Elite 11+ shopping and chat thread part 2½

ChelseaFred

TrulyMadly wrote: »

Four conditional spends came in the post today

2 x £3 off £30 and 2 x £4.50 off £30

I would have to be anaesthetised to spend that much:o

Same for me, finally got the Cond Spends from W today - Four x £4 off £40 - I can't justify spending anything like that in there without MyPicks:(

ChelseaFred:)

Snap-ant

Thursday ~

Russia 5 - 0 Saudi Arabia
Egypt 0 - 1 Uruguay


Friday ~
Morocco 0 - 1 Iran
Portugal 3 - 3 Spain

kimmy40

TrulyMadly wrote: »

Where have you been....it's been months

Lurking :rotfl::rotfl:

curl_girl

ASDA Smart Price Baked Beans in Tomato Sauce (410g)£0.23£0.244x Fuel 10K Chocolate Loaded Chunky Granola (400g)£11.92£8.000.31x ASDA Grower's Selection Loose Banana (order by number of bananas or select kg) (per kg)£0.24£0.231x Maoam Giant Strawberry Stripes (1pk)£0.10£0.101x Haribo Starmix (1pk)£0.10£0.101x Swizzels Refreshers Original Lemon Flavour (18g)£0.10£0.101x ASDA Smart Price Ready to Serve Custard (385g)£0.29£0.251x Barratt Flumps (12g)£0.10£0.101x ASDA Smart Price Low Fat Natural Yogurt (500g)£0.45£0.451x ASDA Smart Price Grapefruit pieces in Light Syrup (540g)£0.53N/AComparison

Wish I'd bought more than 4 boxes.

Evening peeps.

TrulyMadly

zippydooda wrote: »

pps dm that malt smiths is horrible i made up my cb from morrisons with the heineken

We have our third and final soir!e tomorrow night and we are opening a 50year old bottle of Dimple whisky.

I've been quite excited about opening it with friends but horrified to read that whisky doesn't age particularly well and it's most probably deteriorated:o

There's a lot to be said for living in the here and now and not putting stuff away to keep:o

TrulyMadly

ChelseaFred wrote: »

Same for me, finally got the Cond Spends from W today - Four x £4 off £40 - I can't justify spending anything like that in there without MyPicks:(

ChelseaFred:)

I haven't got a W on the doorstep Fred. I'm going to see if there's any household stuff I need in S with the conditional spends or anything I can get as gifts etc. Shame I didn't have any Robinsons vouchers left:o

TrulyMadly

kimmy40 wrote: »

Lurking :rotfl::rotfl:

Apparently, our Glorious Leader (Martin) has outlawed lurking and everyone has to join in now:D:p

curl_girl

Shreddies Max granola works out 40p a box T v A after Shopmium if anyone missed it.

Savvybuyer

Maybe I need to get this off my soapbox, having successfully refrained from posting about it most of the day. The reason was I considered it too political, so didn't want to annoy and irritate people here. However, I have finally cracked!

One thing that really annoys me is when organisations, usually press offices, make claims and assertions that are, to me, patently unsubstantiated and/or blatantly downright untruthful, that I feel to be unsupported by all rational opinion and cannot possibly be argued as they are so wrong.

On this occasion, it's the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Not only has it responded to a National Audit Office report on universal credit by issuing a statement which began something to the effect of "Universal Credit is good value for money and is forecast to save x amount...". Just rewind there!

Start off: "Universal Credit is good value for money" - an assertion that you have not substantiated! No-one in their right mind at all could ever think that it was, except only the DWP whose claim that it is is so wrong that it is ruled out, being so baseless as to be completely invalid. And the alleged "savings" are merely forecasts, which are already in my view shown to be wrong by the fact that it is costing four times more than originally envisaged.

Yet these organisations made these claims and statements, that are broadcast invariably at the end of news reports in the interests of "fairness", that are so wrong in my view that they ought not be allowed to make them, that are then left unchallenged and unquestioned when they are blatantly outright wrong. It's not just something that is a little bit off the mark but outright and unable in my view to be supported or rationally held by anyone except for the organisation in question that is making the blatantly wrong statements, is not required to substantiation and seemingly able to do so and make whatever statements it wishes no matter how unsupported and completely wrong they are.

If this is so, then I ought be allowed to make any outlandish statement and now the bar has been lowered, absolutely any statement that has no support to it whatsoever can be made at whim.

Then we had the Minister, being asked five or six times, whether anyone had been caused hardship and blatantly failing to answer the question. I will take that to mean a clear answer of "Yes". It's absolutely obvious - the question, which is and was a direct and straight one, was not answered at all but anything totally irrelevant said in response precisely because you do not wish to admit the blatant truth and are unable to answer with the absolutely correct answer of "Yes" precisely because the question has hit the nail on the very head and the fluffing around in response shows that to be true. It's so annoying:mad:.

We even had the BBC reporter on the (delayed) News at Ten just say that speaking to the DWP today was like speaking to the Flat Earth Society:rotfl:. Precisely. Even the impartial reporter, who sticks to facts, can only conclude, as can everyone in the entire world of rational opinion - everyone except only the DWP - that the claims and statements of the DWP are entirely unsupported and so completely wrong that no-one else at all could possibly rationally support them. Everyone else is right and the DWP and its statements are absolute plain wrong. It's that aspect that is so annoying, as it seems simply able to maintain its stuck-in dug-in-the-heels approach that no-one else could possibly hold and maintain its opinions and statements on the matter no matter how wrong they are.

Some opinions are not the same validity as others. There are opinions that are supported by the facts and those that are not, and those supported by the facts - you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts - are more valid. They are opinions supported by the facts, as opposed to opinions held seemly intransigently in total contradiction to the facts, which are immutable and do not change.

A fact is a fact. I bet we will see, in due course - ten years in the future - that the Universal Credit system will cost more than the current one does (and of course adjusted for any inflation). That will be able to be seen and I think it will come true. We shall wait and see and eventually see what I think is the inevitable! In the meantime, the DWP it seems can blatantly make statements and assertions that no-one else could possibly subscribe to or hold:mad: and is apparently beyond reproach and does not have to substantiate them - it can just assert, no matter how impossible to be correct and no matter how wrong.

In my view, it ought to be a criminal offence against the law to make public statements that are so so wrong and so out of line with any rational facts as to be in my opinion blatantly untrue. It seems organisations sometimes do it brazenly and without any challenge or shame in claiming what is the blatant untruth that no-one else in the world could possibly in any right mind support. That's what gets to me - not mere statements that are legitimate dispute but utter outright things that no-one else at all (besides precisely the Flat Earth Society perhaps) could ever support.

There may be a crumb of comfort - though it will probably not happen: hopefully the BBC reporter's statement likening the DWP to the Flat Earth Society will cause the DWP to complain to the BBC and then Ofcom about alleged unfairness - and then for the BBC and Ofcom, on investigation of all facts, to reject any such complaint wholeheartedly and fully and find the statement to the effect that dealing with the DWP on this is like dealing with the Flat Earth Society is totally and fully correct and so justified that it in effect means the DWP is the Flat Earth Society on this. I hope it complains and I hope the complaint gets chucked out, as the DWP is Flat Earth. It's a totally fair description of the DWP on this area. That's precisely what an organisation making such an outlandishly impossible to rationally support claim is (on the area on which it is doing that).

On this I choose, as would anyone except only some totally deluded person, to believe the National Audit Office as no-one in their right mind can support any statement and assertion that is so wrong as to amount to being equivalent to a belief that the earth is flat when it blatantly is not!

Press offices that put statements in press releases or statements to the public or media and the like that are so wrong that they are impossible for anyone at all rationally to believe ought to be subject to criminal prosecution for doing so - a law ought to be introduced to make this annoying and in my view reprehensible behaviour a criminal offence. I know - it annoys me so much I think it ought to be made criminal. Press officers ought to be sent to prison for doing things like this that they ought not to be allowed to get away with - yet this society seems blatantly to allow it and sadly there is no such law against it.

There are laws that cover causing annoyance to others (which must surely cover absolutely every human action and inaction and therefore absolutely everything is now criminalised); sadly these laws only apply to certain public spaces and do not cover this. There is the saving of "without reasonable excuse" when they do - however, I consider that there is never any excuse, reasonable or not, for causing me annoyance on any occasion whatsoever! That's because when I'm annoyed, I'm annoyed - and I don't like being annoyed so I find it completely wrong and unacceptable on that basis alone and never under any circumstance reasonable. This is a black-and-white approach; however it is totally clear and has no doubt to it. Otherwise if there was any excuse that could count as "reasonable", that would permit the causing of annoyance to myself, which is always wrong on every occasion whatsoever.

What's annoying is not just the statement itself, but the fact that an organisation can just blatantly make it - and persist in doing so without any recompense regardless of all the evidence. If that's so, then I can blatantly say anything I want to now and without any accountability whatsoever. I'm afraid some things just cross the line and can't possibly be asserted without being so blatantly wrong that they should not be allowed to be asserted at all. The organisations invariably claim these things as if they are truthful facts and are seemingly allowed to do so without limit.

EDIT: According to the BBC just now, the National Audit Office "has accused ministers of being in denial". They are. They are in denial; it's not possible to have any other view. (By which I mean, clearly anything is possible so it is possible, but any such view is itself so outlandish that I rule it out as so deviantly invalid that it not only annoys me but is completely and totally wrong.)

I hope zippy is now satisfied at my long post! Grrr:mad:... rant over.

But - do I feel better now?

I'm not actually sure:rotfl:.

EDIT: Actually it's not a rant. It's a perfectly valid statement of rational truth and not the wrongness that others' statements are. Others' statements that can't possibly be supported without the "support" for them being entirely invalid and therefore such "support" being so lacking as to not even amount to being support at all.

aau1

TrulyMadly wrote: »

aau....you have mail:D

Gracias, you too :beer: