1966

TrulyMadly wrote: »

That's a cracking price for scampi...£1.80 after APG

I like scampi:D

I know you like Scamps as well. Oops scampi.

One could only hope.